Fred's federalism frightens fewest
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was a late endorser of Fred Thompson for President on September 18, 2007.
Late? you say? Yes, for one of the original contributors to Race 4 2008.com which was launched in 2005, I was late. Moreover, I spent most of 2006-7 leaning to Mitt Romney and defending unwarranted attacks against Southerners, Christians and especially evangelicals claiming they would never support a Mormon. Recent endorsements of Romney and his poll numbers confirm my defenses.
Nevertheless, I was won over to the Thompson campaign for many reasons, many of which were received via Fred's radio broadcasts throughout 2007 as he filled in for Paul Harvey.
In those broadcasts, the former U.S. Senator from Tennessee volunteered succinct analysis and policy proposals on every issue faced by America, both domestically and in foreign affairs. He did so with a powerful economy of words and common sense, delivered in a calm and reassuring, i.e. presidential manner.
He has shown the courage to address controversial subjects like deigning to consider drilling for oil in the Everglades, much less the Alaskan tundra, and daring to suggest that we end birthright citizenship. He also was the first presidential candidate to accurately characterize Iran's actions in Iraq as acts of war against the United States.
He is probably the only candidate in history willing to propose that social security benefits be reduced by calculating cost of living increases based on prices for goods rather than wages.
Fred favors the Flat Tax proposal of Steve Forbes that many European countries have successfully adopted and which is far superior to the so-called "fair tax." Fred's proposal is much fairer to lower income families.
Fred even managed to win this Rooster over to a more federalist view on social issues. The fact is that this red-blue divided country couldn't summon the super-majorities required to pass a constitutional amendment praising mothers or ice cream, much less defining marriage or prohibiting abortions.
The former Watergate Committee prosecutor and Tennessee lawyer who sheparded Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts to his present exalted position in the conservative firmament most credibly promises to appoint originalist judges that would share his opinion that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
Fred's federalist positions, while being practical and in accord with our founding principles, have the added benefit of possibly winning over many Democrats and Independents to ensure a large electoral margin, and, a mandate.
Fred Thompson is the man for our times. And any doubts about his passion should be spelled by considering that Fred didn't have to make this effort. He has a beautiful wife and young children, and left a cush acting gig essentially playing himself.
Fred wants to lead this country. He doesn't want it too bad.
He wants it just right!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
“Gosh, no one has told me that there’s any major reserves in the Everglades, but maybe that’s one of the things I need to learn while I’m down here,” Thompson said after talking over state issues with Gov. Charlie Crist.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
and dare drilling for oil on any new place in the US in the first place. He is the only candidate, who when asked about the energy issue, mentions expanded drilling for oil in the US FIRST, before devolving into the required paean to alchemy, I mean "alternative" energy sources.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
to advocate the increased research and use of alternative energy? Suggesting we should drill domestically is akin to Romney suggesting that we should double Gitmo - preaching to the choir of the conservative base. Nevermind that it simply isn't true that he is the only candidate to advocate domestic drilling.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
I am now convinced that your sole purpose here is to be disruptive and a jerk!
If you had even bothered to vist the link GC has so graciously provided to Fred's web site, you would see that he has done exactly that.
You are the poster child for advocates of *monarchical and aristocratical government*.
"Pettiness of mind, ignorance and presumption are the cause of stubbornness, because stubborn people only want to believe what they themselves can imagine, and they can imagine very few things."
Marquise Magdeleine de Sablé
since you are now resorting to name-calling. I am distressed that this site has turned/is turning into a virtual echo chamber for Fred supporters who are almost completely unwilling to turn a critical eye towards their candidate. Many of us who are not part of the FredHead collective have respect for Fred and and his ideas, but we realize that he isn't the best candidate for this election. Pragmatism is not a dirty word - we're not sellouts - we're not socialists. How many people who question other candidates have you labeled a jerk or ignorant?
By the way, I would have seen what exactly on his website? I missed your point.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
I am not calling you names. I am calling you on your behavior.
There is a difference.
I have not found your commenting behavior so far to be constructive in any sense of the word and have explained point by point here.
I said:
"I am now convinced that your sole purpose here is to be disruptive and a jerk!"
