Geeeze, not another debate. Give it a rest. But I'll suppose I'll tune in anyway. *sigh*

I caught both the Obama rally and the Clinton one on C-SPAN till NFL playoffs took over. He was electric, she was lackluster and mechanical and had some act going with the seating that reminded me of Rudy and his phone calls from wifey. She's in trouble.

The fair tax would reduce the tax bite to some percentage of 1% for the rich... depending on how rich and their individual life styles. Republican values are a laugh a minute !

I think I'll turn on the TV on and watch Star Wars instead. At least I'll be entertained.

YomeLib -

If I understand your dialect of English - That the rich would only pay 1%, you are dreaming. People with money spend money. People with more money spend more money. The more that is spent, the more taxes are paid. The "rich" (which is soon to be defined as a household making more than $100,000 if Edwards has his way) will always spend more and are therefore taxed more.

Now there are those devious individuals that SAVE money...yes that is not taxed. That would put you right up there with people like Bill Cliton that maintains accounts in the income tax free Cayman Islands so the Cliton estate won't be plundered should the dems get the chance to "soak the rich". Are those the values you prefer?

A citizen - a big ole fair tax ditto from me on that one. www.fairtax.org

Do the Dems debate at 8pm central?

Having the GOP and DEM candidates shake hands was a nice touch.

Jags 14 Steelers 7.

Great idea to put a debate on a Saturday night.

This country is in trouble.

What's up with these "nuclear attack" hypothetical questions?

21-7 Jags.

"Hillary...the force for status quo"

Hillary....if I'm not winning I'll divide us....

Can anyone seriously question the obvious superiority of the dems over the repubs when it comes to the level of their responses. the repubs talk in bumper stickers, little jokes, and one-liners, and the dems actually talk at length about policy.

Of course, that probably bores (or confuses) most Bush supporters.

But Huckabee believes in Jesus. What more matters?

Can anyone seriously question the obvious superiority of the dems over the repubs when it comes to the level of their responses. the repubs talk in bumper stickers, little jokes, and one-liners, and the dems actually talk at length about policy.

MIDIMAN

The difference is quite striking.

These democrats are the weakest bunch I've seen in a LONG time - probably Carteresque. Not that I've seen any that are stand-outs on either side - but from the Iowa results it looks as though the Democrats are a much more 'torn' party than the republicans which will spell 3rd party and another disaster for the blues.

These democrats are the weakest bunch I've seen in a LONG time - probably Carteresque. Not that I've seen any that are stand-outs on either side - but from the Iowa results it looks as though the Democrats are a much more 'torn' party than the republicans which will spell 3rd party and another disaster for the blues.

Guess it was worth saying twice. sorry for the repost.

FYI: If you repeat the same stupid post twice, it doesn't make it any more intelligent.

Y'all notice Rudy's attempt to rewrite history and pretend that Eisenhower started the program to get a man on the moon???? Unimportant except that it illustrated perfectly just how dishonest he and most of the Republicans really are.
I think if I hear any mor.e about this stupid "fair tax" idea I will vomit, as we head into a serious recession some would pretend that we shouldn't try to encourage those with high incomes to invest in American technologies, etc. which an income tax can do but which a sales tax will not. Oh, it will allow the wealthy to keep a far higher percentage of their incomes but for us working class folks it will just be a tax increase.
Don't let any Hucksterbee try to convince you that you can take less from the wealthy and still finance the government without taking more from some place else...namely from the middle class.
Hillary looked smart, was very convincing in her arguments that talk is easy but accomplishing change is harder. Barack though brought up another point which might be more important, achieving a strong Democratic majority without which no change will occur. I think what he was hinting at was that his role as president (even presidential nominee) would be more helping to elect a Congressional majority than previous presidents. That was his criticism of Clinton, great ideas, great courage but no majority thus not many good results.
Edwards was passionate but he's an also ran...unfortunately.
After the Obama question to the Republicans and then the Dem debate...Barack won both the Republican and Democratic debates.

"These democrats are the weakest bunch I've seen in a LONG time"

Uhh, yeah. That's probably why they outdrew the Republicans 2:1 in the Iowa caucuses.

"but from the Iowa results it looks as though the Democrats are a much more 'torn' party than the republicans"

Please do give us details on how you arrived at that stunningly inaccurate conclusion.

Anybody surprised at how strongly Edwards attacked Hillary as the agent of status quo? I was kind of waiting to see if he seemed to favor one side or the other, but didn't think he'd be that forceful.

On another note, I thought it was striking how much more passion the Dems showed responding to the issues than the Repubs. Seemed more like the Repubs were sticking to a pre-rehearsed script.

"These democrats are the weakest bunch I've seen in a LONG time"

Compared to what, 100 years in Iraq?

"Please do give us details on how you arrived at that stunningly inaccurate conclusion."

He mistakenly tuned into Mexican wrestling.

"pre-rehearsed"

That's existential, man.

My question for Romney would be: Being that that you are cynically using name recognition to try to win Michigan, which team where you rooting for tonight, the Pistons or the Celtcs?

Since Mitt is a Liberal Massachusets filp floper, he will say both.

Romney is not a Michigan guy, he was the gov of Mass he is a Mass guy, we want nothing to do with that phony around here.

And I hope that in March 5, the Piston beat the crap out of the Celtincs in Boston.

And the Redwings are hella better than the Bruins too.

Wow I think member and I found something we can agree on. We must be chaneling Obama's consensus

Obama and Huckabee represent the extremes. There is an extreme likelihood both will soon relegated to the trivial pursuit category of interesting political curiosities of the past.

Hillary is unelectable.

Breck girl is unelectable.

Democrats better start looking for a plan D', McCain won't be easy to beat in a general election.

Sorry Zuloser, yer comic relief falls short.

Oh yeah, I see America getting behind a crazy old coot who never saw a war he didn't like. Yeah, that's it. Zoolu, you crazy!

"McCain won't be easy to beat in a general election."

First off, McCain is still a very long shot to even be nominated. Second, do you really think a nation that is screaming for change in the country is going to elect a 72 year old scion of the establishment? I don't.

Could you, perhaps, go into greater detail as to why you think Obama is "extreme". Oh, and also why you think calling Edwards "Breck girl" is humorous?

"McCain won't be easy to beat in a general election."

Yeah, most Americans will agree with him about staying in Iraq for 100 years......hahahahaha!

Some folks just can't face the fact that the Republican Party is yesterdays' news. It's done. Dumbya killed it.
Get over it.

A ham sandwich could beat Hillary in any election; all Obama is the ham sandwich of the moment.

All Obama has is he isn't Hillary, nothing else. He is against big oil and big this and big that and he's all about change and very short on details.

Breck girl is a joke, a hawker of class warfare in an Armani suite and a $400 haircut talking about how he's for the little guy.

Really, the United States is going to elect a black guy named Barak Obama as president?

Better start coming up with the plan 'D' boys, November will be here sooner that you think.

Really, the United States is going to elect a black guy named Barak Obama as president?


What a bigot.

Danni - you sound desperate already, your party is divided and has no solution or message.

Democrat Message: Raise Taxes, Cut and Run in Iraq, cater to our Enemies - Pelosi's itching to visit Iran. Create a new tax on breating - maybe hillary will give carbon credits to every newborn along with the 5000.

Losers. Not one of them has an original thought.

"What a bigot."

And one who can't even spell.

"A ham sandwich could beat Hillary in any election"

Unfortunately for Zooloser, the Republicans can't field a candidate who can even rise to that level.

But I, for one, certainly appreciate his thoughtful and in-depth analysis.

"Breck girl is a joke, a hawker of class warfare in an Armani suite and a $400 haircut talking about how he's for the little guy."

Yeah, as opposed to a real rootin tootin cowboy from Texas who worked for everything he's got....
Zulu judges a man's character by the price of his haircut....brilliant.
So, let's see here, Edwards is a millionaire so it would show his solidarity with the working class if he had cheap haircuts....I bet his hair stylist thinks he's a pretty generous guy....personally I like rick people to be generous not stingy assholes.

You forgot his middle name:

Barack Hussein Obama

Yeah, that's going to win hearts and minds isn't it? I'm curious is he going to wear an American Flag lapel pin if he wins the nomination or will he just fly the flag of Surrender?

"and a $400 haircut "

Mitt got a $400 makeup job.

BFD.

"you sound desperate already, your party is divided and has no solution or message."

Whatever helps you sleep at night between now and the butt-kicking you candidate will be receiving in November.

The Democrats are not divided any more than the Republicans, as anyone with an ounce of political savvy could see. In both parties there are some relatively minor philosophical differences between candidates that will disappear after the nominations.

I suspect from your posts that you are probably not old enough to remember the Reagan-Bush battle for the nomination in 1980. Probably one of the most vitriolic and divisive campaigns in decades. Yet they ended up on the same ticket.

OH MY GOD OUR PARTY IS DIVIDED OH MY GOD!!! NOOOOOO!!! IT CAN'T BE!!! WE MUST ALL MARCH IN LOCKSTEP FOR THE FRIGHTY-RIGHTYS TO VOTE FOR HILLARY!! YES, MASTER, WE WILL TAKE THE WORD OF A NUMB-NUTTED RIGHT WING CRACK SMOKING APOLOGIST FOR BUSH TO TELL US WHAT WE MUST DO TO RECLAIM THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

This has been brought to you by the Rooty Ghouliani campaign for President. 9/11.

Here is the funny part, since LBJ and the New Deal Washington has been all about getting bigger and liberal scams that promise the moon while taking more of the voters take home pay.

That is Washington D.C., the Democratic establishment is about and always will be about class warfare and promising voters they will be taken care of if only they send more money to Washington.

So Obama (or any member the Democratic freak show you pick) talks about change that will only make Washington bigger with socialized medicine and government oversight of the oil and so forth.

Children, Obama's new deal is the policies of the past. If you missed the 60's and 70's and 80's and 90's go check out a history book and do some much needed catching up.

Obama is the same tired old jargon and represents the same amount of change as Joe Biden and Todd.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

"Barack Hussein Obama

Yeah, that's going to win hearts and minds isn't it?"

Didn't seem to bother the folks in a fairly conservative, middle class, and 93% white state like Iowa.

Fortunately, most of America has evolved beyond such petty and juvenile tendencies - leaving you behind in the dust.

"Danni - you sound desperate already, your party is divided and has no solution or message."

Hmmmm...even the Republicans were talking about Obama's message at their own debate. I think you're just slow if you didn't catch it Zulu but it was pretty apparent to everyone else watching.
What solution did the loser Republicans offer to anything????
Health care....Americans should all buy individual policies....oh brilliant that's going to work....NOT!
Iraq.......Stay the course.....! trillion dollars and counting....how much more stay the course can we afford????
Immigration....oh they argued about who's plan was better....even as Bush lets Mexican trucks into America and doesn't enforce our immigration laws or protect our border....and I just didn't hear them criticizing him...no didn't hear them saying he was a terrible president.....
Me thinks you are beyond desperate and right into dilusional.

