If you haven't heard, there will be a free FairTax webinar that is sponsored by Comcast.
Go here for the details: Free Webinar
Democrat's Strategy?
So with the Democratic convention a few months away and the democratic nominee still looking to be Senator Obama, why is Senator Clinton still harking that she will win the nomination?
Barring some miracle from the "super-delegates", Mrs. Clinton does not have a chance. So I speculate for a moment:
Could the democratic party be using this current battle to shorten the election?
Think about it. Right now the democrats do not have to deal with the Republican nominee for President because they are still "debating" their issues. They are effectively keeping their candidate from facing an onslaught from a lengthen election period. How much easier they being on themselves by "airing" their own dirty laundry in an attempt to make it all old news.
This has to be one of the best strategies from the Democrats in a long time. But can it back fire? Are they painting themselves into a corner by not getting their candidate more air time and more in front of the public.
And then again, the democratic party can be so enthralled with trying to present the first woman or African-American candidate that they really are fighting this out and were not that smart in trying to shorten the election period.
I lean to the fact that they want power so much they they will do anything to get it.
Republican Woes
As a Republican voter and a Christian, I am glad that there are Christians who stand up for their faith. I am not, however, all sure that some of our more outspoken leaders are right in how they are attacking John McCain.
Are their things I disagree with him on? Yes. Would I like to see a more conservative candidate? Sure. But until we are more open to a third party, I am going to have to give my support to the one who is chosen (John McCain).
I will now do my best to convince his camp that true change will include tax reform (not tax reworking). I mean real tax reform, such as the FairTax.
I am more afraid of socialized welfare and socialized health-care to let myself be blinded by the beliefs I hold which may differ from those of Senator McCain. I am far more afraid of allowing the federal government to put their hands farther into my pockets.
We should fear a government that wants as much control as the one we now have. It is quickly turning into what our forefathers fought against.
Maybe the Constitution Party has a better plan or even the Libertarians (whom I am less likely to support but would before I could ever support the Democratic party again).
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Who will be the VP for McCain
I have heard many names bouncing around for VP. Here is one name I have only heard once:
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Why would this name be important? Senator Hutchison has an absolutely fantastic chance of becoming the VP candidate. She also makes the best sense. Americans are ready for a "change" according to the two demonstrative candidates from the democratic party. Well, placing a very qualified and very experienced woman in the number two spot is just the refreshing change that needs to take place.
First, it will get a number of people more prepared for a woman in the future to actually become President. I like to think in terms of baby steps. We have slowly seen women take more prominent positions in our federal government. Though I may not see some of them as people I would place in such positions, they have made woman more accepted in government leadership (Albright, Pelosi, Rice to name a few).
Second, Senator Hutchison is a very capable leader and has made a good name for herself. She is a perpetual Senator from Texas, one of the largest states in the Union.
Third, she has a good background in banking and finance. She was also a business owner.
Besides, I have it on good knowledge, that she may be on the short list. Watch for her in the future.
First, it will get a number of people more prepared for a woman in the future to actually become President. I like to think in terms of baby steps. We have slowly seen women take more prominent positions in our federal government. Though I may not see some of them as people I would place in such positions, they have made woman more accepted in government leadership (Albright, Pelosi, Rice to name a few).
Second, Senator Hutchison is a very capable leader and has made a good name for herself. She is a perpetual Senator from Texas, one of the largest states in the Union.
Third, she has a good background in banking and finance. She was also a business owner.
Besides, I have it on good knowledge, that she may be on the short list. Watch for her in the future.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Can the Government Pay Itself?
I had a comment not too long ago about whether or not the government can pay itself taxes.
The commenter believes this is impossible. On simple view of this, I would agree. For example, if I have ten $1 bills and pay myself $2 for washing the car, how much money do I have? The answer is $10. Simple math would then tell you that the government cannot pay itself taxes.
Unfortunately, simple math is not applied to how the federal government would begin to pay taxes on what it purchases.
