[BRL]

Any other answer would have given critics a number to beat her with.

To say 100% is pure idiocy.

[ROTB]

Any other answer would have given critics a number to beat her with.

To say 100% is pure idiocy.

***

To say anything less launches a slide down a slippery slope, which is what we’re on as we head towards more VOTERS than TAXPAYERS.

My tagline used to be “Repeal to 1789.” That’s because I thought the way you deal with big spenders, is you start the negotiations at 1789, and work up from there.

[so_real]

To say 100% is pure idiocy.

Keeping 100% of your income is the very premise behind the Fair Tax. Perhaps she's been doing some homework on consumption taxation. The question was a loaded one, designed to provide cannon fodder for the media. I thought she evaded that damage skillfully if not eloquently.

[Polybius]

Any other answer would have given critics a number to beat her with. .... Iron Munro

To say 100% is pure idiocy. ... BRL

But, you must admit, it is as "Red Meat" and "Politically Pure" as you can possibly get and it does fit very nicely on a bumper sticker:

"NO TAXES ... AT ALL"

An answer that discusses the Laffer Curve simply does not fit on a bumper sticker or fit into 30 seconds.

Once upon a time in America, in the days of the Lincoln Douglas debates, candidates had to develop and defend their positions in the following format: One candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute response.

Today, in the dumbing down of America, "debates" have become a silly Dog & Pony Show where candidates compete to throw out brainless bumper sticker soundbites before the 30 second buzzer goes off.