<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Democrats Look At National Sales Tax</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/</link>
	<description>"Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:03 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eloise</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-132284</link>
		<dc:creator>Eloise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-132284</guid>
		<description>The Most important challenge GM faces is to win back the trust of the tax payers. Giving away billions of tax payer money is not going to go under good sights of the consumers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Most important challenge GM faces is to win back the trust of the tax payers. Giving away billions of tax payer money is not going to go under good sights of the consumers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131162</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 10:42:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131162</guid>
		<description>Oh if only Bush had been able to get all that SS revenue and hand it over to the Wall Street boys for them to get their handsome cut (SS overhead is extremely efficient btw), before they invested it in, for example, GM stock.

And the timing would have been perfect eh?

Just before the crash, the biggest evaporation of wealth in the history of the world.

We don&#039;t hear about privatizing SS much any more do we? I wonder why.

If Bush had just asked me I could have saved him a lot of trouble (and jet fuel, he made over 100 trips on Air Force promoting this nonsense). His SS dreams were dead in the water. It&#039;s the third rail.

Maybe it was the messenger. Let&#039;s ask GW Bush to explain it:

***
&quot;Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There&#039;s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It&#039;s kind of muddled. Look, there&#039;s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.&quot; 
—George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

D.
-----------------
Bonus:

&quot;Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible
and they are stupid.&quot;
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

A prophet. Republican wasn&#039;t he?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh if only Bush had been able to get all that SS revenue and hand it over to the Wall Street boys for them to get their handsome cut (SS overhead is extremely efficient btw), before they invested it in, for example, GM stock.</p>
<p>And the timing would have been perfect eh?</p>
<p>Just before the crash, the biggest evaporation of wealth in the history of the world.</p>
<p>We don&#8217;t hear about privatizing SS much any more do we? I wonder why.</p>
<p>If Bush had just asked me I could have saved him a lot of trouble (and jet fuel, he made over 100 trips on Air Force promoting this nonsense). His SS dreams were dead in the water. It&#8217;s the third rail.</p>
<p>Maybe it was the messenger. Let&#8217;s ask GW Bush to explain it:</p>
<p>***<br />
&#8220;Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There&#8217;s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It&#8217;s kind of muddled. Look, there&#8217;s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.&#8221;<br />
—George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005</p>
<p>D.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
Bonus:</p>
<p>&#8220;Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a<br />
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible<br />
and they are stupid.&#8221;<br />
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54</p>
<p>A prophet. Republican wasn&#8217;t he?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131161</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 10:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131161</guid>
		<description>The NYT&#039;s references the CBO, a source YOU just cited as credible.

You obviously have no response to this fact so you appeal to the genetic fallacy and smear the messenger.

I did not dismiss the Wash. Times factual claims, I said I didn&#039;t trust their opinions. I specifically said I did not doubt that they had their Nancy Pelosi quotes right but I did not trust them to have the order of events right. I don&#039;t trust Moonies.

Obama did not define middle class as a person making 200k or less. Someone who has a *net taxable income* of 200k can be very wealthy indeed and would typically be a millionaire.

Well, until Bush came along. Now they struggle too.

BIGD: &quot;Bush did not cause the problems with your GM stock. That all took place with Obama in the WH.&quot;

DAR
  GM stock was worth about $3 in early November of &#039;08. It&#039;s was worth $3.50 on January 20, 2009. You apparently don&#039;t know much about the history of GM stock. How did all this &quot;take place&quot; with Obama in the WH?

Nevermind.

D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NYT&#8217;s references the CBO, a source YOU just cited as credible.</p>
<p>You obviously have no response to this fact so you appeal to the genetic fallacy and smear the messenger.</p>
<p>I did not dismiss the Wash. Times factual claims, I said I didn&#8217;t trust their opinions. I specifically said I did not doubt that they had their Nancy Pelosi quotes right but I did not trust them to have the order of events right. I don&#8217;t trust Moonies.</p>
<p>Obama did not define middle class as a person making 200k or less. Someone who has a *net taxable income* of 200k can be very wealthy indeed and would typically be a millionaire.</p>
<p>Well, until Bush came along. Now they struggle too.</p>
<p>BIGD: &#8220;Bush did not cause the problems with your GM stock. That all took place with Obama in the WH.&#8221;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  GM stock was worth about $3 in early November of &#8217;08. It&#8217;s was worth $3.50 on January 20, 2009. You apparently don&#8217;t know much about the history of GM stock. How did all this &#8220;take place&#8221; with Obama in the WH?</p>
<p>Nevermind.</p>
<p>D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131160</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 10:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131160</guid>
		<description>If you cherry pick you can probably support your 36% increase (which is pathetic btw).