Take that ten $1 bill example and look at it this way. If I have a budget and I pay $2 to five budget areas, I still have $10 but to be spent in different ways. Let's say I told myself that for every $1 I spend from a budgeted item, I will take 50 cents and redistribute it. So I take and spend $1 out of my budget for entertainment. I now have to take 50 cents from entertainment and redistribute it into each of the other budget areas. I now have, 60 cents left in my entertainment fund but each of my other five areas now have $2.10. Now I have to be more careful with my spending in entertainment.
Again this is way over simplified. For example, with the FairTax, experts agree that when all other tax revenues are abolished, we now have a final product or service that costs less (about 23% less). So instead of something costing $100 because it has embedded taxes, it now costs $77. Add the FairTax and the item costs $100. Add local tax (like you would do anyway) and you get the total cost. At most, an item will differ in price about a dollar (plus or minus). Very little if any change.
Now apply that to the federal government paying taxes. The federal government spends money. It pays out on services, contracts, and consumable goods. If the federal government was to have to pay the same tax rate as everyone else, it would not be any different than how we each will have to pay. Now, whoever receives payment from the federal government, will be collecting taxes from government purchases and the money will be reinvested into our government.
It is very simple when you think seriusly about it. If I have to pay $100 for an item (which includes the FairTax), then the fedral government will have to pay $100 for the same product. If I was able to afford a $100 million dollar item, then 23% of that money (already calculated into the sale) would be tax. When the federal govenrment pays for the same item, it does not get a tax break and get to pay $77 million for the same product. It has to pay the FairTax and its total costs will be $100 million. Whoever collects the payment, will then pay the sales tax.
Do not over think this. It really is that easy.
Think Fair and you will get the FairTax. Until next time.
The commenter believes this is impossible. On simple view of this, I would agree. For example, if I have ten $1 bills and pay myself $2 for washing the car, how much money do I have? The answer is $10. Simple math would then tell you that the government cannot pay itself taxes.
Unfortunately, simple math is not applied to how the federal government would begin to pay taxes on what it purchases.
Take that ten $1 bill example and look at it this way. If I have a budget and I pay $2 to five budget areas, I still have $10 but to be spent in different ways. Let's say I told myself that for every $1 I spend from a budgeted item, I will take 50 cents and redistribute it. So I take and spend $1 out of my budget for entertainment. I now have to take 50 cents from entertainment and redistribute it into each of the other budget areas. I now have, 60 cents left in my entertainment fund but each of my other five areas now have $2.10. Now I have to be more careful with my spending in entertainment.
Again this is way over simplified. For example, with the FairTax, experts agree that when all other tax revenues are abolished, we now have a final product or service that costs less (about 23% less). So instead of something costing $100 because it has embedded taxes, it now costs $77. Add the FairTax and the item costs $100. Add local tax (like you would do anyway) and you get the total cost. At most, an item will differ in price about a dollar (plus or minus). Very little if any change.
Now apply that to the federal government paying taxes. The federal government spends money. It pays out on services, contracts, and consumable goods. If the federal government was to have to pay the same tax rate as everyone else, it would not be any different than how we each will have to pay. Now, whoever receives payment from the federal government, will be collecting taxes from government purchases and the money will be reinvested into our government.
It is very simple when you think seriusly about it. If I have to pay $100 for an item (which includes the FairTax), then the fedral government will have to pay $100 for the same product. If I was able to afford a $100 million dollar item, then 23% of that money (already calculated into the sale) would be tax. When the federal govenrment pays for the same item, it does not get a tax break and get to pay $77 million for the same product. It has to pay the FairTax and its total costs will be $100 million. Whoever collects the payment, will then pay the sales tax.
Do not over think this. It really is that easy.
Think Fair and you will get the FairTax. Until next time.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The My FairTax Blog morphs
I cannot keep talking just about the FairTax. Yes, the FairTax is very much the main premise of this blog but when I hear things politically that do not make good sense then I plan of commenting about them also.
Take for example how socialism is being forced upon our nation through the ideas of liberal thinkers who desire socialized medicine.
