Can someone please bad-mouth and tear down Mike Gravel? He's really growing on me

[burythehatchet]

and, of course, I only want to support someone who can win.

Little help....

[JitterbugPerfume]

1. not me!

I adore him.

Did you know that he was involved in exposing the pentagon papers? He is the senator that got them into the congressional record

His friends include Daniel Ellsburg Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky!

[burythehatchet]

7. I just learned that this morning. Moments like that effect me in a very powerful way n/t

[Warpy]

2. He's nuts enough to want a flat tax

which, IMO, qualifies him as a flat cranium who believes in a flat earth.

Other than that, he's just peachy.

[burythehatchet]

8. Here's a summary of his tax plan. Can you identify the issues with it?

I like some of the benefits, but I want to understand the down side.


Taxes you on what you spend––not on what you earn. So American consumers with low or moderate incomes will automatically pay less in taxes.

Government revenues from individuals are presently funded by payroll deductions from 110 million workers, and from corporate taxes. Under the Fair Tax, government revenues will be funded by more than 300 million consumers, including visiting tourists, and tax cheats who previously reported little or nothing to the IRS.

Eliminates federal deductions on your paycheck for income taxes, Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security and Medicare will be fully funded by the Fair Tax

Restores individual privacy. The government no longer needs to know where you work, what you earn, or what you do with your earnings.

Saves up to $270 billion per year that federal tax compliance currently costs our economy.

Dramatically reduces the price of new products and services, estimated at 20-25%, because corporations no longer need to hide these costs in the retail prices that are now passed on to consumers. This reduction equals the present income taxes being paid.

Creates jobs and economic growth in the U.S. by reducing operating costs to companies.

Encourages international investment in the American economy.

Businesses, and state and local governments collecting the sales tax will keep a small percentage to reimburse themselves for the cost of collecting and forwarding the funds to the U.S. Treasury.

Encourages the re-use products and the purchase of tax-free, pre-owned products.

Changes our consumption-based economy to a savings-based economy, warding off the oncoming fiscal crisis over commercial and private debt.

Saves about 300,000 trees each year that are currently needed to produce all the paperwork for IRS compliance and tax forms

Makes U.S. goods more competitive overseas and more affordable at home, thereby increasing job creation while reducing our balance of payments deficit.

Eliminates corporate taxes and the costs of compliance. These costs are currently hidden in the price consumers pay for the company’s product or services

Changes the American economy – the largest economic entity in the world – into the largest tax haven in the world, enticing international investments in the American economy. Also creates a level of growth (estimated at 10%) and prosperity that will permit the nation to lower government debt and balance the budget, better finance education, health care, transportation, and the rebuilding of our national infrastructure.
» login or register to post comments |

[blondeatlast]

17. One point: "Taxes you on what you spend––not on what you earn. So American consumers with low

or moderate incomes will automatically pay less in taxes."

But they still will shoulder an unreasonable share of the tax burden because necessities are a greater percentage of their incme vs. the upper class.

Unless Gravel's is different, most flat tax schemes allow absolutely NO deductions whatsoever, so lower incomes still shoulder a greater burden than the wealthy.

[Warpy]

23. Taxes you on what you spend is the problem

because when you need every penny to spend on food, shelter, clothing, transportation and your kids, it's unfair to be taxed identically to someone who spends on yachts, pleasure palaces, antiques, fine art, and illegal Cuban cigars, still spending only a fraction of their income at that.

That's what is wrong with it.

Refunds at the end of the year on the first $30,000 for singles and $60,000 for couples with $10,000 for each child won't do it, either, since all workers will be faced with penury over that first year to pay their sales taxes.

It's a recipe for disaster. It's regressive. It doesn't address the problem of wealth inequality and wealth hoarding. It's a scheme only the wealthy could love.

I say this as someone who inherited wisely. My income now comes from investments. I paid a third less tax last year on twice the income I had when I was working. This is wrong and it won't be addressed by his scheme.

[burythehatchet]

25. It would seem that exempting necessities would go towards addressing that

groceries, fuel, public transport, etc

[jpgray]

26. I'm sure the poor will be relieved to hear they don't need superfluous things

And the seeming superfluities with relatively low prices (cell phone? Music? Books?) will bite a far greater percentage out of the poor person's income than the rich person's.

[TahitiNut]

24. People would be taxed buying clothing, but not buying a clothing company.

People would be taxed on the purchase of an automobile, but not taxed when buying an automobile COMPANY.

Show me the sales tax on the sale or exchange of corporate stock.

What about purchases overseas? If we tax domestic purchases and ignore foreign purchases, the wealthy will skate. What about 'corporate' purchases?

It's a REGRESSIVE tax ... penalizing those whose incomes are stretched the most by the cost of living.

