On running for the United States Senate if this presidential thing doesn’t work out: “It’s more likely I’ll dye my hair green, get a bunch of tattoos and go on tour with Amy Winehouse.”

On the rigors of a presidential campaign: “Arkansas politics and the savagery of it were far more intense than running for president.”

On the recent flood of endorsements of Mr. McCain, now that he is close to securing the nomination: “What are these people saying – that they were for him all along but just forgot to tell him?”

On the press focus on his background as a Baptist preacher: “There has been an attempt to ghettoize me for a very small part of my biography. The last time I was in the pulpit was 1991.”

On why Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to be struggling right now: “She does not have the personality of her husband. Very few people do.”

On why Senator Barack Obama appears to be beating her: “The American people are not looking for someone who can fix a carburetor. They’re looking for someone who can drive the car.”

On why he stays in the race, despite the long political and mathematical odds: “The path to victory is a complicated one for me. The path to defeat is easy – I could just quit.”

On why he is a better bet for the Republican nomination than Mr. McCain: “Moderate Republicans lose. Conservative Republicans win.”



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/

2/12/2008 11:38:49 AM

he has a pretty decent sense of humor it seems....

he's still gonna loose big time

2/12/2008 11:50:59 AM

The wit and wisdom of Mike Huckabee folks.

I did enjoy this gem:

Quote :

"What are these people saying – that they were for him all along but just forgot to tell him?"

2/12/2008 11:52:07 AM

He got my vote. Granted I probably pissed it away. But between him or mccain, Id rather have huck.

Fairtax will save the country. I love it.

2/12/2008 12:02:37 PM

Quote :

"Fairtax will save the country. create the largest black market ever and make the deficit even bigger."

Fixed.

2/12/2008 12:07:12 PM

so more money in workers hands vs in govt hands is a bad thing? got it.

After all, some people dont "need" thier money, the govt needs to take it.

2/12/2008 12:12:37 PM

Yeah, cuz that's exactly what I said...

Anyone who actually thinks the Fair Tax could ever work is a fool. It simply wouldn't create enough revenue to pay for even the most basic of things. It would benefit corporations much more than it would benefit consumers. It would raise prices so much that the poorest of people would get screwed the most.

2/12/2008 12:15:57 PM

i like how he implies that women can't drive automobiles very well

2/12/2008 12:17:43 PM

But he also implies that Hillary knows how to fix a carburetor...

2/12/2008 12:21:30 PM

420, actually the poorest of americans wouldnt pay the tax. The cost of goods would remain about the same. States have been collecting sales tax for years. So people taking home their whole paycheck isnt a good idea? Its funny that you think corporations pay taxes.

Oh, I forgot to mention it would end class warfare. Which would no doubt curb gov. growth.

[Edited on February 12, 2008 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2008 12:23:42 PM

^^yeah i guess he meant she was manly or something but that kind of threw me for a loop

2/12/2008 12:26:36 PM

^^why wouldnt they pay the tax? they consume goods don't they? they'd pay the same rate as every other american....

[Edited on February 12, 2008 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ^]

2/12/2008 12:27:01 PM

You do realize that a sales tax would have to be like 30% to collect anywhere near the same amount of revenue, right? You don't actually think that we could pay for roads, the military, and all the other public goods that are paid for through tax revenue with a fair tax, do you? Sure everyone would take home their entire paycheck, but anyone who doesn't make over 80k a year is going to be seriously hurt by the equivalent of 30% inflation overnight happening.

Also, corporations do pay taxes. They pay quite a bit actually.

2/12/2008 12:28:44 PM

420, the cost of goods would not go up 30% overnight. In fact the prices would remain about the same, even with the tax. I dont care if the govt gets less money. Although some project it could take in the same amount or could even see a boom in the economy as people now take home their paycheck. I thinks its wrong to penalize people for working and saving, only to reward those that dont.

Corps pass on thier taxes to consumers. Its built into the cost of thier goods.

2/12/2008 1:54:47 PM

A fair tax would require absolutely gigantic spending cuts, which will not happen. Since that will not happen, it would be a horribly unwise move to make. There is absolutely no way in hell it would generate even half the money the income tax generates. Anyone who says it will has their head far inside their ass.

2/12/2008 1:59:08 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

There is way too much information on here to post the entire thing, but I think points out a lot of interesting facts having to do with the Fair Tax and a good read if you have nothing better to do

2/12/2008 2:05:27 PM

^I've read that before and everybody making judgement calls and ignorant statements like the following should also. I'm not necessarily for the fair tax, but I like what I've researched about it so far.

IMStoned420:

Quote :

"It would raise prices so much that the poorest of people would get screwed the most."

2/12/2008 3:39:03 PM

.

