AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Okay. Cyclop cannot dispute what Newt said.

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay. Cyclop cannot dispute what Newt said.

Bullshit; I specifically did dispute what he said

Then don't discuss things with me Cyclop. It's just as simple as that. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. If you think I haven't made my case, then show how I haven't instead of just making insults. I say you can't rebut Newt's opinion re a real stimulus because you won't even as you declare it nonsense.

You provided absolutely no rebuttal but just declared it nothing new or different.

Your best argument is that Obama won and therefore he is right.

When you can't rebut Newt, then you focus on me, my sins, and how terrible I am. I'm not a very nice person, remember? You said so.

My 'evidence' is contained in the essay itself as posted. I support and agree with virtually every point.

So prove me/him wrong. Or find something else to do.

A two-year, 50% reduction in the Social Security and Medicare tax for both the employee and the employer. This provision would guarantee that virtually everyone who pays federal taxes (many of whom do not pay income tax but do pay payroll taxes) will have an immediate boost in income and that small businesses will see a dramatic increase in available cash to hire more people or make investments for the future. This reduction would also help the cash flow problems of government at all levels, which also have to pay the employer's match.

This proposal creates the opportunity for a serious conversation with every employer about how it would increase their income and give them more resources to create jobs. The revenue loss to the trust funds would be transferred from the general fund (a better use for the money than either TARP or the Politicians Spending Act of February).

I dunno Fox -- Cycloptichorn always has struck me as interesting in discussing solutions. Most other correspondents, in discussing solutions of their own, are boring and repetitive compared to him.

A two-year, 50% reduction in the Social Security and Medicare tax for both the employee and the employer. This provision would guarantee that virtually everyone who pays federal taxes (many of whom do not pay income tax but do pay payroll taxes) will have an immediate boost in income and that small businesses will see a dramatic increase in available cash to hire more people or make investments for the future. This reduction would also help the cash flow problems of government at all levels, which also have to pay the employer's match.

This proposal creates the opportunity for a serious conversation with every employer about how it would increase their income and give them more resources to create jobs. The revenue loss to the trust funds would be transferred from the general fund (a better use for the money than either TARP or the Politicians Spending Act of February).

Those suggestions will only bankrupt those trust funds earlier than projected, and increase the deficit.

I don't know if the Fair Tax would provide an immediate stimulus to jump start the economy like many of the provisions Newt proposed, but it might be a way to remedy many of worst aspects of our government and return us to steady, sustainable growth.

I have resisted the Fair Tax concept for several reasons over the last couple of years, but I am beginning to take another look at it, and the virtues that it offers. Here's a very good presentation of what it is all about:

http://www.fairtaxplan.org/

uniform: marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations.

Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''

Pollock v. Farmer loan and Trust, the USSC in 1895, wrote:
The uniformity thus required is the uniformity throughout the United States of the duty, impost, and excise levied; that is, the tax levied cannot be one sum upon an article at one [157 U.S. 429, 593] place, and a different sum upon the same article at another place. The duty received must be the same at all places throughout the United States, proportioned to the quantity of the article disposed of, or the extent of the business done. If, for instance, one kind of wine or grain or produce has a certain duty laid upon it, proportioned to its quantity, in New York, it must have a like duty, proportioned to its quantity, when imported at Charleston or San Francisco; or if a tax be laid upon a certain kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at one place, it must be a like tax on the same kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at another place. In that sense, the duty must be uniform throughout the United States.
...
'The difficulties in the way of this construction have, however, been very largely obviated by the meaning of the word [157 U.S. 429, 595] 'uniform,' which has been adopted, holding that the uniformity must refer to articles of the same class; that is, different articles may be taxed at different amounts, provided the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere, with all people, and at all times.