"You forgot his middle name"

Plus...has anyone noticed he has big ears?

I mean...as long as we're doggin' him about things over which he had no control....

"That is Washington D.C., the Democratic establishment is about and always will be about class warfare and promising voters they will be taken care of if only they send more money to Washington."

I know you must be so worried that they will undo all the fiscal responsibility demonstrated by the current Republican (mis)administration.

Rube.

Psssst.....I hear Obama is.....black!

"That is Washington D.C., the Democratic establishment is about and always will be about class warfare"

True, they are fighting a defensive war against the aggressors in the Republican Party.
Face the truth, Ronald Reagan declared Class War long ago.

ZULU u always were a fearful asshole - enjoy

We are all from a very small population in Africa.

Deal with it.

"hopefully Huckabee will get a lot of time to talk about the "Fair Tax" that he is backing. Eliminate the IRS and let everyone pay "their fair share" sounds real good to me!"

It sounds good to everyone who doesn't understand it.

'What a bigot.'

Am I a bigot or a realist?

Isn't racism for real? If I'm wrong than we can happily do away with anything that waddles and quacks like affirmative action wouldn't you agree?

Bottom line is Borat Obama is no JC Watts, electability rating slim to not a chance in hell.

But nothing would make me happier that seeing Borat Hussein Obama or Hillary Roadhouse Clinton make it all the way to take the Democrat Party Presidential nomination.

Better start coming up with that plan 'D' children.

Borat swing (miss)
Hillary swing (miss)
Breck swing (miss)

Looks like the Dems are out without a single hit.

But who else do the Dems have? How about Looney Tunes Kucinich?

Sad.

Talk about a divided party??
Tonight Mike Hucksterbee demonstrated the GREAT DIVIDE in the Republican party....far greater than any divide in the Democratic Party. His populist comments were diametrically opposed to the Mitt Romney end of the party....and he just won the Iowa caucuses.....Hucksterbee is virtually a Democrat on some issues and he is the leader.....
The Republican pary isn't just divided it is self-destructing right before our very eyes.
Ron Paul is leading the young would be new Republicans like a pied piper away from the traditional Republican Party too.
The Democrats, on the other hand, really pretty much agree on what needs to be done and just have fairly minor disagreement on how to go about it.
Hardly what you could call divided.

Good debate by good Dem candidates all.

Redundantly though, standing or sitting, she still looked and sounded more Presidential than the other candidates in yet another debate.

Plus, some funny charm about likability, a good expose of Obama's fake health care program, a great comparison to Bush's "likeability" and "intuition" and "inexperience", lol!, and an unanswered shot with the fact that Obama's NH Campaign Chairman is a registered lobbyist.

I don't know if it was enough, but they have to be happy with her effort.


Obama made no major gaffes, but still got that "deer in the headlights" look whenever in trouble.

Edwards sounded shrill (in a debate with a woman!) accusing her of attacking Obama when she pointed out policy differences, something NH 'ers don't mind at all.

Bill Richardson still could be a VP, or he has the choice of being the next Sen from NM.

"Bottom line is Borat Obama is no JC Watts,"

And thank God for that.


"electability rating slim to not a chance in hell."

Yes. That would be why all the polls show him winning against any of the potential Republican candidates.

But stretch just a liiiiiiiiitle further. That straw is almost within reach.

The problem for the Dems is that Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Giuliani or Romney on their worst day could kick Barot Obamas ass in a debate on Obamas best day ever.

Obama has nothing, Obama is a big fat sack of hot air.

If Obama had a record it might be different, but the boy has nothing. All Borat has is he isn't Hillary.

Better come up with a rough draft of Plan 'D' soon cause Borat is weak kids.

Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Giuliani or Romney....none of whom could even beat Mike Hucksterbee......Are any even in double digits in poll numbers????
One thing we know for sure...none of the above will ever be president.

Huckleberry is the Democrats dream candidate just as Billary and Osama are to the Republicans. McCain will gain in NH and will have a good shot. The Democrats don't want that. Yes, he's old and a bit senile but he's much more stable and likeable than most, if not, all of the other candidates.

Yeah John McCain's campaign song will be "bomb bomb bomb...let's bomb Iran"

That's going to play real well these days....hahahahahaha!

You can call Obama and Hillary clinton names but it just shows that you don't have anything of substance to say about them....one of which will be your next president.

'One thing we know for sure...none of the above will ever be president.'

Let's see, at this point four years ago John Kerry was the Democratic steamroller no Republican could contend with wasn't he?

And so 'we' will have to see what happens in coming months.

If you really believe Borat Hussein Obama will be president than you just keep believing danni, you just keep believing.

Faith is a wonderful thing.

Fortunately for Obama or Clinton America has had four more years of Bush. I think he has effectively ruined any chance for a Republican victory and the economy will be the icing on that cake...and it will be getting worse through '08.

'You can call Obama and Hillary clinton names but it just shows that you don't have anything of substance to say about them'

That's because they are without substance.

Neither one has ever pushed through a single piece of noteworthy legislation, other than squawking from the sidelines they have no record.

"Yes, he's old and a bit senile but he's much more stable and likeable than most"

Wow. Just wow.

"Let's see, at this point four years ago John Kerry was the Democratic steamroller no Republican could contend with wasn't he?"

No, he was never that.

Now, time to put Zooloser on *ignore*

-Wow. Just wow

That is what they are down to, the candidate of semi-lucidity.

I may re-think voting for Dennis the K and Elizabeth the Red Giant, as even 'Lil D might get elected against his bunch of losers.

And Zuloser knows losers.

Wow, just wow.

Yes, it's scary isn't it. An actual war hero that is running for President (not scared to wear a US flag on his lapel) leading in almost every matchup hands down.

I looked at your poll numbers and it looks as though McCain was your only hope and even then a very slight hope....now consider how the polls underestimated the Obama victory and the Dem turnout in Iowa....considering most young people don't have land line phones....and your polls are meaningless at best.....and it is doubtful that McCain will end up with your party's nomination....and probably about your weakest candidate will......

It will be an interesting year though. Now off to bed for me.

Thanks Danni, I never thought I would see the day a democrat rejected a poll. I didn't think you guys wiped your ass without consulting zogby.

Let's see, at this point four years ago John Kerry was the Democratic steamroller no Republican could contend with wasn't he?

And so 'we' will have to see what happens in coming months.


FYI four years ago Turd Blossom was crowing about a permanent majority for the Repugs and we all know what happened in November of 2006 when ya'll got a 6 million vote drubbing.

Try that with electoral votes and see what you get, Zuly.

"Yes, it's scary isn't it."

No, what's scary is someone who thinks electing a candidate they admit is old and a little senile is a good thing.

And I guess your idea of "leading hands down" means being within the margin of error in every matchup, and dead even with Obama.

But we do have some lovely parting gifts for you.

'It will be an interesting year though. Now off to bed for me.'

Have a good night.

Peyton Manning is funny on SNL - gotta go. See you guys in the soup kitchen.

-See you guys in the soup kitchen.

We'll be sure you get an extra serving.

Time for rest.

Remember. Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

Nighty night all.

"Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."

I'm guessing you must have read that somewhere.

'Nite.

-Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

Some deep voice musta just called out, "Honey, are you home?, at Zuloser's house.

Corky - I thought the debate was pretty good, although I think its time for Richardson to go.

I was a little surprised that Edwards went after Hillary so hard. Overall I thought she did well, but sometimes came off a little too angry and cynical.

I don't agree with your "deer in the headlights" assessment of Obama. I thought he seemed generally calm, collected and thoughtful.

My biggest impression is how much more passion the Dems showed for the issues compared to the Repubs.

McCain / Lieberman 08? Could it be?

"McCain / Lieberman 08? Could it be?"

Gee, that'd be swell. 2 old white DC establishment insiders who would be a combined 154 years old at the end of a second term. JUST what America, let alone the Republican Party needs.

I had to read that twice Corky. Then just about spit my beer out.

FF.

Regards,
etc.

Mark Halperin's (Time) grades:

Obama A-

Edwards: B+

Clinton: B

Richardson: B-

Halperin on Obama...

Calm, relaxed and comfortably swathed in the new mantle of frontrunner. Very well prepared both substantively and stylistically for what a determined Clinton brought his way, although he might have shown more graciousness when the likeability issue arose. Defended himself but didn't get drawn into a colloquy that would take him off message. Overall, did not encounter too many mines throughout, and kept things sober and understated. Wise enough to parry the night's final question, and rather than revisiting a past debate error, offered a concise version of his positive message.

Facebook poll post-debate, most presidential:

Obama 46%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 21%
Richardson 8%

Trying to be as open-minded as possible, I came away from the debates tonight feeling that some of the Republican candidates had good performances. Ron Paul was good (only Repub to speak the truth about the cause of radical Islam). Romney seems very knowledgeable about health care. Rudy made some good points. McCain also performed pretty well. But, Fred Thompson...Fred Thompson, folks, is a dinosaur who did nothing but, scoff at Ron Paul and rephrase the question in the form of an answer. What a deadbeat.

On the Dem side...will somebody please give Bill Richardson directions back to New Mexico. Charley Gibson allowed this 2-percenter to have way too much air time. Very impressed with John Edwards performance. Barack and Hillary looked tired.

Moment of the night was when Edwards put Hillary in her place when he noted that when the voices for change speak the status quo are quick to try and silence them.

Overall, good performances from most candidates. And a great moment when candidiates from both parties were on stage together.

Obama '08

Gotta agree with you Real.

I thought the Repubs didn't make any real mistakes, but they also didn't have any fire or passion.

The effects of Obama's win in Iowa are just now being polled in NH. Professional pollsters say the full effect won't be felt until Wednesday, one day after Tuesday's primary.

Still:

Latest NH polls:

Rasmussen - Obama by +12
American Research - Obama by + 10

Tied or leading by a small margin in other NH polls. The momentum is huge for Obama. We won't see the full effect until the NH results come in Tuesday night.

I think the Dems have found the candidate that excites people to vote FOR someone instead of against someone else.

A retired Master Sgt. who attended Obama's stop in Nashua this morning said he's a life long Republican but will back Obama. Seeing a lot of that. Precinct captain for Obama who's never voted Dem working for Obama in Iowa.

And a great moment when candidiates from both parties were on stage together.

It sure was. I don't recall ever seeing that before. Great symbolic moment for a nation hungry for unity.

Ooops...

Said one:"He almost changed my mind."

Great symbolic moment for a nation hungry for unity.