It taxes people on fixed incomes ... like Social Security, SSI, and unemployment.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Taxes On What One Spends Are, By Definition, Regressive

Nobody needs to spend money on a Lexus or Lincoln. They can do without. You can do without electricity, food, water, clothing, etc. So, necessities are taxed the same whether one makes $18,000 or $180,000.

This tax proposal only hits higher income earners to the same degree if they spend more money to the exact same proportion of income. Someone making $18,000 would have to spend nearly all their income, therefore paying some constant percentage of all 100% of their money.

Someone making $180,000 could live 5x better, by spending $90,000 per year and paying that same percentage on only half their income. The other half of the income would be tax free. That is, as said, the definition of a regressive tax.

Also, if you do the math of his proposal, his rate is too low to be revenue neutral. And, revenue neutral isn't enough right now, since the gov't needs MORE revenue so they can borrow less money.

This plan is preposterously simpleminded and i can't support anyone who thinks this is a good idea. It's a bad plan from a fundamental principle POV, and it doesn't even work hypothetically.
GAC

[Inspired]

3. Well, he started out good in the last debate

but after awhile he started to sound like a fool. You can't argue with his wisdom on the war. I put his picture in my avatar today to honor that wisdom and his passion for the truth.

He doesn't stand a chance.

[genie_weenie]

4. Oh heck fire yes!

:thumbsup: for Gravel.

[EFerrari]

5. He wears funny rumpled shirts?

[burythehatchet]

9. I guess I could earmark a donation to his campaign for a laundry service n/t

[EFerrari]

13. He's a great story teller. His account of getting the Pentagon Papers

into the Congressional Record is hilarious. He got Alan Cranston to wear a colostomy bag so he could sit in the Chair while Gravel filibustered.

[burythehatchet]

14. brilliant. I shall google his bio and read about it. I'm always drawn to passion

and he seems to have it.

[EFerrari]

19. Here's a link to a segment Amy did with Dan Ellberg, Gravel

and the then owner of the Beacon Press:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/02/1331255&mode=thread&tid=25

[Peregrine Took]

6. I like the guy - a lot!

[zanne]

10. He brings me back to a simpler time...

When I was a kid, a long time ago, there was always a group of crusty old French-Canadian men who'd hang out in front of the corner store and talk about politics. Good old union guys who worked in the mills and looked out for themselves and other workers and talked about "fat cats" and rising rents and everything that ordinary, hard-working people had to deal with. My father was one of them. I miss those old guys, but they're gone for good and I'm afraid Mike Gravel, who warms my heart, will remain a fringe candidate.

[burythehatchet]

12. Alas, I always seem to back the fringe, eccentric guy

John Anderson
Dennis K
Mario Cuomo
Jerry Brown

[spanone]

11. What!! a politician who talks straight???? Never get elected.

he's fresh air to me.

[Forkboy]

15. I have nothing against him at all,but I'm a DK guy.

So I'm already supporting one guy who can't win. ;)

[Rydz777]

30. Nicely put. I want Gore to run - and on the Kucinich platform. nt

[JitterbugPerfume]

16. The Mike Gravels of the world have their function

Change does not occur in the middle, but for good or evil , it occurs on the fringes. If he can make just a few people more aware , he has served us well.:hi: Forkboy:loveya:

[malaise]

I won't

I've been a fan for ages.

[Nimrod2005]

18. ROFL....nt

[Individualist]

20. but, but, he's not DLC!

If you don't vote for Hillary, you're helping elect a republican, you're a troll, you're part of the circular firing squad. You MUST do as the media/neocons/DLC tell you.

(Do I really need to add the sarcasm smilie here?)

[jpgray]

21. "Fair tax" schemes are regressive and extremely harmful to the poor and middle class

How's that?

[JNelson6563]

22. He has endearing quirks and characteristics

Frankly I think he's too brash to get anything done even if he WERE elected Prez.

Not that it matters really, the point is moot. You can vote for him in the primary and campaign hard for him from now till primary day in your state; it won't make a difference. He will not win the nomination.

As long as you go into it with an acceptance of this fact you can avoid the heartbreak of defeat. Just sayin'.

Julie

[Richard Steele]

27. Just one minor criticism: that commercial of his can give you nightmares.

That, and his horribly misguided "flat tax" ideas.

But his outspoken opinions of our illegal Occupation are
like a breath of fresh air amidst the stale rhetoric!
Gotta give him SERIOUS credit for that.

[EFerrari]

28. LOL!

:rofl:

[Adelante]

29. Can't help you

I love the guy :)

[DesertRat]

31. Not me

As long as he runs as a Democrat!

[leftofthedial]

32. he's a libertarian

[librechik]

33. Oh yeah. That's what we need. Another octogenarian with radical beliefs in the WH!

He's worse than Reagan! Cuz he's alert and oriented! And he doesn't need a walker!

(I live to serve)