To which you said:
"If I am, it must be working since you are now resorting to name-calling."
My comments are not name calling. I am merely pointing out that I am convinced that your purpose, as demonstrated by your behavior, for posting here is neither positive nor constructive. Please point me to an example of your comments here at RS in support of any candidate that doesn't somehow bash someone else's.
Your allusion that Fred is somehow less than courageous with your comment "Doesn't it take greater courage as a Republican to advocate the increased research and use of alternative energy?" is factually challenged as I point out with my next statement. Yout statement also comes from a blog (googled it) that links to DKos as one its' favorite blogs. Hmmm. Suspect in my mind.
I said:
"If you had even bothered to vist the link GC has so graciously provided to Fred's web site, you would see that he has done exactly that."
Here is the web site: www.fred08.com
And with this comment you prove that you have not even read Fred's positions on energy:
"By the way, I would have seen what exactly on his website? I missed your point."
You can't get the point if you haven't read the material.
If you had ever bothered to research that which you so readily and extraneously use to criticize, you would have found this statement from Fred:
"No one solution will solve the energy challenges we face; all ideas must be on the table. Greater energy security will enhance our ability to pursue our foreign policy and national security objectives. Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment."
This statement from Fred's web site disproves the fact and thus the innuendo of your comment. Had you bothered to inform yourself, as those of us trying to have an intelligent debate here have done, you wouldn't have made the comment you did.
As to my comment:
"You are the poster child for advocates of *monarchical and aristocratical government*."
And this quote:
"Pettiness of mind, ignorance and presumption are the cause of stubbornness, because stubborn people only want to believe what they themselves can imagine, and they can imagine very few things."
Marquise Magdeleine de Sablé
I have have just explained above why they are a apt descriptive of your commenting behavior here. If, as your signature would seem to imply, you are so concerned about the dangers of ignorance, you might consider how your own actions and comments reflect on you in light of that sentiment.
And then irony of ironies you come up with this:
"Many of us who are not part of the FredHead collective have respect for Fred and and his ideas..."
Well match, you sure have a funny way of showing it. Frankly, I just don't see your actions matching your words.
And then finally you ask:
"How many people who question other candidates have you labeled a jerk or ignorant?"
The operative word here is question.A question is: a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply.
Innuendo is: an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.
Would you deny that your comments were not posed as *questions* but innuendo?
Further, a jerk is defined as "a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person". Ignorant is defined as "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact". Words do have meanings.
So I guess my answer to that is, if the shoe fits...
Seriously match, I understand your frustration with all the takeyourpick-heads. But there's probably more substantive information available on Fred than any other candidate out there. We Fredheads have done and continue to do our homework. We simply disagree with a lot of people on the importance of the style issue and this is just the primaries. I'm not happy with Fred's poll numbers right now, but I don't have the faith in polls that some people seem to, but Fred's previous electoral history has confounded the pollsters.
If you're going to vote for principles over pragmatism, this is the time to do it. That is what I will do. You may choose not. Fair enough. I'm not going to bash you with that. The general is another issue. Most of us here at RS will vote for any R, with a few noted exceptions by some, when the time comes as will I.
But innuendo and accusation are not argumentive technique that will yield respectful replies. In fact they are not argumentative technique at all; they're just so much flinging mud.
If you've got a serious question, ask it seriously and respectfully. Then and only then, you may properly have an expectation of receiving a serious and respectful reply. OK?
It's late. See you in the trenches.
"[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."
John McCain on Immigration Reform
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Not that I feel the need to defend myself, but since you asked - feel free to look back in the blogs. There are innumerable instances of my coming to the defense of Huckabee, whom I don't support (but I notice you are quick to go after him and his supporters). I support McCain, though not with the reckless abandon that others seem to be able to muster for their candidates.
I still am not sure what it was in this conversation that put a burr under your saddle. I was responding to GC directly, about his comment that it took courage for Fred to say that we should be drilling domestically and not promoting alternative energy. I perceived this as a slight against McCain and responded thusly. I'm glad to know that Fred supports the research into alternative energy, but that is a direct contradiction to GC's post, the post to which I was responding.
