Posted on 08/12/2006 5:59:58 AM PDT by Man50D
Well DUH, when the anti-fairtaxers (SQL --status quo lovers) keep
repeating the same discredited arguments it would be a waste of time for
faritax supporters to create brand new arguments to refute them. Cut and
paste saves valuable time. Many of the regular FT supporters on these
threads have written several responses that discredited the same old
arguments put forth. SQLs put forth the same ol' discredited arguments as
though they are new arguments. The thing is, they know they're being
dishonest.
Like I said earlier, it seems their is only one SQL left with any sense of debate, truth or logic. At least YN doesn't keep dredging up the same old tired disproven arguments. Well, not all the time anyway.
their=there
Because the word, "social", tells us that it has to do with human behavior which is difficult to predict with certainty because human beings respond to stimuli in different ways. In fact the same person might respond to the same stimuli in different ways at different times in his life. Economics is a purely human activity.
Contrast that with chemistry - chemical reactions follow rules. We can count on what combinations and conditions will produce the desired result. Chemical reactions take place weather human beings exist or not.
The FairTax success or failure doesn't just depend on numbers, but on how human beings will emotionally and rationally respond to what the numbers mean to them, and how they will act as a result. Those individual, human responses will change the numbers and create a new set of circumstances, new numbers, and new responses.
If the Retailer's study is correct and the FairTax results in significant business and job losses over a period of years, human beings might respond much as they did in Chile and Argentina to Friedman's economic shock therapy.
Remember it's called the "dismal science" by some.
Why do you keep repeating that? Is China republican because its called the People's Republic of China, or N. Korea democratic because its called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
I'll stick to studies by recognized and respected economists tied to no organization rather than a hired consulting organization that specializes in accounting for the NRF and its members.
I'll stick to studies by recognized and respected economists tied to no organization rather than a hired consulting organization that specializes in accounting for the NRF and its members.
Are these studies published? Why do we only hear references to the studies and not get links?
If the studies turn out to support the FairTax the way Greenspan did in his speech, there is no there, and you have good reason to not link to the actual studies.
Actually there are many economic studies and most are available on the FairTax website. Try it, you'll learn a lot.
The FAQs, the Research papers, and the Rebuttals all have a number of studies from or information by economists.
While you're at it you might read he first 20 or 30 pages of he bill itself.
She's a disruptor and hasn't made a single point of substance in the entire time she has been aboard. She's welcome to post all she wants but her tactics aren't to debate they are to disrupt. Engage her only if you're bored. She's as worthless as a nightlight.
Price Waterhouse, the organization that did the study for the NRF, is pretty well respected.
Try it, you'll learn a lot.
Always willing to learn a lot, I followed your link and did, in fact, learn a lot. Look what I found at the top of the page
FairTax.org has conducted extensive policy research and commissioned a variety of issue papers on the economic impact of the FairTax...
So, the FairTaxers quote from their own commissioned and self-conducted research to lend respectability and authority to their claims.
Tied to no organization, indeed!
Thank you for sharing.
But read some of the papers and economic studies rather than just scan for disruption plums. Even (as I've said a lot) read the bill.
You're absolutely right - and several others are, too. That much is clear from their lack of substance in posting.
Please explain where I am wrong. Please explain your real objections. Please explain why you can't produce the math to make your case. Please explain why you persist in having your arguments struck down. Please explain why you spend so many hours on this board objecting to a transfer of power from the government to the people. Please explain who is paying you and how much.
The cultists dreaming of their federal entitlement check figure that they'll finally be able to move out of their Mom's garage and be able to afford beer and lap dances paid for from from their dole money.
I agree with Greenspan that there will be transitional issues and I believe they will be considerable and disruptive. The market likes predictability, the FairTax is an unknown.
Please explain where I am wrong.
You certainly were wrong in translating Greenspan's speech as enthusiastic, unequivocal support for a consumption tax.
Please explain why you can't produce the math to make your case.
You haven't grasped the concept of how human behavior drives the math before, why would explaining it to you one more time make a difference? There is no case of a economy the size of the US's abandoning an income tax for a consumption tax; we have no experience (real world data) to draw on. The numbers and math produced by the FairTaxers are hypothetical just as figuring what an investment in Enron before the fall would yield in 2006.
Please explain why you persist in having your arguments struck down.
LOL! Its probably a childhood issue. I'll ask my mother if she can provide any insights and get back to you.
Why do you persist in believing in fairytales?
Please explain why you spend so many hours on this board objecting to a transfer of power from the government to the people. Please explain who is paying you and how much.
The FairTax changes the way taxes are collected. It is not a transfer of power!
I've answered that question.
But it is a massive redistribution of wealth.
And woe to the politician who ever suggests taking away or reducing the monthly check.
Power to the people!
Since you "discovered" beer and lap dances you'll probably sign up I suppose. You'll just be delighted to buy those with untaxed money (until you spend it) or maybe you'll decide to no pay tax and invest it instead - your choice. And it's a tax refund, not an entitlement.
Great "reasoning" if you're fixed on copping out of everything. A disruptor's ideal position ... one used by many trolls if you'll check other threads.
Wrong on both counts as has been repeatedly shown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.