Clinton&#039;s market went up 330%. That&#039;s nearly ten times better.

And yes, the republican congress gets some credit for that.

I have a conservative acquaintance who listened to a lot of Limbaugh during the 90&#039;s (as did I). He doesn&#039;t make much but he took what he had and played the stock market during the 90&#039;s. Normally that would make for a happy story but... listening to Limbaugh he was convinced that we were always on the verge of a crash. &quot;Clinton was going to destroy the economy.&quot; He bet against Clinton&#039;s market, buying &quot;puts.&quot; (betting that it will go down).

You did not want to bet against Clinton&#039;s stock market. It was a rocket.

He lost his shirt. Nearly 30k I think. He got divorced. Now he mostly drinks. Still a rightwinger though! Maybe a little more humble.

D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you cherry pick you can probably support your 36% increase (which is pathetic btw).</p>
<p>Clinton&#8217;s market went up 330%. That&#8217;s nearly ten times better.</p>
<p>And yes, the republican congress gets some credit for that.</p>
<p>I have a conservative acquaintance who listened to a lot of Limbaugh during the 90&#8242;s (as did I). He doesn&#8217;t make much but he took what he had and played the stock market during the 90&#8242;s. Normally that would make for a happy story but&#8230; listening to Limbaugh he was convinced that we were always on the verge of a crash. &#8220;Clinton was going to destroy the economy.&#8221; He bet against Clinton&#8217;s market, buying &#8220;puts.&#8221; (betting that it will go down).</p>
<p>You did not want to bet against Clinton&#8217;s stock market. It was a rocket.</p>
<p>He lost his shirt. Nearly 30k I think. He got divorced. Now he mostly drinks. Still a rightwinger though! Maybe a little more humble.</p>
<p>D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131159</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 10:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131159</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re right. FICA is not an income tax. But it is collected and used just as income tax is. So in reality, there is little difference.

As I said: &quot;in effect, exactly like income tax.&quot;

D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right. FICA is not an income tax. But it is collected and used just as income tax is. So in reality, there is little difference.</p>
<p>As I said: &#8220;in effect, exactly like income tax.&#8221;</p>
<p>D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131136</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 18:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131136</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not laughing, but I am pointing fingers at Barama- we might have had a deficit, but we did NOT have to spend the whatever the heck you want to call it- a stimulus it is NOT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not laughing, but I am pointing fingers at Barama- we might have had a deficit, but we did NOT have to spend the whatever the heck you want to call it- a stimulus it is NOT.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131135</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 18:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131135</guid>
		<description>Under Bush, (until the Dems got control of Congress) the market went up 36%- it was the Dems that wrecked the financial worth of America.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Under Bush, (until the Dems got control of Congress) the market went up 36%- it was the Dems that wrecked the financial worth of America.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131134</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 18:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131134</guid>
		<description>I know when you take a deficit and double down, you are NOT reducing it, you are INCREASING it- if that common sense hurts your head, you might be a Democrat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know when you take a deficit and double down, you are NOT reducing it, you are INCREASING it- if that common sense hurts your head, you might be a Democrat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131132</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 18:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131132</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s certainly not &quot;Democratic superiority&quot; by the mental power, that&#039;s for sure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s certainly not &#8220;Democratic superiority&#8221; by the mental power, that&#8217;s for sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/democrats-look-at-national-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-131131</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 18:29:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6688#comment-131131</guid>
		<description>No, FICA is and has been stolen by politicians for years, but it is definitely NOT income tax- allegedly you get it back when you or I retire. Oh, that&#039;s a laugh.
Income tax doesn&#039;t come back- it is used for infrastructure services, or at least it is supposed to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, FICA is and has been stolen by politicians for years, but it is definitely NOT income tax- allegedly you get it back when you or I retire. Oh, that&#8217;s a laugh.<br />
Income tax doesn&#8217;t come back- it is used for infrastructure services, or at least it is supposed to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