In regards to my statement being on another blog - you caught me - I'm the all powerful Marcos of Daily Kos. Good Grief. I don't even know what you are talking about. This is the only website that I participate in, so stop making ridiculous accusations. You lambast others for the use of innuendo - don't be a hypocrite.
Fred is a strong conservative, I have stated this many times. I don't think he defines conservatism and I certainly don't think he is the best conservative candidate. Put yourself in my situation. I joined this website, have enjoyed my time here discussing politics, and now find myself immersed in a near constant drumbeat for Fred. I am tired of the board being clogged with the carbon copy blogs about how great Fred is, how victimized he is by the media, cries for help with Fred's fundraising, etc. Supporters of Fred are quite unwilling to acknowledge any fault with their candidate, but are quick to label others as sell-outs. As a group, you are largely unreasonable and irrational. An unexamined candidate will surely fall, so it is imperative that we do actually engage in a substantive discussion that examines the good and the bad for each of our guys.
It isn't true that Fred's previous electoral history confounded the pollsters. When he ran for the Senate, he started out with a serious support deficit. He was way down the in polls, and stayed there until he became more engaging, more involved, more interested in his campaign. He then won by 20 points. You and I both know that if Fred really wanted this, and was showing the electorate that he really wanted it, that he would be leading in the polls. As it is, his lackluster campaign is resulting in lackluster numbers. I am sorry that he has disappointed you, that the idea of Fred is so much better than the reality of Fred, but defending him against all reason doesn't change anything.
If you want to take some people to task for accusation and innuendo, take a look at some of your colleagues in the anti-Huckabee camp, because it is rich with targets. Since he is far more likely to be nominated than Fred, I would argue that their behavior is far more destructive than my occasional poke at the FredHeads. Regardless, I think that in a couple of weeks the supporters of Fred will be sufficiently humbled that things will quiet down a bit. Either that or the cries of desperation will grow so very much louder. I guess we will have to wait and see. I vote for humble.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
We aren't democrats or moderates or RINO's we don't really care about style. Real conservatives vote principle because we know conservative principles are what's best for America. If a blind lesbian eskimo with leprosy was the most conservative candidate a great many of us would be voting for her.
We settled on Fred because he is the most conservative we've got. It's the message not the messenger for me. Rudy, Huckabee, and McCain are not getting my vote because they aren't conservative. Mitt would be ok because he's at least taken conservative positions for his Presidential run.
Oh and there will be no humble retreat if 1.Fred or 2.Mitt isn't the nominee. There will be shouts of regret and nose holding votes to prevent Hillary certainly, but once again conservatives will be battling their own President on many issues. I imagine conservatives will give no benefit of the doubt to the next President. We did that with Bush and were sorely disappointed.
that our first priority must be drilling for the oil we have, and that will be the fuel of civilization for decades to come no matter alternatives. I favor nuclear. And I would even be receptive to a Manhattan type project on alternatives,
BUT
we HAVE OIL NOW!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
field, they are puny.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
We should be able to defend our choices in a cogent & insightful way.
First thing is we can't change the past. The "lazy" charge against Fred was preset as soon as he announced that he would be a possible candidate. What we have seen are repeats of that template, even while he's doing 5+ campaign stops per day.
Some say he doesn't seem like he wants it. Are you wanting a Billy Mays candidate who will jump around & yell? Fred speaks clearly & deliberately so that he can be understood. If one listens to the actual words themselves with understanding, they are powerful enough & don't need a pitchman to enhance.
Fred is a believer in timing, & is timing his push to peak @ the right time - which I believe is Feb. 5. It may or may not work, however it's a good strategy. There are some media stories that are not formed from the template, & Fred does have the firmest policy & issue foundation among the "Big 5." Fred doesn't have to be your candidate; just make sure your choices are based on research & fact regarding records & issues.
Well-stated, and accurate.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Matchmatic you're stealing my role. I thought I was the one who could fire up the FredHeads into name calling with only mild criticism of Fred.
I don't know who I am anymore.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
The other top tier candidates make expanded oil drilling a barely audible throwaway line after bowing to the OC police demand for windmills. Fred makes it his first comment bemoaning the self suicide we have engaged in since 1978.
The conservative choir base is right on most issues.