What a great sentiment! If that's not something everyone can agree on, I don't know what is.

It's very exciting to see the bump Obama is receiving in NH!

The Repubs, other than Thompson, would all be a large improvement over Bush. Thompson gives off a vibe that he really isn't interested in running for President and proving himself to the voters. He exhibits the same arrogance and lack of curiosity as the White House's current resident.

The Democrats...the top three...are head and shoulders above any of the Repubs. Hillary scares me because I think she is too beholden to special interest groups. But, I would vote for her over any of the Repubs.

Obama '08

GOAT

We really are hungry for unity aren't we? I say let's put those with the megaphones on both sides of the aisle - those telling us we should deride each other rather than decide to do great things together - in their proper place. We want something better for America that can only be accomplished with a working majority of average citizens like you and I putting political differences aside long enough to see the overwhelming number of issues in which we share a common stake in resolving once and for all for the benefit of all.

Take us for example. Two strangers from differing sides of the political spectrum striking up a friendly conversation that led to our sharing a glass. It was a pleasure meeting such a good person. I don't want to look at myself as an R or a D. I am an A. American. We're all in a boat together that's gone adrift. Where we end up and how soon we get there depends on our charting a course and having a majority of Americans rowing in unison and in the same direction towards a place we used to live in: The United States of America.

Where we end up and how soon we get there depends on our charting a course and having a majority of Americans rowing in unison and in the same direction towards a place we used to live in: The United States of America.

What a great post. And the analogy at the end was so appropriate. It seems both ends of the political spectrum are rowing in opposite directions so instead of going somewhere, we are going in circles in this huge ocean of life

Welly well well!

Spud does luff a good debate! Laws Yes!

And Spud got to hear a good debate tonight.

The Democratic debate!

Spud also watched the GOPhers one too but Spud wouldn't classify it as a good debate, except maybe in the "Good fer a cheap laff" context.

First off, the difference between the two debates?

It was the difference between Night and Day.

The only one who spoke any truth or sense in the GOPher debate was Ron Paul and the other GOPhers immediately tripped over themselves in an effort to shout him down each and every single time.

Fuggin' Morons!!!

Then they concentrated on shit-kicking Romney which was kinda funny fer Spud. After Mittens kids helped deliver the Wyoming Caucus to him they were eager to knock him down a few notches.

All of the GOPhers other than Ron Paul still think that a pre-emptive war strategy is a good and neccessary one.

Idiots!

McCain stilll hauling out the same tired old line about America and Iraq being "safer but not safe" Crowing about how their were "only" 23 deaths of US service people in Iraq like that was a great thing or sommat. Still promoting Gen Dave as being the second coming or sommat. He looked as old and tired as all his sound bytes were.

Thompson taking punch at the Clinton years as being a "holiday from history"? Who writes this crap?

Rudy still in complete denial trying to sell the massive BS that the rise in jihadism in the ME and around the world having "nothing to do with American foreign policy" How stupid does he think folk are?

Mittens the magical Romulan talking about how he "thoroughly understands Jihadism" and in the same breath declaring that "we owe a debt of gratitude to Bush". WTF?! America owes a shitload more money because of Bush but gratitude? Howsabout a jail cell fer the evil fuck? Romney came off as a too slick slick piece of unmitigated horse shit tonight. Lying his ass off through his ever present fake plastic grin. So not in touch with the grim view on the ground. The rising unemployment. The recession lurking in the wings. The rising inflation wiping out the BushCo tax cut fer well over half of America. This guys feet don't even touch the ground.

Huckleberry Hound-dawg still using the Islamo-fasccist terminology. Acting like a petulant child saying how he "supported the war and the surge first". Timed withdrawal? Not me sez the Huckster. Why tell our enemies when we are gonna leave? Umm maybe because the only time the violence starts to quell is when it looks like America is gonna leave perhaps?

In the Dem debate it was surmised that the surge had less reason for the decline in Iraqi violence than the fact that the Dems won so big is '06 and the Iraqis became more optimistic that their long nightmare was coming to an end.

All in the GOPhers came off as a group of insulated, deluded chuckleheads with the exception of Ron Paul.

Spud luffed the way Thompson kept harping on his undying faith in the ability of "free market solutions" somehow unaware that empowering the multinationals and deregulating and privitising and encouraging outsouring and other so-called free market solutions were actually a large part of the current problems. Spoken like a true former lobbyist.

McCain saying that inflation was the real reason why health care costs twice as much per capita in hte US than in any other developed nations.

But enuff about the greed merchants and shills fer wots wrong with America wot did Spud think about the only real debate, the one with the Dems?

TBC.

Be Well.

Great Post AU!

Tater

Your post made a lot of very valid points and cut thru a lot of the BS to nail it down.

Fuggin' Morons!!!
Idiots!


I'm glad that was not written by an American. It is the very hatred exhibited in his post that keeps America devisive and rowing in circles. It is amazing that there are some who believe that a far left or far right agenda is good for the country. It is moderation and acceptance of boths sides that make things work -- not "fuggin' moron" or "Idiots!" mentality.

Let's hope that slimy mentality stays north of the 49th and doesn't ooze its way down here.

First off before Spud starts talking about the Dem debate did anybody notice a very significant factor there tonight? The fact that they had largely stopped their knee jerk trashing of Hillary (with the exception of one swipe at "Hillary-care) and only talked about Barack Obama and his message of hope and real change.

Spud sure as hell noticed.

There's a "real change" right there! ^_^

Luffed the first question and all the candidates response to it. Essentially they were asked "Has the surge worked?" They were asked this like it was an undeniable reality. They all answered in the negative. They were all right to do so.

Barack held as he always has that it was "a mistake to go in in the first place" He noted that it's costs were "upwords of 1 Trillion and may end up costing 2 trillion in money largely borrowed from China" The results of suge Barack noted was to "bring the violence levels back to where we were two years ago" Hardly a stunning success. Barack also made points by declaring that America had to be "as careful getting out of Iraq and we were careless going in". Strewth!

Hill sed at one point that to believe in the success of the surge "required a suspension of disbelief". Asked if she still held that position she re-affirmed it. Good on Hill fer that thought Spud. She repeated her sound bite that it was "time to bring the troops home quickly and responsibly" a coupla times. Her heart wasnb't really in it though, thought Spud. She sounded as old and tired as John McCain. In fact, after so much time spent stump speaking her voice was begining to resemble that of Bea Arthur of Maude fame. Spud liked her line about telling the Malarkey government that there would be "no more blank cheques coming". She also wondered aloud wot was to be the fate of all them Iraqis who have sided with the US who will most likely be subject to harsh reprisals. Spud flashed on the final days of Saigon before it became Ho Chi Min City and all the blood that flowed from those unlucky enuff to miss those last few helicopters. Made Spud sad did that. Over 100,000 Iraqis face that same fate.

Bill Richardson seemed almost lost on that stage. He's painfully aware that it's largely a three way race and he just barely managed to squeak in with his 2% of the last caucus. Bill didn't make any real gains tonight but Spud would still like to give him the Miss Congeniality award for the evening. He did the "why can't we all get along" thing?" in such a way that Rodney King woulda been proud. Apparently Bill's answer ot everything tonight was eitehr A) But I'm the only one here who was a Governor and B) Can't we just hug this out? Nice guy is Bill. Too nice fer the times. Sorry.

Edwards was the real surprise tonight. Obama rawked as Spud knew he would but if Spud were to be perfectly honest Edwards tied him in terms of "winning" the debate tonight with his eloquence and passion for change. He made an excellent point about how violence levels decreased in Basra after the Brits announced they were piulling out. He alos made points by saying that he would attempt to bring all the troops oput of Iraq within 9 to 10 months and end all combat operations immediately. That would lessen the violence stupendously fer both American troops and Iraqis.

TBC

Be Well.

On a slightly funny note Spud did develope a new nickname fer Bill Richardson tonight. Spud is call him "Thumper". Not as in "Bible Thumper" like the GOPhers Huckster and Mittens but just because he kept tapping his podium to underscore his points making a non stop series of thumps during all his time at the mic. Spud was gonna call him "Tapper" but Spud thought folks might mis-percieve that to be a Larry Craig thing.

Here's a weird thing Spud caught. Bill sed the Iraqi War had cost the US "570 Billion dollars" Edwards sed "600 Billion". Hill didn't put a price tag on it. Spud believes that the "1 trillion dollar price tag approaching 2 trillion (after all the Vets come home and need treatment)" by Obama was more realistic.

Everybody pointed out how the Iraq misadventure had caused Afghanistan to fail and OBL to escape. A point worth noting thinks Spud.

Then there was a break.

Be Well.

Thanks GOATMAN. Just speaking from the heart.

TY too Repug.

I'd hazzard a guess that I merely said what 90% of us here at Drudge feel that way whichever side of the center we're on.

I'm glad that was not written by an American. It is the very hatred exhibited in his post that keeps America devisive and rowing in circles.

Issues, issues, issues and specifics, specifics, specifics
That's what I want to hear about. I want to hear meat and potato talk about what is going to be done right now. Yes, it's nice were all kumbayaing together but platitudes don't fix the real stuff we have to deal with -- rising unemployment, disappearing health insurance, Bush's free trade agenda run amok that's almost destroyed this country, use of pre-emptive war as our foreign policy, stagnant wages, our disappearing middle class.

Somebody has to stay on earth until everyone flying high with their happy balloons right now decide to come back to earth and see and discuss reality -- unpleasant though it may be.

I live in reality - in the here and now -- not in some distant "future full of hope and dreams." What is going to be done about the very real problems now facing my nation? Not "dreams, the future, all togetherness" -- which will all come to a screeching halt the minute the last song is danced to and the music stops playing at the next Presidential inaugral ball.

I watched only the Repug part of the debate. I can barely tolerate Huck, but the rest of them are NUTS.
The ignore the history of our involvement in the middle east. Anyone who thinks that our foreign policy has no effect on terrorism IS A MORON.
Same old, cut taxes, let the market take care of all our problems, Fuck the poor, fuck the people who do not have heathcare and back corporations over the middle class every chance they get.
Yeah, I trust big business to worship the almighty dollar and kiss the ass of profit,that is what they are designed to be.
What amazes me if how so called Christians also worship capitalism, and the dollar over the teaching of their Christ.
If Repugs had their way we would have 6 day work weeks, child labor, no OSHA, no Unions and a slave like work force.
The perfect capitalist society. Fuck democracy.
From the Right

AU

My personal political opinion doesn't reflect on the fact that you wrote a terrific post! You should be a personal speechwriter for someone. You definitely have the talent and a way with words.

You should be a personal speechwriter for someone.

speechwriter? He should run for office with his upthread post as his platform!

