Replace All Federal Taxes on Income with the Fair Tax Act , HR 25 and S 122

I think I see a new political party forming.

FairTax will be part of it's platform along with term limits.

What do you folks think of this?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sean Fagan on May 23, 2009 at 10:52pm

David,

A very interesting question - I will try my best to answer from both my perspective and what I believe would be Rush's thinking (hopefully they jive).

Now, we all know Ron Paul is really a Libertarian. I honestly don't have a problem with that, but perhaps Rush did - and maybe just because Ron Paul wasn't really a true republican. I believe Rush may have seen Ron Paul as an opportunist, running as a Republican candidate when he should have run as a third party candidate - oh wait, that's what this thread is all about isn't it? Maybe even Ron Paul himself recognized the fact that there was little or no chance of his winning as a third party candidate - so he threw his hat into the Republican arena. I agree with you that he did the country a disservice by not running as a third party candidate.

Ron Paul's biggest problem, in my opinion, was his anti-war stance - a position even Boortz (a self-proclaimed Libertarian) could not agree with. As a conservative, I will have nothing to do with a "cut and run/surrender" strategy - too many have already sacrificed too much for us to simply walk away and pretend it never happened. Somehow I have to believe Rush feels the same way.

Rush never really got behind McCain either. The reason? Not conservative. Simple as that. Rush, like myself, is a Reagan conservative - and while we know there will never be another Ronald Reagan, we can only hope that there is another like-minded individual out there somewhere. As an additional thought, Rush never endorses a candidate - he might tell you who he likes, but he never openly endorses a candidate.

Finally, and again just my opinion, Ron Paul supporters were just too much "in your face". For me, they reminded me too well of the anti-war demonstrators of the Vietnam era. They came across as liberal democrats supporting a Libertarian/Republican/Third party candidacy that just opposed the war - something that just didn't work for me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by micheleking on May 21, 2009 at 10:31pm

So thanks David, I was waiting to hear what the LP had to say after their big shindig last month. Most certainly the site has been updated by now. Have been dissappointed in this bunch since we had to let Republocrats go in 2002 (?). They sent me an email today and i begged them to get FT.

The only thing I could find of FairTax on their site was a debate schd. for oct.

"Constitution party" - is this the sovereignty issue or another political party?

Miss Nancy, I don't hardly dig none of them guys. 2 of 'em I never heard of.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Shipp on May 23, 2009 at 7:25pm

Miss Michelle, My belle, ( Or is it bugsy now? )In an earlier post I stated that the Libertarian party doesn't want to compromise their stance on a balanced budget( The congress and executive branch needs to live with in their means) and The LP does not think there should be any income tax at all. A substitution for the income tax goes against the grain. I see the Fairtax as a means to the end. Since it eliminates the sixteenth amendment and lets people know exactly what they are paying in tax, it should then be easier for the same people who passed Fairtax, to lower the consumption tax until we get little or no tax. I think the LP party is missing the boat and needs to have more pressure then just me, telling them this. Plus on the up side the Fairtax does so much more. The link I think I sent you on the LP site is the platform. Try to find a platform on either the Republican or the Democrat sites. LP spells out exactly what they stand for and how they will vote. As for the constitution party, They do not believe in the separation of Religion and state. The constitutional party believe there should be a national religion and all government should be enacted with that religion in the forefront. Exactly one of the things the founding fathers were adamant about eliminating. Seems pretty arrogant, to me, to think that any one religion is THE religion. Especially since there must be at least a hundred religions just in the United States.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy L. Gatchel on May 23, 2009 at 8:42pm

The two you've never heard of are on MSNBC. I like to hear what everyone has to say. You never know, I might learn something. Lou Dobbs can be quite interesting, too. He's on CNN and HLN.

I'm not a party idealogue. I almost was, once. I am of the Founding Fathers party. Jefferson is my favorite liberal of all time. Adams, Washington, and a host of others that founded this country share my beliefs, my understanding of this beautiful, beloved country.

If I had to sum up our problems of today into one compact sentence, I'd say that abuse of the all the liberties we have been given are the root cause. Especially so in Washington.
Frankly, I've reached the point where inaction is not an option. Action is a necessity in order to preserve what those honorable Founding Fathers created, and what so many awesome folks have laid down their lives for. Words can't describe what a mom feels when she sees her son off to the middle east. I was blessed in that my son came back, not once, but twice, from the Gulf War. I have other members of my family currently serving, and many others have in the past.