You see, Redstate is a conservative GOP site. we think we are right.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
While I'm all for opening up ANWAR, I think a big push for more drilling is mostly as waste of time. I want to get AWAY from oil - that's whats funding out enemies. We are not going to be able to get enough oil here to meet our needs, so I want to go in other directions and have more research head that way. There is no one magic bullet - it will take a lot of things. Nuclear. Cleaner coal. Natural gas. Oil Shale. And yes, Windmills. Bush is an oil man - I don't expect anything more from him and I never did. But I don't know that there is anything inherently conservative about wanting to drill for oil.
About allowing the market to work. Closing the US to drilling because some caribou might be saddened by the sight of a pipeline is not allowing the market to work. Pouring money into "alternative fuels" that are not economically feasible (which is why they are "alternative" and why we have to pour money into them) is not allowing the market to work. If oil is scarce enough, we will switch to other fuels. No government intervention required.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
about depleting a natural resource until it is gone, nor is there anything conservative about being beholden to foreign nations (friendly or unfriendly) for the bulk of the supply of that resource. I think the point is that we need to have something in place before the scarcity of oil becomes an issue, because there is nothing conservative about what will happen to the economy if we are unprepared for that transition. I contend that government does have a place in this discussion because it transcends the priorities of the coal and oil industries.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
was a stairwell. A friend that was helping the old lady gather personal items found a bottle of scotch under the stairwell and started to open it and offer the old lady a drink.
The old lady told him not to open it, as it was only to be drunk in case of an emergency.
musn't deplete a resource?
please, we are paying premium prices funding our enemies
It is suicide not to have drilled for our own oil since 1978. Liberal suicide.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
about depleting a natural resource until it is gone
If we can't produce enough oil to meet demand, it becomes more expensive until the supply CAN meet demand... so there is no "depleting a natural resource until it is gone." How much do you think those last few barrels of oil would cost? More than anyone would pay to burn, that's for sure.
Furthermore, this "Oh no! We're running out of oil!" stuff has been going on since the 1950s. I believe we have more worldwide oil reserves today than we did back in the 1950s, thanks to improvements in technology and new finds.
we need to have something in place before the scarcity of oil becomes an issue
There's plenty of stuff already in place that we could use. Oil is hardly the only fuel we have. It's just the most cost effective right now. That's why we use it. No need for government to interfere and make it artificially more expensive or hand out government checks to every snake oil salesmen with an energy cure-all.
because it transcends the priorities of the coal and oil industries
You give yourself away right here. What does the priorities of the coal and oil industries have to do with anything at all? We don't use oil because the evil oil companies (that secretly control the world) are forcing us to use it. We use it because it is cost effective. If it wasn't cost effective, they would have to radically change their business or go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. We are the people who are in control... not those evil oil and coal companies.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
if you'd rather jump ship and discuss economics, ok. I appreciate that you have a grasp on the idea of supply and demand, but it isn't a matter of those "last few barrels". It is the cumulative effect of rising energy prices on our economy, and the potentially disastrous outcome if we aren't prepared for the move away from oil (whenever that may be). I'm not a member of the Peak Oil brigade, but I do believe that we need to be actively searching for reasonable and viable alternatives to oil. I think we have a responsibility to future generations.
Pray tell, what do you mean by "plenty of stuff already in place that we could use"? I think you are being naive about our dependance on oil, because it is overwhelming. The reason I advocate for a willingness to begin a transition now is that it will be a long, hard road. Domestic agriculture, as an example, would have to be revolutionized in order to cope with a shortage of oil. It permeates every aspect of our economy and our culture.
I have no beef with the oil and coal industries. I have no problem with them making a profit. But again, their priorities have nothing to do with the national security of this country. It isn't analogous to compare them to buggy whip manufacturers, because our economy didn't cease to exist when the need for buggy whips disappeared.
I would suggest that we aren't in control. What choices do I have available when I need to fill-up my car tomorrow? Even if my car was compatible with ethanol, oil is largely responsible for the availability of that ethanol. Our political system is not anarchy. Government has a place and a responsibility. I think that the development of alternative, cost-effective energy sources is one such role.