Spud,

You give Thumper a lot more credit for his performance than I do. I thought he rambled, his thoughts weren't well organized and he controlled more air time than his 2% would have dictated.

As I stated earlier, I thought John Edwards was very impressive. And his calling Hillary on her bogus claim as an agent of change was the best part of the debate.

Ron Paul was the star of the GOP debates. But, as you said, the others jumped in to silence him. I had never heard a GOP politician ever articulate, as Paul did, what is at the core of Islamic hatred for this country. The US history of meddling in the affairs of third world countries is absolutely the source of such hatred toward us. The world does not hate Americans or our freedoms or liberties. They hate the actions of our government.

Obama '08

Yo, NAVYVET50, I see we are of the same mindset tonight.

After the break...

The moderator made the point that folks were responding much better to Obama and Edwards impassioned pleas for change and that Hillary was being percieved as "unlikable". Hill under-played this and got a sympathy laff by declaring that thatt statement "hurt my feelings".

Awwww! Po' thing!

The fact that nobody even seemed to notice Bill Richardson enuff to discuss him apparently hurt Bill's feelings too. It was a little levity that was pleasant, fer Spud anyway.

Another funny moment came when the moderator asked Bill the question "Is relative youth a deterent?" Bill went "Eh? Wot's that sonny?" Okay, actually he just asked the guy to repeat the question Spud saw the humour in it.

Hillary tried to defend herself on the perception that she wasn't an "agent of change" by pointing to her "35 years of making change".


Hill did note that electing a woman POTUS was a real change and got an obligatory round of applause for that. Spud still thinks it would be better if the first woman POTUS wasn't also an ex-FLOTUS.

Apparently, FLOTUS looks good on a resume fer POTUS in Hill's book. Oddly enuff she never mentioned her time being a legal beagle fer Wal-Mart. That page on her resume is redacted, oddly enuff.

Obama got a laugh when the moderator asked him to comment on all the GOPhers commentary on him that was asked in the first debate. Obama wryly noted that he was switching back and forth between the GOPhers and the Redskins game (They lost) apparently not all that interested in their lame assed opinions. Spud laffed at THAT!

TBC.

Be Well.

Richardson was right about the most important item NOT discussed, education. Without a trainable workforce, all the discussion about the economy, taxes, and the middle class will be moot.

Last post. Honest!

Everybody took time out to notice that BushCo has been an unmitigated disaster in both foreign and domestic policy but blind folk half-ways around the world can see that all too clearly.

Beyond that? Spud was kinda amused by some of the commercials. During the first Debate Spud noted that one of it's proud sponsors was teh good folk from the Florida Department of Citrus. Wot's the matter the New Hampshire department of Citrus wasn't quick enuff on the draw there or wot? Just when Spud was wondering about how he was gonna stay up fer the entirety oof both debates a Cialis commercial came on.Spud found the timing there funny. Not THAT kind of "up" thought Spud. Spud also had a quiet chuckle during the GOPher debate when an ad fer sleeping pills came on? Listening to GOPhers drone on endlessly it seemed kinda redundant.

All in All? Obama and Edwards tied tonight. Hillary came in a distant third. Bill "Thumper" Richardson as previously mentioned got the Miss Congeniality award.

Ron Paul was the only one of the GOPhers worth listening but every time he opened his mouth the other ass-wipes jumped all over him.

Spud approved of the "ask the question and then get the fuck out of the way" format tonight as well as the back to back double-header kinda approach.

NAWOB.

Obama '08.

Be Well.

PS: Hillary playing the "why are those nasty boys (ie Obama and Edwards) ganging up on me?" was, admittedly, a bit of a chuckle fer Spud.

Spud felt that both Obama and Edwards are taking this election "deeply personally" and that that's a good thing.

Spud thinks that Hill was just playing canny politics tonight and that the grueling campaign trail is taking a lot of the stuffing out of her.

Obama is going down like a 40 ounce malt liquor at the club on saturday night.

Obama is going down like a plate of fried chicken in a room full of hungry black guys.

Obama is going down like a Lesbian on a porno set.

Obama is going down like Spuds mother after a drunken fight with her loser husband who bitch slaps her for ever having Spud in the first place.

Yep the only thing going down faster than Obama is Spuds pants when Buffalo Bob comes a callin.

Bee Swell

Tater

Your post made a lot of very valid points and cut thru a lot of the BS to nail it down.

~CChris

Thanx fer the kind words CChris. ^_^

...that slimy mentality

~Das Goat

Awww, why d'ya gotta be such a hater, Goatman?

Is that a "Texas thing" that Spud can never really understand?

^_^

Be Well.

PS: No need to respond to that question Goat just tell Spud all about yer day and maybe share a muffin recipe or two or three or four...

Let's hope that slimy mentality stays north of the 49th and doesn't ooze its way down here.

Posted by goatman

Obama is going down like Spuds mother after a drunken fight with her loser husband who bitch slaps her for ever having Spud in the first place.

Yep the only thing going down faster than Obama is Spuds pants when Buffalo Bob comes a callin.

Posted by DUMSPUD

Goat,
So much for the audacity of hope!

Awww, why d'ya gotta be such a hater, Goatman?

"Slimy mentality" doesn't quite rate up there with "fuggin' morons" and "idiots", but for you, spud, I'll work on it if you like!


... maybe share a muffin recipe ...

And here's a muffin recipe just for you, spud. But if I were you, I'd double the amount of bran it calls for. You've got a lot of shit to get out of you.

6 cups boiling water
6 cups whole bran cereal
3 cups shortening
9 cups white sugar
12 eggs
12 cups buttermilk
15 cups all-purpose flour
5 tablespoons baking soda
1 tablespoon salt
12 cups whole bran cereal

DIRECTIONS
In a large bowl, add boiling water to the first 6 cups of bran cereal, cool.
Cream shortening or margarine, sugar, eggs, and buttermilk together. Add to bran mixture. Stir in flour, baking soda, and salt. Fold in the 12 cups of bran cereal. Stir only until moistened.
Bake in a preheated 425 degree F (220 degree C) oven for 20 to 25 minutes.

Ron Paul was the star of the GOP debates.

~Real Patriot

Agreed. Gotta luff his supporters too. Hill's massive and merciless machine brought in whacks of folk with Hillary signs to try and make her look moreliked than she is and some enterprising RP supporter snuck his way beside them with a single Ron Paul sign on a very, very long stick that he manipulated to get his candidate media space.

Spud laffed! ^_^

But, as you said, the others jumped in to silence him. I had never heard a GOP politician ever articulate, as Paul did, what is at the core of Islamic hatred for this country. The US history of meddling in the affairs of third world countries is absolutely the source of such hatred toward us. The world does not hate Americans or our freedoms or liberties. They hate the actions of our government.

Also agreed. RP tried to mention the bases in Saudi Arabia thing and the terrors imposed by the Shah on his owen people in the name of sweetheart deals fer American and UK Big Oil concerns and all the asswipe GOPhers had was some quote from 1966 that allegedly "proved" that RP didn't know wot he was talking about.

Spud hates the way the GOPhers pander to their ignorant base almost as much as Spud detests the way them ignorant jerks gobble it up.

Do these people not read or sommat?

Willfully, woefully ignorant and apparently proud of the fact.

Spud just shakes his head.

Edwards...calling Hillary on her bogus claim as an agent of change was the best part of the debate.

Yup. That part did rawk out loud!

Obama '08.

Be Well.

And here's a muffin recipe just for you, spud

Ta fer that Goatse.mon

Ta fer not getting the nicEVIL1e reference either.

Yer starting to get as obsessed with Spud as he was.

Spud finds yer ignorance utterly amusing.

And here's a clue fer you too, Kidgloves...

Try some moral fiber in yer diet.

You need it.

Be Well.

Last post. Honest!

. . . for 4 minutes

dethspud

Try some moral fiber in yer diet

Exactly what sort of moral fiber do I need, oh great one? I've never been told that in my life. In fact, I've often been told quite the opposite. What are you talking about anyway?

Ta fer not getting the nicEVIL1e reference either.
...
Spud finds yer ignorance utterly amusing.

At first I had no idea what you meant in this post. Then I realized that if one does not feed your ego by acknowledging your weak attmept at a joke, you knee-jerkingly call them ignorant.

In that case, I prefer to remain ignorant. I refuse to sing your praises for every half hearted attempt at humor you spew.

Goat- Niceville used to spam muffin recipes. There's the reference.

The sound byte from the right that will no doubt be making the rounds on the MSM wrap up tommorow involved John McCain taking the slimy Romulan to town over his ads calling John soft on immigration and mis-representing his position on the illegals as being "Amnesty".

Johnny boy took him to task and then added as a bit of an aside...

"You can spend your entire fortune on those attack ads and you'll still be wrong"

* ka-zing *

The only real good zinger from the right.

Apparently, Mitten's answer to illegal immigration involves telling them to all go home and they will.

"They crossed over into this country and on their own and they don't need any help from the US government to go back"

Earth to Romulan:

Yes, yes they do.

Especially the aproximatly 2 million of them who are convicted criminals.

Them muchachos gotta be the first to go back.

And if Mexico don't like it?

Awww, too bad./snark>

Spud sez Fuck 'em.

Be Well.

I prefer to remain ignorant

~Goat

This much is painfully obvious to even the casual observer.

I've never been told that in my life. In fact, I've often been told quite the opposite.

Well, as long as yer not patting yerself on the back!

^_^

Honest to gawd, Dude, yer tooooo easy.

Be Well.

Thanks Alex. I guess I never noticed his muffin recipes. He was already gone when I became active in this blog a few months ago.

But in spud's eyes, that's no excuse for not getting his joke! And he finds my ignorance of niceville's muffin recipes utterly amusing? Doesn't take much for brain candy when your brain is made of starch, I guess.

Honest to gawd, Dude, yer tooooo easy

And spud high fives himself in the mirror again! Christ, you're vain. I've never seen anyone so taken with himself.

Didn't you promise your last post a long time ago. Oh yes, you know the rest of the DR just can't live without you so you keep on blessing us with your encores. You are too kind.

S: Last post. Honest!

G: . . . for 4 minutes

Last post working off the notes Spuid took watching the debate, ya great goombah!

Spud never sed it was gonna be Spud's last post ever.

Are you really that dim-witted naturally or do you bang yer head into a brick every few minutes in order to retain that level of stupidity?

Spud ordinarily watches the debates and blogs simultaneously along with 'em.

Tonight, Spud thought he'd just watch 'em and take notes and then come to blog-world to share Spud's perceptions of the event.

Is that alright with you?

This is still technically a political blog, although folk wouldn't know it from reading yer posts.

Be Well.

BTW, spud, I keep asking you but you keep ignoring the question:

What do you do for a living? You love to use my occupation against me in an argument. Are you afraid that someone might do the same to you and you enjoy the uneven playing field to your advantage? Or is it you are ashamed of your occupation?