I am firmly against socialized medicine. Okay, I got that out of the way. I cannot see how in any way we could want to damage our health care abilities with the monstrous tax burden that will come with socialized medicine.
How can we think that we can do better than other nations who suffer under socialized medicine - Canada and France to name two. Canadians cross the border daily to come to the US in order to get better health care (or any health care).
The thing that socialist do not tell you about such a plan is that a government employee will get to decide whether you are worth the money or not. In other words, they will no longer try to save the life of everyone. They will decide whether a premature baby is worth the money of saving. They will decide if sustaining your life with life-support is worth the money to be spent.
I could go on.
Socialized medicine is not the answer. It puts a price tag on life and that is not what America was founded upon.
Oregon is even implementing a lottery for free coverage among those who are "cash-strapped".
Why not try this answer. How about teaching people in high school how to manage money! How about introducing four years of money management classes that teach high school students not to make the same stupid spending mistakes their parents are making?
Case in point, how many cash strapped people are making car payments, cell phone payments, internet payments, and cable or satellite payments along with a large credit card payment and mortgage (on a home they really cannot afford)? Why can't they get rid of those expenses and then fund their own health care expenditures?
Do I believe that there are some people that just cannot make a insurance payment. Yes. But the answer is in how they spend their money (not on cigarettes and alcohol and worthless attempts to win the lottery). The answer is in how to assist those people who really need assistance, not those who manage their money wrong!
How about giving grants to free clinics so they can provide better services? Why not choose the FairTax which could be a better way of funding Medicare and Medicaid (didn't think I could get the FairTax in there did you)?
Socialized medicine is just another way of destroying our nation. It is the worst possible way I can think of handling health care.
Hey Mr. Buffet as you freely give your money away, why not support medical expense accounts?
The money and ability is out there. More government is not and will not ever be the answer.
Take for example how socialism is being forced upon our nation through the ideas of liberal thinkers who desire socialized medicine.
I am firmly against socialized medicine. Okay, I got that out of the way. I cannot see how in any way we could want to damage our health care abilities with the monstrous tax burden that will come with socialized medicine.
How can we think that we can do better than other nations who suffer under socialized medicine - Canada and France to name two. Canadians cross the border daily to come to the US in order to get better health care (or any health care).
The thing that socialist do not tell you about such a plan is that a government employee will get to decide whether you are worth the money or not. In other words, they will no longer try to save the life of everyone. They will decide whether a premature baby is worth the money of saving. They will decide if sustaining your life with life-support is worth the money to be spent.
I could go on.
Socialized medicine is not the answer. It puts a price tag on life and that is not what America was founded upon.
Oregon is even implementing a lottery for free coverage among those who are "cash-strapped".
Why not try this answer. How about teaching people in high school how to manage money! How about introducing four years of money management classes that teach high school students not to make the same stupid spending mistakes their parents are making?
Case in point, how many cash strapped people are making car payments, cell phone payments, internet payments, and cable or satellite payments along with a large credit card payment and mortgage (on a home they really cannot afford)? Why can't they get rid of those expenses and then fund their own health care expenditures?
Do I believe that there are some people that just cannot make a insurance payment. Yes. But the answer is in how they spend their money (not on cigarettes and alcohol and worthless attempts to win the lottery). The answer is in how to assist those people who really need assistance, not those who manage their money wrong!
How about giving grants to free clinics so they can provide better services? Why not choose the FairTax which could be a better way of funding Medicare and Medicaid (didn't think I could get the FairTax in there did you)?
Socialized medicine is just another way of destroying our nation. It is the worst possible way I can think of handling health care.
Hey Mr. Buffet as you freely give your money away, why not support medical expense accounts?
The money and ability is out there. More government is not and will not ever be the answer.
Monday, March 3, 2008
My FairTax on Squidoo
I have opened a lens on Squidoo to help grow the visibility of this blog. Take a look and leave a comment.
My FairTax on Squidoo
My FairTax on Squidoo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