[Edited on February 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2008 3:50:27 PM

Quote :

"420, the cost of goods would not go up 30% overnight. In fact the prices would remain about the same, even with the tax. I dont care if the govt gets less money. Although some project it could take in the same amount or could even see a boom in the economy as people now take home their paycheck. I thinks its wrong to penalize people for working and saving, only to reward those that dont. Corps pass on thier taxes to consumers. Its built into the cost of thier goods. "

Well there you have it folks.

With arguments like this supplemented by the fact that the the "fair" tax has the word "Fair" right in the name, its a wonder why we don't switch to it.

2/12/2008 3:52:57 PM

^what exactly do you find wrong about my arguement santa? Besides the fact that people could control thier tax level, not the govt.

2/12/2008 4:05:29 PM

2/12/2008 4:28:22 PM

Looks good to me.

2/12/2008 4:34:17 PM

more taxes for everyone but the super-rich and the super-poor. hooray!

2/12/2008 4:34:41 PM

exactly, how could anyone be in favor of a tax plan that hurts the middle class?

i'm not trying to go all lou dobbs (cause i hate the man) but the middle class is already suffering because of other shitty decisions by the current administration, lets load on some more

2/12/2008 4:47:28 PM

^im curious what decisions you think led to the middle class hurting.

Im also curious how one would pay more in taxes if they can directly choose the amount of taxes they pay. Besides, you no longer get taxed simply for working and saving, which I find to be wrong.

2/12/2008 4:55:57 PM

Quote :

"With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase."

Is the paragraph that goes along with the graph that sarijoul posted. To make up for the poor and the rich getting breaks, those earning between 15k and 200k make up the difference.

Quote :

"Im also curious how one would pay more in taxes if they can directly choose the amount of taxes they pay."

How are they choosing the amount that they pay? They cant choose the amount they're taxed, only the amount that they spend. If the government is controlling how much a person purchases, aren't they indirectly controlling a person's money?

[Edited on February 12, 2008 at 5:03 PM. Reason : 200 not 100]

2/12/2008 5:03:14 PM

^Im against the prebate.

How are they choosing the amount they pay? Ill try to explain it to you. If you need a car. YOu could buy a 10k car or a 20k car. You would pay double the tax on the second car correct? Thus YOU are in control of your spending which means you control how much tax you pay per year. OF course you would have more money to spend, but you would not be taxed on savings or returns on investments...only spending.

Im in the 28% bracket, did I do something other than showing up to work to get that fine? At least the fairtax gives more power to the individual...which govt hates, and many people seem to also.

[Edited on February 12, 2008 at 5:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2008 5:29:48 PM

so you're against the prebate too?

so now someone making minimum wage has to pay 20-30% tax on the food they eat? and presumably without the prebate, the tax burden would increase for EVERYONE but the most wealthy. how incredibly fair.

2/12/2008 5:46:31 PM

^yeah, im against the prebate. Id rather they not tax unprepared food, clothes under a certain dollar amount than do a prebate.

No, everyone would be treated equal under the fairtax. Im for that. You choose what to spend your money on.

You keep saying that the tax burden for the rich would decrease. And here I thought that the tax on a 10 million dollar home would be alot more than the tax on a 100k home.

I dont think people should be treated differently by our govt based on income, race, or sex. But that whole equality thing is just for speeches right. THAT is why I support the fairtax the most. EVERYONE is treated equally by the govt. More people will pay into it and you dont have certain professions dodging it like an income tax. Also there would no longer be a need to hide money overseas from our current tax structure. So the people with the money, could actually bring it home to this country.

2/12/2008 6:06:53 PM

Yea... More FairTax Fun!

Factcheck.org is doing what many critics of the FT are doing: Creating their own version, one that wouldn't work..and then criticizing it as it were the actual legislation.

William Gale has been refuted long ago. You can read it at FairTax.org.

Many of the criticisms here are a result of a lack of understanding. Some here don't yet fully understand the legislation, or how the FairTax would work. A little more research would be in order before ripping into it. If you can explain the FairTax without adding to it or changing it, and can then come up with a criticism...that would be worth addressing.

Granted the FairTax isn't a perfect solution. No tax is. Will there be evasion? Yes..just like with the income tax. The big difference is this: Under the income tax, it just takes one person to cheat. Under FairTax, at least two people will be required to cheat.

Again, is it perfect? No. Can congress mess around with it? Sure..just like they did with the income tax. The big difference is that the FairTax is much more visible. People will notice very quickly when politicians start messing with the rate or with exemptions.

Quote :

"yeah, im against the prebate. Id rather they not tax unprepared food, clothes under a certain dollar amount than do a prebate."

There are a lot of things required for basic needs besides unprepared food and clothes under a certain amount. Once you start exempting things, you open the doors once again to the special interest lobbyists.

[Edited on February 12, 2008 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/12/2008 6:12:22 PM

^I agree with the slippery slope notion. But it seems fairer than the prebate in my mind.

Here is the fairtax calculator. See how much you will save:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator

2/12/2008 6:20:50 PM