Christ, you're vain. I've never seen anyone so taken with himself.

Are you trying to tell Spud you don't own a mirror?

Spud don't believe you.

C'mon Goat it's pretty obvious you are pretty full of yerself and that yer self love spills over into blog-world all the time and then you hypocritically accuse Spud of being the vain one?

Bwa hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Spud's irony meter just melted.

Be Well.

Spuid took watching the debate, ya great goombah!

Now I'm a goombah because I can't read minds. Before I was ignorant because I was unaware muffin recipes posted by a former DRer who was gone before I became active.

Gee, spud, if the worst you can say about me is that I don't have psychic powers, then I ain't so bad, am I?

Don't break your wrist high fiving yourself!

What do you do for a living?

Is the 64,000 dollar question, innit?

Spud prefers to let blog-world guess.

Is more fun fer Spud.

Nobody in blog-world has ever seen Spud's face.

Nobody in blogworld has ever heard Spud's voice.

Nobody in blog-world will ever meet Spud in the flesh.

It is written.

Deth is international Spud of Mystery!

Okay, maybe one day if Zat ever gets his cantankerous ass up here, Spud will relent and meet him fer a beer, but that would be the only exception.

^_^

Perhaps Spud sells Oil of Olay door to door?

Be Well.

CHRIS

Thanks for the kind words.

About your post:

THE most important thing with all the problems we face is finding the desire to work together as Americans. 'We The People' have had our voices drowned out for far too long. So, yes I am hopeful and optimistic that THIS election - like no other in my lifetime - will be an impassioned call by us to Washington that our voices be the loudest in the halls of Congress and on Pennsylvania Avenue in a unified call to seek a place we can build our future on again..

Then, and ONLY then will we be able to reach across the aisle, across the street, across a table, and deal from a point of strength in the face of so many special interests who have steered our national agenda away from the benefit of the many to the benefit of a few, and left us far from any sense of national purpose.

My eariler analogy about America as a rowboat needing a course and enough people rowing in unison in the same direction to reach a United States of America again is only part of the picture. Buddha said, "A journey of a million miles begins with the first step'. As GOATMAN aptly pointed out, we've been going in circles rather than aimed in the right (or any) direction. The ultrapartisanship of those with the loudest voices has left our political process busy fighting for the oars, leaving a nation who's lost it's way, drifting aimlessly, yearning to see land, but with no one looking for it.

Specific policy statements can easily be found on candidate's websites. The 2006 elections, where I saw hundreds of people refusing to get out of line in the pouring rain because they were determined to vote was an indicator that we're hungry to take control of our democray back and talk about where we want to go from here. Once we have a consensus of a working majority headed the same way in a common purpose of unity we'll figure out what to build when we find our footing - compromising as we've always done to build something most of us like when we've been at our best as a nation. First though, we need a captain who inspires the belief in most of us that we can get somewhere again.

Spud ordinarily watches the debates and blogs simultaneously along with 'em

Please forgive me oh great one. I forgot that everyone is supposed to intimately familiar with your every blog habit.

Please forgive me for not being as taken with you as you think I should be.

Are you really that dim-witted naturally

I'll readily admit I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but not being familiar with your blog habits has nothing to do with my mentality, you pinnacle of vanity.

Now I'm a goombah because I can't read minds

Amongst other reasons.

It's a big list.

Spud is abridge the thing due to time constraints and general lack of interest in all things Goatish.

Before I was ignorant because I was unaware muffin recipes posted by a former DRer who was gone before I became active

Ha! You think nicEVIL1e is actually gone?

Wow, yer clueless.

Wot's all this "was" hogwash?

Past tense, Goat?

Don't pat yerself on the back too hard ya might coff up a lung!

Why don't you set up a second account and agree with yerself fer the rest of the evening? Yer ego would sure like that.

Better yet, use yer second account to argue with yerself.

That way you'd at least stand a chance of winning!

^_^

Alright Spud's had enuff fun tweaking Goat's nose fer one night.

You really do miss BBob and his "Coast to Coast" threads don't you?

Be Well.

/That would be dethspud, the mighty, mighty Drudge Retort's Tater o' Doom, exiting blogworld, as ya do,
stage left.

Spud prefers to let blog-world guess.

Is more fun fer Spud.

Yet you don't mind the uneven playing field of know others' professions and using it in an arguement against them.

Figures.

And yes, that is part of the outgoing Texas thing you don't understand. We Texans don't generally get our fun by making other people guess. It's a Texas thing. Y'all wouldn't understand.

Nobody in blog-world has ever seen Spud's face.

Nobody in blogworld has ever heard Spud's voice.

Nobody in blog-world will ever meet Spud in the flesh.

Yep, you really are an outgoing and friendly person, spud. Just like you say. I guess friendliness is different in Canada.

Ha! You think nicEVIL1e is actually gone?

Wow, yer clueless.

He doesn't show up under the users.

Oh, yes, I forget. I'm supposed to psychic and know what his pseudonyms are.

You think I'm dumb, yet you can't get it through your head that I am not psychic.

Try to remember this -- put it on a sticky pad on your monitor:

"goatman is stupid, but he is not psychic"

Alright Spud's had enuff fun tweaking Goat's nose fer one night.

Translation:

"Spud's wrist is getting sore from high-fiving himself in the mirror all night"

You really do miss BBob and his "Coast to Coast" threads don't you?

Yes I do. He makes about as little sense as you, but he's not nearly as vain. Even his ignorance is not as sickening as your vanity.

Yet you don't mind the uneven playing field of know others' professions and using it in an arguement against them.

Anything that folk let loose on the world wide web instantly becomes public knowledge.

You put that shit in play, G-unit.

You go on endlessly about yer gig on the rigs.

Then you try and scoff at the reality of climate change.

The folk who pay yer bills also spend a shitload of coin trying to sow the seeds of cognitive dissonance on the subject.

If Spud actually thought you really were an astro-turfer paid to spew corporate propaganda in blog-world Spud would be the first to say "J'accuse!".

As it is? Spud is just think that it's a great big assed coincidence that you happen to agree with the coporate propaganda yer over-lords infect the planet with.

If Spud ever decides otherwise then Spud'll take off his kid gloves and treat you much much less friendly than Spud has too date.

Now be a good Goat and stop boring Spud to tears with yer self indulgant, mean spirited, vain-glorious, off-topic, wobbish BS.

Pretty please with Sugar on top?

Be Well.

That would be dethspud, the mighty, mighty Drudge Retort's Tater o' Doom, exiting blogworld, as ya do,
stage left.

(well, he'll suck in five minutes of imaginary applause from around the country lauding his nightly performance, then he'll come out and bless us all with an encore. He imagines bic lighters all across the country lighting up begging him to return for just one...more...retort)

0Anything that folk let loose on the world wide web instantly becomes public knowledge.

So? Are you ashamed of who you are? Oh yeah -- you don't want your sycophants trampling your yard and paparazzi flying overhead in helicopters.

Then you try and scoff at the reality of climate change.

You always say that. I always ask for proof with just one post where I said that. You never provide one.

Do you really enjoy advertising that fact that you are a bald faced liar? It's nothing to be proud of.

You go on endlessly about yer gig on the rigs

If it wasn't for people like me and our gigs on the rigs, you'd be pretty cold wouldn't get around much.

No need to thank me, but you're welcome anyway

If Spud ever decides otherwise then Spud'll take off his kid gloves and treat you much much less friendly than Spud has too date.

If you ever treated me nicely, I wouldn't believe you. You've proven yourself a liar too many times for me to trust you.

If Spud ever decides otherwise then Spud'll take off his kid gloves and treat you much much less friendly than Spud has too date.

ooooh. Is this the part where I'm supposed to quiver with fear?

Just because I know your ego needs it:

"oh please, master spud, please be nice to me. Don't be less friendly to me"

Feel better?

Now be a good Goat and stop boring Spud to tears with yer self indulgant, mean spirited, vain-glorious, off-topic, wobbish BS.

Is there someone next to you with toothpicks in your eyes ala clockwork orange making you read this? There must be because you constantly tell me how boring, shitty, etc. my posts are, yet you can't tear your eyes away from them.

I can think of no other explanation.

That would be dethspud, the mighty, mighty Drudge Retort's Tater o' Doom, exiting blogworld, as ya do,
stage left.

(well, he'll suck in five minutes of imaginary applause from around the country lauding his nightly performance, then he'll come out and bless us all with an encore. He imagines bic lighters all across the country lighting up begging him to return for just one...more...retort)

My god, you're a sucker! And as predictible as the seasons.

I'm gone. But unlike you, I don't do encores.

Later, dud!

geeeze, you boys duking it out again?

You know how it is, CC. Spud likes to tell me how stupid I am. I'll agree. I am kinda dumb. And then he likes to high five himself all night thinking how he has "tweaked my nose" or whatever he wants to call it.

You see, he can't "tweak the nose" of his intellectual equals. He can only do it to people more stupid than he is like me. That boosts his ego somehow and I am always eager to please. So if it makes spud feel really warm and fuzzy inside to claim he has intellectually bested someone as stupid as me, then that's great! He needs something to make himself feel good!

I may be stupid, but I at least don't pick on those more stupid than I am

You're far from stupid, Goat. Tater isn't stupid either. You guys just have real opposing viewpoints politically. But that's why they call this a place to sling retorts, I guess.

You're far from stupid, Goat.

Yes I am. Just ask spud.

But you are right. Compared to spud the god, we are all ignorant as hell. We can't all compare to his god-like intelligence.

Compared to the 6 billion people on this planet beneath him though -- I can hold my own.

(*whispering* but don't tell spud. We don't want to burst his balloon, OK?)

This is still technically a political blog, although folk wouldn't know it from reading yer posts.

Where is that written? Have you let rcade know yet? You should. It's his blog and he puts up a lot of non-political threads. I'm sure he'd appreciate your correcting him.

hopefully Huckabee will get a lot of time to talk about the "Fair Tax" that he is backing. Eliminate the IRS and let everyone pay "their fair share" sounds real good to me!"

It sounds good to everyone who doesn't understand it.

Posted by Danforth

I think if I hear any mor.e about this stupid "fair tax" idea I will vomit, as we head into a serious recession some would pretend that we shouldn't try to encourage those with high incomes to invest in American technologies, etc. which an income tax can do but which a sales tax will not. Oh, it will allow the wealthy to keep a far higher percentage of their incomes but for us working class folks it will just be a tax increase.
Don't let any Hucksterbee try to convince you that you can take less from the wealthy and still finance the government without taking more from some place else...namely from the middle class.