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
It is the cumulative effect of rising energy prices on our economy, and the potentially disastrous outcome if we aren't prepared for the move away from oil (whenever that may be).
We aren't all that dependent on oil. We are far less dependent on oil to generate income than we've been in living memory. The price of oil has increased nearly 10 fold in 10 years. Yet we survive. So excuse me for not buying into the fear mongering.
You know, we are in the middle of a serious credit crunch, decline in real estate prices, and a steep decline in the dollar. All of those are bigger concerns than the price of oil. And incidentally, the latter is more responsible than anything for current high oil prices. Yet somehow we manage to survive. Economies are pretty resilient things. If I could trade the credit crunch we're dealing with now for a 25% increase in the price of oil, I'd take the oil price hike any day. It would be a lot less disruptive to the economy.
Pray tell, what do you mean by "plenty of stuff already in place that we could use"?
Electricity, natural gas, ethanol, vegetable oil, you name it. And that's completely ignoring conservation. If gasoline was selling for $10 a gallon, you can be sure people would start cutting back. As it is, people spent a tiny fraction of their income on fuel... less than they did even 30 years ago, and it's still having an impact on people's behavior... just not much of one.
But again, their priorities have nothing to do with the national security of this country.
Their priorities don't have anything to do with it. They aren't in in the position to dictate our energy usage. That's Michael Moore talk right there.
Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of command economics... even when it comes to energy. If government planning and control works so well for energy, maybe we should draw up 5 year plans for things like housing and manufacturing as well? Why limit the government's control to just one sector of the economy? Surely the others are too important to leave up to the market, as well.
So yea, I stand by my statement. Command economics and corporate welfare are not basic tenets of conservatism.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yes, let's also build the first nuclear plant since 1978 too, but OIL will still be the fuel of civilization when your children's grandchildren buy their first car. We have oil. Let's use it.
And chew gum.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
brought some lovely lonely Hens my way this year.
Cock-a-doodle-do
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
was the clincher for me. I have commented about it previously.
It speaks volumes about the character of the man.
“Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike.”
Theodore Roosevelt
He's got his own plan, which looks just fine to me. I hadn't heard that he supports the Forbes plan... that is not a positive in my book. The Forbes plan is a massive middle class tax hike.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
as well
smile
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.
I have to say I am NOT a fan of the flat tax in general (and hate the Forbes plan), but I dig the Thompson plan. He has some of the best proposals out there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
For a supposedly "lazy" guy he has by far the best and most detailed plans of any candidate in the race. If Fred is "lazy" what does it make the other guys?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
All the other canidates can do is talk a good talk to make themselves more appealing to voters. None of them have any real plans about what actually can be done for the future of this country, all they have are ideal words that they use to draw particular factions of the party to themselves. What does it say about the conservative electorit that get's so exicited about someone who has no real substance for what they want to do. Sounds like Hillary Supporters.
Most of the comments could have been taken outside, but the post itself makes its point well.
Jeremiah 17:9.
But hey, c'mon, it's gamecock!
==== 13 ====
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Fervent fulminations from Fred Fan!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
that is truly a penalty on being married and is one of the most egregious taxes. I find it appalling that because you have chosen to be married and both MUST work that you should be dinged for it.
I would like to see that addressed in any flat tax. My suggestion is straight up 15 percent on all income from each individual person period. I support Fred but I want someone to talk about the marriage penalty in a country that wants parents to be married.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Before the tax cuts, some couples would pay extra and some would pay in less, depending on the income differential. Now everyone who doesn't make the same income as their spouse gets a tax cut by marrying. If they so make the same income, they break even. I'm not sure when the goal became screwing over the single filers, though, which is what we are doing now.
Fred's flat tax proposal includes the same marriage bonus as is in the current code.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It's the government encouraging families (a foundational element of society), something it should in fact do.
From those who are single (highest rates), to those who are married, to those who are married with kids, to those who are single with kids (lowest rates). I'd prefer to take my tax code social engineering free, thanks. I really don't see this as something government should do.
This is what will eventually lead to SSM, as well. Gay couples want in on the gravy train that is currently reserved for straight couples.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You rule. I knew back in May after just a short conversation with you that you'd be a Fredhead before it was over.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com