Alas, I ramble. Memorial Day week end does that to me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Hunt on May 22, 2009 at 7:01pm

Glenn Beck posed the question on his TV show today if a third party was forming. He based this with an illustration on a chart showing how membership in both parties has declined over the past few months while the number of Independents has increased to the point where it exceeds both parties making it possible it is the impetus for the formation of another party.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe McCune on May 22, 2009 at 8:22pm

A 3rd party would be a great idea, if all those going to independent could agree on a platform. Low taxes, limited government, and personal freedom, etc.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy L. Gatchel on May 23, 2009 at 9:22pm

As I look at other parties, I find none that to which I can truly commit.

I believe we must fund our government, to do only that which it is supposed to do, nothing else.
I believe in having a strong military and in funding it.
I even believe in some social programs, to a very limited degree; primarily because of children. This in fact, is not a federal issue, rather, it should be a state issue.
I believe power should be returned to the states that fed. government has usurped.
I believe that when the people have spoken, the supreme court needs to take a hike. They are not legislators.
I do not believe in a theocracy; the USA was never meant to be that and it should not exist on this planet, in this life. However, I believe that expressions of faith in the public square is absolutely in keeping with the Constitution and should always be respected. If a theocracy is meant to exist, it will be when and where God determines, not man.
I believe the government has no right to extract money (taxes) from income from an individual's pay check before he even receives his pay. This is theft. Most private citizens are not employed by the government, therefore, the government is not entitled to sieze that which the private citizen has earned. I believe in Fair Tax. I believe in pay as you go, not huge indebtidness. Refer to Thomas Jefferson. The government has no business being a banking institution, or governing any such institution.
I believe, not in limited government, but in small government. There is a difference.

If there is a political party that espouses these fundamentals, that's the party I'm looking for. You'll notice these issues are common to citizens of all political persuasions. If the Tea Parties bring about such a party, I will consider myself blessed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Girty on May 24, 2009 at 6:36am

And if there is not a new political party that perfectly matches your ideal.......then what? Do you remain a pawn for the two existing major political parties which are together responsible for the mess we are currently in? They have had their chance to cut spending, shrink government, balance the budget, pass term limits and reform the tax system.

The republicans promised (actually signed a Contract with America) to do these things and they had the power to keep the promise. They made the promise when they were in the minority in congress. The promise helped them become the majority. Once they had control of congress all they offered was excuses for why they broke the contract. They were lying about it from the start.

Pardon me for being blunt, but anyone out there who says they believe the Fair Tax will be enacted by either of the major political parties is either foolish, or a liar themselves.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Hunt on May 24, 2009 at 8:39am

Simon

You're missing a fundamental point. The 76 cosponsors who signed on during the last session of Congress and the 58 who have signed on so far during this session of Congress have done so because they are feeling increasing pressure from their constituents. Giving your predilection the Fair Tax won't pass then the question is why did you become a Fair Tax supporter and a member of Fair Tax Nation? Your attitude defeats the purpose of the movement.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy L. Gatchel on May 24, 2009 at 9:47am

Simon, I guess I fall into the "foolish" category! LOL! There is no other frame work in which to work. I have been a member of one of the major parties all of my life. I became complacent and felt that there was nothing we, the people, could do to get things back on track.

As I learned more about the Fair Tax, I became moved and came to believe that there is something we can do. Here's a cause that I believe is wholly 100% attainable. There are more of us than there are of them. It takes constant committment and work. So I'll fight the good fight and be "not weary in well doing". Am I foolish? Perhaps. I'll leave that for others to decide. It doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I'll keep on keepin' on.

I take no offense. You made me laugh because my first reaction was, "well, that puts me in the fool category". Besides, I like bluntness. Bluntness is more honest and respectful than sarcasm.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Bohemier on May 24, 2009 at 9:00am

I don't see where you are talking about a third party for our country. Right now I'd really like to see a second party emerge. I can't see but one party in DC anymore, The Professional Politition Party or PPP. A second party representing the people would be nice to see.
Marc Bohemier