Posted by Danni

Danforth,

Danni has a real good understanding of the fair tax and why I like it. First you can't use it to control people (i.e. punish people for doing certain things by "taxing" those things." In other words, it reduced the power of government to control people. Second, as a uniform tax, the politicians have lost their power to 'give to their supporters by steeling from someone else.' If you want to raise taxes, you raise them on everyone!

Danni - you taught me something...I didn't realise that 'greed' was defined as me wanting to keep the things that rightfully belong to me. So what is it called when you demand someone else pay for something you want because you don't want to pay for it yourself? You then went on to say...

You can call Obama and Hillary clinton names but it just shows that you don't have anything of substance to say about them....one of which will be your next president.

Posted by danni


Does your logic extend to people who use words like "greedy", "Hucksterbee", "rethuglicans", "GOPiggies", "BushCo", "Bushling", "Shrub", "Chimpy", etc. Is that why you call people those names...because you actually have nothing of substance to say about them?

Citizen don't blame me for not being stupid enough to believe the absolute bull shit about the so called "fair tax." It's a scam engineered by the rich to fool the working class into paying the bulk of the taxes which are now paid by the wealthy. I call those people those names so that I don't have to descend to the depths of my language abilities. those are the nicest words I can think of for those scum bags.
1 TRILLION DOLLARS PISSED AWAY IN IRAQ WHILE 45 MILLION GO WITHOUT HEALTH CARE HERE!
Sure that's ok with you because you care more about your $$$ than your fellow Americans but that's your problem....looks like America is finally waking up and is....pissed.

Danni,

Actually, it is a plan engineered to prevent certain politicians from being able to buy votes by manipulating the tax system or force behavior by taxing things...but then I repeat the substantive argument I made earlier that you don not answer.

It is true that the program will spread the tax burden more evenly across the population. That is a good thing. It is not about MONEY it is about the RIGHT TO PROPERTY. (This is a fundamental right upon which the republic was founded.) I own my assets. You have no right to them. To take them from me at the point of a gun to benefit yourself is steeling. Why do you think it is OK? Because I have it and you don't? Does that make shoplifting or bank robbery OK since those institutions have more than I do?

You want to talk about health care...fine...off my topic but fine....of those 45 MILLION (and the number keeps growing as the debate continues...) how does this relate to the Fair Tax? Are we going to tax people who choose not to get health care? Are you going to give a tax credit for those who do? Of those 45 Million, how many PAY TAXES (a necessary ingredient for a tax credit). Or are you just holding me up to force me to pay their premium?

You then complain about the money that has been spent in an effort to stabilize Iraq. If I were truly about money - as you believe - I would join you in advocating a pull out. the country would become unstable, the price of oil would spike and my portfolio would soar. However, I am smart enough to know that we broke it and regardless about the reason for going in, we have a duty to fix it. Beyond that, I am waiting to see how long it is going to be before someone in your party determines that people have a Constitutional Right to gasoline (kinda like medical care) and turn to people like me to pay that bill too.

" the price of oil would spike"

I would call tripling in price....spiking.

As is true every time the wealthy attempt to shift the burden of taxation away from themselves and onto the working class they use arguments sounding altruistic but the truth is......is's about the money. The working class is tapped out and now you want to shift more tax onto their shoulders. Shameful. FDR understood the need for an income tax and he used it to steer dollars into investments that created jobs and prosperity for America. Most presidents since have done the same except for some Republicans who yearn for the days of the robber barons. You can preach your "fair tax" to the naive but arithmetic tells me that under a "fair tax" I will be taxed more than I am now and so will the vast majority of working folks in America. When discussing it, if you were to be really fair, you would give the figures for the amounts of additional taxes us working people would be paying instead of pretending this is a "property rights" issue.
As most Democrats, instead of the "fair (sales) tax" I prefer to let Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to expire and give any possible tax reductions to the working poor. You disagree, that's ok, but it does look as though, finally, public opinion is beginning to lean my way. Hucksterbee will try to sell the sales tax but when Americans read the numbers and the real cost in dollars and cents I think it will be a hard sell.

Danni,

I don't disagree that it will be a hard sell. When you consider that 50% of the nation does not pay a Federal Income Tax, but they will pay the fair tax, they are essentially being asked to pay their fair share. Interestingly enough, you complaint that I am greedy because I want to keep what I have, then justify your opposition to the fair tax on the basis that YOU would pay more. It seems to me that you have decided that it is better for ME to pay than for YOU. (And you think me wanting to keep what is mine is shameful.) I want us ALL to share the burden.


Your argument that you want the "working poor" to receive the benefit of letting the Bush Tax cuts expire is either disingenuous or uninformed. The working poor (as I define them) do not pay federal income tax. (I believe that the individual has to make $30,000 before they begin to pay Federal Income Tax. Even then the tax tables show something in the neighborhood of 3-5%.) Two working poor that pay taxes would have a household income of $60,000. Just think...at $100,000 they will be rich...and soaked...

Citizen the concentration of wealth at the top is already spiraling and leading to recession, your sales tax will just make it worse and lead to depression. Though you make ideological arguments for your sales tax the problem boils down to the fact that if it were ever actually enacted the nation would probably end in revolution with a far more socialistic system eventually replacing the system we have today. FDR recognized that fact, don't think for a minute that millions upon millions would willingly accept poverty while the few hoard wealth. America is a stable democracy because of the redistribution of wealth which an income tax causes not in spite of it. You think you can alter the system further in favor of the wealthy without consequence but you are fooling yourself. The wealthy would be better off realizing that they hold wealth because of the willingness of the people to allow them too. Make life too hard for the working class and they might just decide they are not so forgiving. The sales tax you propose would shift so much burden upon the middle and working class and remove incentive for those with wealth to invest in job creating investments (which Bush's tax cuts for the rich have already done somewhat). It would divide America between the haves and have nots in a way not seen since the robber barons and you know it as well as I do. Personally, I consider that "fair tax" to be unAmerican in the post WWII sense, it is more reminiscent of the class society of the British Empire where the wealthy own virtually all property and the working class are just "peasants" living as tennants. Hopefully, Americans would not long tolerate such a system and would quickly overthrow any such system either peacefully or not. I never want America to undo what 200 years of democracy has created, the "unfair tax" would do exactly that.

Danni,

First, revolution in this country will never happen. (Think about the sentiments regarding those that tried to hold a revolution in the early 1860's. There is no appetite for it. The poor won't do it, they lack leadership and the ability.) I guess it is comforting to think that I have money because of the tolerance of those who don't. For the same reason, I suppose I should start thanking the criminals I meet at the courthouse for not victimizing me, after all, it is through their choice alone that I am not a victim - right? I suppose they could get envious of my stuff and show up to steal it. They might then realize my wife is prettier than theirs and commit rape, but that would be OK under your logic. My fault for daring to have more and better.

When you mention the "peasants living in tenants" you have described the mindset being sold by the democrat party. You deserve health care / a job / a house / $5,000 per kid....on and on and on. Once they get it, they are forever bound by government chains. (Imagine the hard sell of 'the government does not have enough money to fund this, we have to cut some of the government programs that you are now dependant on.' It is this program that puts people on the government plantation, not the fair tax.

"I never want America to undo what 200 years of democracy has created" First, let me remind you that income tax has only been in existence since the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 - hardly 200 years. Secondly, democracy is essentially mob rule. The mob has been known to make mistakes - which is why the founders attempted to protect government from them.

"I believe that the individual has to make $30,000 before they begin to pay Federal Income Tax"

Not even close. In 2007: $8,755.

"Two working poor that pay taxes would have a household income of $60,000"

In 2007: $17,505.

You were only off by 242%.

Ok well I tuned in late and missed the Repub part.

Wow just wow, are the repubs running that stupid? Ron Paul could not get a work in edgewise before they cut him off at the knees. The problem is they do not want to hear what he has to say. Close minded people do not need to be president we've seen how that works for the past 7 years.

Ron is a smart guy, he has also taken the time to inform himself about the issues. However you can't give rational responses to hard issues in a 10sec sound byte, and the 5 neo-cons running against Paul were determined that was all the time he would get.

Too bad, when the Republican party implodes in a couple more years you can look at this debate and how they treated their fellow party members as one of the final nails in the coffin. I do not look forward to the next 40 years of democratic control I prefer a bit more gridlock than a one party system will give us.

Re: the fairtax, I don't have any problem with the tax itself, just how disingenuous and downright wrong it's supporters are. The sell is, you get to "keep your paycheck" with the belief that prices will remain "essentially the same". That's a fool's errand, for two reasons: first, the FT claims to be revenue neutral, which means payroll and income taxes now paid separately would instead be paid at the retail level, and second, believing prices won't rise defies the textbook definition of inflation: too much money chasing too few goods.

Plus, the websites get their own examples wrong, the advocates call a 30% tax a 23% tax, they don't mention the addition of local sales taxes and state income taxes at the retail level, they impose new intra-governmental taxes, they don't address the overnight disparity of new vs. used (a new car will come with a huge premium, but a used one won't...think that'll effect the market?), they assume a 20% overnight drop in wholesale prices, they don't have backup plans for a severe spending downturn or depression, and don't account at all for what I would call "conversion confusion". Worst of all, they claim fully one-fifth of our collective lives and monies go toward the tax systems. Not paying the taxes...dealing with the taxes.

Really?!? Twenty percent of our lives? Anybody?

"There are mine...let's see yours."

Any tax program. You stated "the individual" and "Two working poor". You were wrong by huge factors both times. A single person begins paying Federal Income Tax after $8755 of income, not $30,000 as you claimed. And a married couple after $17,505, not $60,000.

Danforth,

"Really?!? Twenty percent of our lives? Anybody?"

For individuals making $100,000 or more, this is already a reality. As I asked Danni, if it is so bad, why do you wish it on me? why do you ant to make it even worse on me? I mean, wrong is wrong isn't it?

As to what is being sold...I am not selling on that basis. I am selling on the basis that the sales tax taxes people based upon what they spend. As I said earlier, a guy making $100,000 spends more than a guy making $30,000, but less than a guy making $500,000. This also eliminates the loop holes, deductions, etc. No need to discuss passive income, or capital gains. If I spend it, it is taxed.

When I showed you "mine" I was speaking of the links that I was relying on for my data. You believe the data is incorrect. Let's see your sources and decide whose numbers to use and continue the discussion on equal footing.

Danforth,

If you are talking about taxable income (less deductions) you are correct about the numbers. In which case, every individual that makes more than $31,000 is paying 25% (certainly more immoral than the 20% you cite above). Each married couple filing jointly is paying 25% beginning at $63,700.

Again, these numbers DO NOT COUNT Deductions - like the standard deduction for example.

"Again, these numbers DO NOT COUNT Deductions - like the standard deduction for example."

What do you mean again? That's the first time you've mentioned it.

