The Whoppers of 2007

Thursday, January 17, 2008

I found this list not long after I found the one from Judicial Watch. I wanted to post it, but decided to check the sources and see if had any history of making bogus claims. I have used this site before and they seem to have a good reputation and they seem to be fair, from what I can tell. They are funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which primarily funds educational programs in humanities, science, math, and social science. They also fund programs designed to help teachers improve teaching methods and instruction.

The list contains 15 claims that are critical to Republicans and 7 that are critical to Democrats. I checked the sources and they seem to stand up. Since 'tort reform' is a bit of a pet peeve for me, I liked the one that dealt with 'lawsuit abuse' at the bottom of the page.

I realize it is getting to be a little late for lists from 2007, but many of the issues that came up in this list deal with the election and will probably come up throughout the year.


Rickey Henderson 11:54 AM  

Bah, it's never too late for lists! They're the lazy blogger's gold!

the infamous roger 5:09 PM  

Wait, you had no problem throwing up a list from Judicial Watch but wanted to make sure this other group didn't have a sullied reputation??

Bob/Poindexter "Chief Beer Advocate" 5:47 PM  

I think we are all just checking our sources more before posting.

Nothing wrong with that.

Considering many of us (including me) beat the snot out of Steves for putting up the last one, I can appreciate him going the extra mile on this one. I also appreciate the fact that steves is willing to placate us losers after our overdone bitching and moaning.

Bob/Poindexter "Chief Beer Advocate" 5:48 PM  

Its a pretty interesting list. It's too bad organizations have to do this stuff because the media is too lazy to fact check.

Sopor 6:55 AM  

Damn, I've been a fan on the FairTax, but if it really would take 34%...

I currently lose 23% to ALL of the taxes I pay, Fed Income, Soc Sec, Medicare, Mich Inc, and lastly... City of Portland Income Tax. (Yup, my City's got one...)

Now the only saving grace for FairTax is that if I don't want to pay tax, I don't spend my money.

steves 8:54 AM  

"Wait, you had no problem throwing up a list from Judicial Watch but wanted to make sure this other group didn't have a sullied reputation??"

I did have a problem with the JW list. I didn't dig deep enough before posting and was taken to task. I still think it offered some interesting discussion, but I agree with the people that said that group was biased and did not have the best reputation. The bias doesn't bother me as much as the fact that some of their assertions lacked decent evidence. Bias is ok, as long as it is factual and you are up-front about it.

BTW, I don't think anyone here is a loser. I expect to be challenged and woldn't have it any other way.

B Mac 8:56 AM  

My argument for the income tax over the FairTax has always been simple, and Sopor's comments serve as a case-in-point:

If you jack up an Income Tax, are people going to try to earn less money? Of course not. But if you jack up a sales tax, are people going to spend less? Quite possibly yes. So which one has a greater potential to kick the economy in the junk?

If you take a 34% federal sales tax, add on the 6% Michigan sales tax, you're looking at an extra 40 cents on the dollar of every purchase. All of a sudden, a Ford Focus costs $25,000, housing prices go through the roof... and the Dollar Menu? Gone.

Throw in all the state and local taxes (such as the 4.35% Michigan income tax) that would still exist (or would be replaced by an even higher sales tax), I don't see that as a winner.

Bob/Poindexter "Chief Beer Advocate" 12:33 PM  

The only thing I LIKE about the un"Fair Tax" is the fact that foreign firms who sell products here would then pay the same business taxes as an American firm. As it stands, imported products get all of the benefits of our marketplace, but don't foot any of the bill.

I always knew it would be a higher rate than advertised.

George 12:44 PM  

As one of the "beater-uppers" about Judicial Watch, I appreciate he background work this time, Steves.

The "fair tax" would be a total disaster. This line--In truth, the actual rate would have to be at least 34 percent even if it fell on new homes, mortgage and credit-card interest and a host of other products and services not usually subject to state or local sales taxes--should scare the snot out of anyone who wants to see the economy get better.

Americans owe $753 billion in credit card debt. Think about how much that would be if the interest got taxed at 34%.

B Mac 1:02 PM  

The worst part about the Fair Tax is the Real Estate stuff. It is bad enough that the price of a new home would increase 34%. But when you consider that you can't get a morgage to cover taxes, you're looking at an additional 34% cash down payment. Ouch.

IMO, the Fair Tax is just another example of a stump speech idea that SOUNDS great, but in reality the devils in the details are just to much to overcome. Just like "I will pull all combat troops out of Iraq in the first 12 minutes of my term," or, "I'm going to eliminate the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington."

Along those lines, I present this article from The Onion:

B Mac 2:46 PM  

Oops lets try that link again.

Sopor 12:42 PM  

Hmm, you've got a good point there B Mac, and what a double edged sword that is...

Down here hovering very near above the Poverty Line, the thought that if I don't want to pay tax, I just don't spend my money, sounds pretty good! It allows me to have some control over what I pay in... except that there is still a certain amount of money that I have to spend every month, and I have some serious doubts about the refunds working out that well...

On the other hand, I can see how the economy could slow to a crawl if everybody though the same way. That could be rather disastrous.

Post a Comment


Potential Drunks

Search This Blog

  © Blogger template On The Road by 2009

Back to TOP