And what concept of income taxation doesn't include something as basic as the standard deduction? Or the personal exemption, for that matter? And wouldn't ignoring the standard deduction and the personal exemption make the tax threshold lower, not higher?

" If I am deprived of 20% of my annual income in the form of taxes, I have given 20% of my year to some government."

But the FT is revenue neutral. Do any of you FTers know what that means? You're still going to be spending the same amount of time working to pay the taxes, but instead of being at the workplace it'll be at the retail shop. To believe the IRS is solely responsible for all the societal costs of the payroll and income taxes is ludicrous, but that would have to be the case for one to get to "keep their paycheck", yet prices to "essentially remain the same". That, and the textbook definition of inflation would have to be violated.

"Under your interpretation, you are most likely correct."

My "interpretation" is based on the current IRS tax code. What's your interpretation based upon?

"As to the 'numbers'. Are you contending that in 2006 43.4 million tax payers were making less than $8,755 per year?"

No. I'm claiming your statements as to what income threshold pays income taxes was pulled out of your ass. Without other factors, the amount for a single person is over $8755, and a married couple $17505. Now, there can be a lot of other factors, like children, itemized deductions, IRAs, or student loan interest, to name only a few, but you didn't mention any of those things with your original statements, which were, and are, bullshit.

"The truth probably lies in the middle"

No, the truth is exactly where I proved it, with the IRS to back me up. You were trying to make a point about the lack of income tax burden on the working poor, and made up numbers which had no basis in reality. You got called on it, and have since been trying to move the goalposts, at one point even suggesting you weren't counting any deductions, a suggestion which actually undermines your original argument. Maybe it's time to remember the first rule of holes: when in one, stop digging.

Dan,

The Fair Tax IS revenue neutral TO THE TREASURY, NOT TO ME. If I am currently in the 25% tax bracket (i.e. my income is over $30,000) and all other things remain the same, my tax burden falls to 23%. If I am in any higher tax bracket, my tax burden falls.

The prices remain the same because the embedded taxes (i.e. what the corporation has to pay in profit, payroll, etc. which it passes to the consumer) are eliminated.

Now, in going back to my 11:20 post, what I said was "begins paying taxes" not "is eligible to pay taxes." If you have a tax burden of $10,000 (your bill) and you are able to deduct all of it, you don't have a tax burden. you did not PAY taxes - nor did you have to. The difference in our positions lies there. I don't give a damn where the bracket lies, what concerns me is the dollars paid. (I will remind you of a similar discussion between you and I regarding the fairness of capital gains or "passive income" and how someone who has a w-2 showing @200,000 per year PAYS a different percentage then say someone that has a $90,000 income and $110,000 profit in the stock market or dividend income.)

I am not a practitioner of your art, so I am not as precise as you are.

"Too bad, when the Republican party implodes in a couple more years "

Well, if that happens, then maybe fiscally conservative people can find a new home in a new party with Libertarian minded folks. Fiscal conservatives don't mix will with social conservatives and neocons.

"The prices remain the same because the embedded taxes (i.e. what the corporation has to pay in profit, payroll, etc. which it passes to the consumer) are eliminated."

You're confusing gross with net. Currently, a sole proprietor pays income and payroll taxes only on net. The FT pays it on gross. That also assumes the cost of the IRS, if eliminated, would cover all the payroll and income tax costs. Ludicrous. But what's even more ludicrous is the concept prices wouldn't rise. More dollars chasing the same goods is the textbook definition of inflation. Productivity would have to rise commensurately overnight to prevent an inflationary spiral, and that's if the FTers fantasy of no price rises due to taxes being collected now at the retail level.

"If you have a tax burden of $10,000 (your bill) and you are able to deduct all of it, you don't have a tax burden. you did not PAY taxes - nor did you have to. The difference in our positions lies there."

I have no idea what you're talking about. At a minimum you're confusing a tax deduction with a tax credit. And the "difference" in our positions is: you posted...

"I believe that the individual has to make $30,000 before they begin to pay Federal Income Tax."

...and I showed that number, where "they begin to pay income taxes" is not $30,000 as you claimed, but $8755. Then you posted...

"Two working poor that pay taxes would have a household income of $60,000."

...and I proved, via a link to a 2007 IRS Form 1040, that number is $17,505, where they "begin paying taxes".

Your words, my proven facts. Time to retract.

Danforth,

There is no need to retract when clarification will do.

The key word in my statements have always been PAY taxes, for that proposition I did rely on the Clinton tax numbers from 2000 - which you dismiss as "crap" but never tell me why or what has changed that has made them "crap".

There is a difference between being eligible to do a thing (in this case pay taxes - which is what you contend I meant) and actually being required to do a thing (i.e have a tax burden that you have to pay). According to the data presented - that you have never commented on - 43.4 million tax payers pay ZERO federal income tax. My contention is that the table I referenced earlier is still nearly correct and that these people fall into the category of people that can escape their tax bill through the deductions that a talented practitioner like yourself can find.

Why are you limiting the corporate world to a Sole Proprietor? I am speaking of large corporations that have employees and pass the cost of the payroll taxes (dollars paid, not the costs of creating them), corporate taxes (paying them, not preparing them), etc. along in the cost of the goods that are sold - not a sole proprietor that (if smart) has things set up to minimize payroll and maximize his ability to claim 'passive income'.

"First, let me remind you that income tax has only been in existence since the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 - hardly 200 years."


right about that and not coincidentally those years, less than 100, have seen the developement of the middle class and the largest, fastest increase in the wealth of any nation in history. It always flabbergasts me to find out that someone I actually consider intelligent, as I do Citizen, would actuall seriously entertain the idea of changing our system. As I learned long ago, don't fix what ain't broken.
In all truth, it is inescapable that the "fair tax" is nothing but a scheme by which to convince the working class to assume more of the burden of paying for government and allow the wealthy less. That is all it reallly is. You can justify it with high sounding thoughts about property rights, etc. but the success of America has been based upon the principle that property rights are important but not that they are the only important consideration. Many other types of laws do not agree with absolute property rights, anti-trust laws, etc. because through experience America has learned that there simply needs to be a method by which to prevent the concentration of wealth from becoming so total that the average Joe has nothing to lose by anarchy.
It is not an accident either that huckseterbee has been employed to sell the idea to the average Joe, some even say he has a "populist" message when nothing, absolutely nothing could be farther from the truth. He is the worst kind of wolf in sheep's clothing, the kind that pretends to be simple and honest, just a good old boy, when in reality he knows very well who has put him up to selling the "fair tax" idea and his willingness to do so is reminiscent of a TV Evangelist making the big $$$ by fooling simple minded people. Oh yeah, that is what his previous career choice was, gee what a surprise.

"The key word in my statements have always been PAY taxes, for that proposition I did rely on the Clinton tax numbers from 2000 - which you dismiss as "crap" but never tell me why or what has changed that has made them "crap"."

You're moving the goalposts. I never said they paid A LOT of income taxes, just that your statements of where they "begin to pay Federal Income Tax" (your exact words) were way, way off. 242% off. The Clinton tax codes, and your links, don't prove me wrong or you right.

"According to the data presented - that you have never commented on - 43.4 million tax payers pay ZERO federal income tax."

That has nothing at all to do with your incorrect statements.

"My contention is that the table I referenced earlier is still nearly correct and that these people fall into the category of people that can escape their tax bill through the deductions that a talented practitioner like yourself can find."

That also has nothing to do with your incorrect statements. The table you referenced earlier don't contradict my facts of where income taxes begin for a single person or a couple. Most of these people you're referring to "escape" their taxes via children, or schooling, or itemizing deductions. But your statements as to when people "begin to pay" income taxes are dead wrong.

"I am speaking of large corporations that have employees and pass the cost of the payroll taxes..."

But only half. The worker pays the other half, via payroll deductions which are going to magically go away under the FT, and in a revenue neutral situation, never be collected anywhere else. Riiiiiiight. The paycheck also includes federal and state income taxes which are sent quarterly to Washington or your state capitol. But according to the FTers, those won't be withheld, nor will they be collected anywhere else, despite the FT websites suggesting state income taxes be collected in addition to the FT.

But why is the "fair tax" being touted today so loudly when just a couple of decades ago it would have been laughed at.....the Cold War. With the Communist threat hanging over western democracies it was in the best interest of the rich and powerful to allow a large middle class to develop to insure that our nations would not emulate Russia. If you just consider the activities of the thirties before relative prosperity returned you will remember many communist, fascist, Nazi, groups meeting throughout the US. Extreme poverty breeds such thoughts in desperate people. When you take away desperation you get a population who is vested in the status quo and who will fight to protect it. Take away that prosperity and you will also remove the glue that has held our country together durihng the twentieth century while so many others were in such turmoil.
With the Communist threat removed though the wealthy feel that they can risk it and reduce the size of the middle class so that they can hoard a larger percentage of the wealth and live not like comfortable people but like an aristocracy in a ninteenth century Europe.

Danforth,

Actually, under your interpretation, you are taxed at the first dollar...but there are deductions and/or credits for the first $8755. But if it makes you happy to hear, let me say it like this: DANFORTH IS RIGHT. Somehow the operative word PAY got lost in translation. Danforth is correct in that there is not a default deduction beyond the first $8755.00 that a tax payer earns. HOWEVER, this does not change the fact that using the Clinton tax policy (that has not changed dramatically under Bush) the first income group to pay federal income tax in amounts greater than a loss is the 20-30K income earners. This does not change the fact that 43.4 million tax payers pay ZERO income tax. I just failed to realize that the correct technical term for these people is people who "escaped their tax burden."

Now as to the payroll tax question, you are correct. The Federal Income tax is the only one that would go away via Constitutional Amendment. As to the rest of the paragraph, it does not apply to anything I have said, so I don't have a dog in that fight.

Danni,

You are correct. I have never denied that it is my desire to see the people who currently do not pay their fair share to start paying their own way. I simply reject the assertion that I only get to keep my wealth at the pleasure of the masses.

"As I learned long ago, don't fix what ain't broken." Another dangerous statement, as it is a matter of perspective. To a southerner in 1859, the institution of slavery was not broken. In the 1940's, the institution of segregation was not broken.

You then talk about the growth of the middle class. This is like saying that the twentieth century has been better than any other because of the dramatic increase in the number of cars. There was not a middle class to speak of prior to the 1940's and 50's - yet the republic survived and thrived. There are now more millionaires in this country than at any other time in American History.

Hate to tell you, but if history is any indicator...a republic begins its downward trend when the masses learn that they can vote themselves money and power taken from the government who must then take it from the citizens.

I sincerely appreciate the compliment though.

"Somehow the operative word PAY got lost in translation. "

No, it didn't. You claimed they begin to pay at a ridiculously high threshold, which I proved was wrong.

"HOWEVER, this does not change the fact that using the Clinton tax policy (that has not changed dramatically under Bush) the first income group to pay federal income tax in amounts greater than a loss is the 20-30K income earners."

TOTAL BULLSHIT. I proved the "first income group" to "pay income tax" is making about a third of what you claimed.

"in amounts greater than a loss..."

WTF?!?!?

"This does not change the fact that 43.4 million tax payers pay ZERO income tax."

Nor does it change the fact that has NOTHING to do with what you posted, or what I corrected. Why do you keep reposting moot points?

"I just failed to realize that the correct technical term for these people is people who "escaped their tax burden.""

But you never mentioned them in your first statement. Not at all. You made blanket, bogus statements.

"As to the rest of the paragraph, it does not apply to anything I have said, so I don't have a dog in that fight."

More bullshit. Your "dog" is the claim prices won't increase, which is foolish on two fronts: the FT claims themselves; and the textbook definition of inflation. Why is it you FTers don't ever address the fundamental problems with the plan, like bogus formulae, a lack of planning for a downturn, and no anticipaton of an interruption of commerce due to the changeover? Why don't you ever address the new intra-governmental taxes, or the shakeup when a new car comes with a huge premium, but a used car doesn't?

Again, anyone believing you'll get the full paycheck, no deductions, and prices won't rise to cover the taxes at the retail level, doesn't understand the concept of the FT, or the idea of revenue-neutral.

DAnforth,

I said you were right in your statement. Surely you will concede that not everyone in the tax system is handled the same. I am sure there is someone making 9,000 per year that actually pays taxes. I am equally sure that there are people who make far more than I do that pay less in actual dollars in taxes because they are better situated to take advantage of loop holes and tax shelters (or they are just flat better at hiding it than I am). However, I am speaking in generalizations. If you look at the chart from the Clinton tax policy, you will see the first two groups show a negative percentage. That means that AS A GROUP money was paid back to those groups - although not necessarily everyone in those groups. The numbers I cited were the first groups that show that they pay in, which were 30,000 for singles and 60,000 for married couples. This takes into account the "escapes" that are available to the groups and apparently how broadly they are claimed.


While I don't necessarily disagree with your last paragraph - as that is something that is specific to the policy and the final form that it takes, I take issue with the assertion that I don't understand "revenue neutral". The projections are that the tax dollars coming into the federal government will be the same. That does not mean that the same people will be paying them.

Thank you for the education. I am going to be away for a bit spending time with the family.

On the other hand, I recall a time shortly after I became an incorporated entity, I was sitting at a stop light contemplating how pissed I was about the size of the check I had to write to Uncle Sam. It suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't paid withholding like everyone who draws a paycheck does all year long (I am a sub S corp) and that by the time the deductions etc kicked in, I paid about 5% of my "income". I may have to re-evaluate this idea of the fair tax. Maybe we could devise some other way to persuade the poor to kick in a little more....perhaps a national lottery.

Bad news for A_CITIZEN:

My buddy, who played 13 seasons for the Oakland Raiders and then the San Diego Chargers is a staunch Republican.

We've had a lot of conversations over the years.

I started to say something about Obama. He stopped me cold:

"You don't have to say anything. I'm going to vote for him. I like him"

I've been hearing that from a LOT of my Republican friends the last couple of weeks.

"That means that AS A GROUP money was paid back to those groups - although not necessarily everyone in those groups."

Which, again, has nothing at all to do with your original incorrect assertions. Your intimation---the working poor don't pay income tax---has been proven to be bullshit, and even more when you consider the poor pay all the regressive taxes the rich pay.

If "AS A GROUP money was paid back to those groups", you can be sure they're talking only about INCOME taxes, not ALL taxes, including payroll, gasoline, utility, sales, excise, and property taxes, to name a few.

" I take issue with the assertion that I don't understand "revenue neutral". "

It's not just you, it's all the FTers who've been convinced they''ll get to "keep their paycheck", and prices will remain "essentially the same" under a system which claims to be "revenue neutral". All three together are mutually exclusive, and I've yet to see an FTer address that fact.

Danforth:

"Your intimation---the working poor don't pay income tax...even more when you consider the poor pay all the regressive taxes the rich pay.

"you can be sure they're talking only about INCOME taxes, not ALL taxes"

That is all we have been talking about - Federal Income Tax specifically. Are you trying to move the goal posts now?

"That is all we have been talking about - Federal Income Tax specifically."

Then---again---your original statements were dead wrong. 2.42% might warrant a clarification. 24.2%, maybe a restatement. But at 242% off, that's retraction territory. It's painfully obvious you made up those numbers to try to prove a bogus point. Why?

"I simply reject the assertion that I only get to keep my wealth at the pleasure of the masses."

I do totally understand that and so did FDR back in the forties. However when confronted with the idea of millions of additional poor people, probably including myself, such philosophical niceties go right out the window. If the wealthy intend to hold onto their wealth they need to realize that they will really only be able to do so if the general population isn't so disgruntled that they rise up and take it away from them. That is the lesson learned after the Great Depression and WWII, we made peace in western Europe by helping them build systems that provided for wide distribution of wealth and thus insured stability. It seems to have worked incredibly well but now, short sightedly, many folks such as yourself are ready to chuck that system and replace it with one guaranteed to bring about the conditions which brought instability all over the world. Well, my answer is that you won't succeed if I and other people like me can inform enough of the people so that your "fair tax" is rejected as completely as Bush's attempts to destroy Social Security. When people understand that it is simple math it won't be hard to make them understand the "fair tax" is really the "sucker tax."

I simply reject the assertion that I only get to keep my wealth at the pleasure of the masses.

That's part of the price for the privilege of living in the United States. As a citizen you get to contribute to the system that makes the dream available to everyone. If your not interested in keeping that dream alive, then your welcome to stop benefiting from it.

"I simply reject the assertion that I only get to keep my wealth at the pleasure of the masses."

Tell it to one of the Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin.

"Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt."

Benjamin Franklin

Nice to see you back, Billy O.

"Surely you will concede that not everyone in the tax system is handled the same."

On the contrary: everyone IS handled the same. That's the beauty.

"I am sure there is someone making 9,000 per year that actually pays taxes."

That's true. I know more than one.

"I am equally sure that there are people who make far more than I do that pay less in actual dollars in taxes because they are better situated to take advantage of loop holes and tax shelters..."

You're right again. I'm probably living proof.

"However, I am speaking in generalizations."

Oh... a new subject...okay.

"If you look at the chart from the Clinton tax policy..."

You realize we were talking about the Bush codes, right?

"...you will see the first two groups show a negative percentage. That means that AS A GROUP money was paid back to those groups - although not necessarily everyone in those groups. The numbers I cited were the first groups that show that they pay in, which were 30,000 for singles and 60,000 for married couples. This takes into account the "escapes" that are available to the groups and apparently how broadly they are claimed."

You're casting a huge net, with "escapes" encompassing families, students, investors, etc. Is your point the poorest don't pay a lot of income taxes? Okay, I'll agree with that. In fact, I'll even make your argument for you, or at least the argument you meant to make from the start: In 2007, a family of four pays no federal income tax unless they make over $42,850. See? Clear, concise, factual, and dramatic.

"I take issue with the assertion that I don't understand "revenue neutral"."

Let me ask you this: If I currently pay $1070 for a $1000 computer (due to 7% local sales tax), what will it cost under the fairtax? So far, the only answer I've received from FTers is $1070, which only proves a profound ignorance of the concept. When I point out the new price will have to reflect the lost payroll and income taxes, I get scoffed at, and told those taxes are already embedded in that $1000 price.

So here's the big question: if payroll and income taxes are already embedded in the price of the computer today, and everything else I buy, why do I (and everyone else) currently pay payroll and income taxes separately?

"The projections are that the tax dollars coming into the federal government will be the same. That does not mean that the same people will be paying them."

True. But the landscape will be vastly different when there becomes a dividing line between what goods have the tax imposed and what don't. One obvious result might be new cars sold with a FT premium, but not used cars. Oops, there goes Michigan. Or new homes with the premium, but resold homes without. Quick: sell Weyerhauser (wood suppliers), and buy Lowe's and Home Depot. The changes would be seismic, and the shakeup would be seismic as well. And instead of assuming consumers might be confused by these radically different prices, the FT assumes a 20% growth spurt, virtually overnight! In truth, the new wealthy will be all the businesses just on this side of the FT premium.

"Thank you for the education."

Wait till you get my bill.

In 2007, a family of four pays no federal income tax unless they make over $42,850. See? Clear, concise, factual, and dramatic.

DANFORTH

Except the payroll tax. That's a pretty good chunk. Especially if you're a 1099 employee.

"Except the payroll tax"

Stop the damn conflating! The discussion is about INCOME tax; let's not confuse the natives. ;-)

""In 2007, a family of four pays no federal income tax unless they make over $42,850."

I can't be sure if that is actually true or not but really it doesn't matter. Our society has the moral authority to decide that those making below whatever amount we decide should be exempt, there is no reason that taxation has to necessarily be an equal burden on all parts of society. The concept of the graduated income tax is based on this principle. Some of the wealthy want to now change everything and go to a system of total equality regardless of income, sounds nice on paper but the reality would be millions of people living average lives now plunged into poverty.
That is not good for the long term stability of the country and even the wealthy who think they will gain by a "fair tax" need to consider that their financial gain may come with the price of their ability to live safely in the US. In S. America and other poor places crimes like kidnapping are so common as to not even be newsworthy. Robbery is the norm. People venture out into the night only if armed and even then rarely. Do any of you believe people like FDR brought about changes to income tax, instituted SS, labor laws, etc. out of pure generosity????
Hardly. It was based on a realistic view of America that recognized we are not a people willing to peacefully live in poverty while the few are ridiculously wealthy. This whole "fair tax" idea needs to be buried in the ground along with other failed ideas like Trickle Down economics. Actually, "fair tax" is really the ultimate example of "trickle down" and it will be an even bigger failure than the example we are seeing today.

The argument for the Fair Tax as falling more heavily on the rich is absurd. Every Economist knows that the rich spend a smaller part of their income than the poor, who spend more than 100%, which is why they are in debt.

The wealthy may spend more money in dollar terms per capita, but it is not all their income; the rest goes into investments, or savings (yes, the rich do save), or collecting (a strange form of investment). Despite their larger percapita shares, a "fair tax" would still be paid largely by the poor and middle class, who are way more numerous than the wealthy; their smaller percapita shares add up.

Therefore, any tax based on consumption is going to favor the wealthy and hurt the poor. Reason: the fixed percent that the wealthy paid on consumption would be a much lower percent of their total income than it would be for the non-rich; it would hurt hardly at all, but for the poor it could even threaten survival.