"FairTax"

[Noah]

In a recent e-mail, Alton asked me to post some comments about "FairTax," a proposed complete revamp of the tax system. The plan has been getting some very supportive attention, mostly from right-wing and libertarian representatives and bloggers. The left has been pretty quiet about it, so far.

From the FairTax.org homepage:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary "consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

That homepage, incidentally, is well-put-together and features an extensive FAQ page.

FairTax strikes me as an idea in its infancy. I suspect that it could never be written into federal law without going through major revisions, and even politicans who have expressed their support (Bush called it "an interesting idea") have tended to qualify their statements or suggest variations. I'm open to debate about it, but I'm basically against it, and these are my concerns.

In my opinion, the only severe problem with our current tax system is that our current administration so thoroughly favors cutting taxes for the wealthiest 5%. The working class bears the largest tax burden, while enormous, filthy rich corporations are excused more and more. So my biggest concern is that the plan automatically intensifies this problem. The vast majority of the wealth held by the rich and their corporations would become instantly immune to taxation.

It seems logical to say that the rich buy more, so they'll be taxed more, but I don't think this is really the case. The poor spend virtually all their income on "consumption," so they would be taxed on everything they make. The rich, who spend only a small fraction of their income, would be able to keep their money in the bank, use it to pursue business interests, or invest it, and never be taxed on it. Their fortunes would sit and grow endlessly, free of any responsibility to the society which made them possible.

Furthermore, because the wealthy have more options when it comes to acquiring goods and services -- importing, for example -- I don't really think they'd end up paying more taxes than a family which earns $500 a week and spends it all at the grocery store.

I also think that in order for the government to maintain its revenue, the consumption tax rate would have to be so high as to result in a widespread "barter economy." When the tax on tobacco products increased in New York City, making cigarettes about $8 per pack, men with cartons and cartons of cigarettes purchased elsewhere appeared on the street, selling them for $4 and $5. I think the FairTax plan would lead to an epidemic of this kind of activity, which would put huge chunks of our economy "off the books."

When I receive my paycheck, I am just as distraught as anyone over the huge discrepancy between what I've made before and after taxes. Perhaps I'm even more distraught than many, because the city and state I live in are among the country's most heavily-taxed, and because I don't make a great deal of money.

But I do believe in income tax. I think it's fair for the government to tax our income, and I think it's fair that the higher your income is, the more you have to pay into the system. I would more likely be in favor of reducing sales tax, and increasing taxes on investments and corporations who can afford it. I believe that America should be a country where it's always possible to get rich, but more importantly, where it's much easier to avoid being poor.

As much as I would love to pocket my complete gross wages, I would gladly pay even more income tax than I already do if that meant that every American could have full healthcare benefits and a roof over their heads, that our education system could once again become excellent by world standards, etc. That's what taxes are for. I'm not advocating the complete redistribution of wealth, so everyone has the exact same amount of money. But I do think it should be redistributed to the point where far fewer Americans live in desperate poverty.

My only big problems with the current tax system are the things Bush has done with it. In 2004, 30 cents of every federal income tax dollar went to the war in Iraq, while a mere four cents went to education. (See this article, and also "An Urgent Appeal to Tony Blair," my blog entry from yesterday.)

So those are my thoughts. Anyone else want to sound off?

[SGTE]

One thing is for sure when talking about the Fair Tax Plan. When someone says that the Fair Tax Plan hurts the "poor" you are talking to someone who has no idea what they are talking about. The "poor" are the greatest benefactors of this plan. Not only do they keep 100% of what they earn, they also receive a monthly rebate for basic necessities of life. Up to the poverty line spending is 100% tax free. Anyone who is truly poor will not be paying taxes at all. Another thing, this is not a plan in its infancy. This is an idea that has floated around for about 20-25 years mostly with economists and the like who all say it is a very good idea. Prices would NOT go up. Prices would remain neutral and in some cases drop. The fact of the matter is, corporations and the "wealthy" do not pay taxes now. Consumers do. All the cost of taxes and compliance with tax laws is passed on to the consumer in the prices of the goods and services they purchase for example 26% of the price for a new house is taxes and compliance costs. This plan helps everyone except the tax lawyers, IRS, and politicians who use the current tax system to buy votes. The current "underground economy" that goes completely untaxed under the current system would now be taxed under the Fair Tax Plan every time the people profitting from it buy goods and services. The underground economy in this country is in the billions, if not trillions of dollars. Illegals getting paid under the table would be taxed everytime they bought groceries. Jobs would be created because America would be the best place in the world to do business. Foreign investors who would not have to pay income taxes would start investing in America again. To prevent the rich from importing I believe there is a section in the bill addressing that issue with tarrifs or something. The economy would grow by 10% in the first year alone based on most eceonmists estimations. You have to be really stupid or really lazy to live in poverty in this country. That is unless you have a serious mental or physical disability that prevents you from working. The "poor" in this country have SUV's and cellphones. In fact in the numbers I saw last summer, the average person rated "poor" in this country had a better quality of life than the average quality of life people in Europe have. So don't claim that there are oh so many people living in poverty in America. Communists use class warfare and redistribute wealth as a means to enslave its people. That should not be the way we do things here. I lived in a homeless shelter for a while when I was a child. My mother worked hard and raised my brother and myself on her own so I know how hard it can be. I am only 24 with a wife and 2 kids, so I know how difficult it can be to make ends meet. But, I am not making only $7.00 an hour at some dead end job trying to raise that family. I developed marketable job skills and work hard to provide for my family. One thing the military does to you is it enables you to adapt and overcome. There is not a job on this planet I couldn't get if I just put the effort into it. That is true of all people. We all have the same potential. Anyone who claims that they cannot make it in this country are not trying. Anyone who blames the government for them being poor will always be poor. They have no one to blame but themselves. The Fair Tax Plan would initially tax at about 20% to be revenue neutral. That number is being revised downward, however, and after the first year or so it could be reduced or the extra tax collected could be used to maybe pay off the deficit or save social security. This plan does nothing but good things for the poor in this country. Right now the only organized resistance to the Fair Tax Plan comes from the Retailer's Association. Their fear is that under this plan regular Americans would be able to save more of their money. To them the American people being allowed to put away money into savings accounts for their retirement or college funds for thier children is a bad thing. One last thing. Education is a mess in this country because of government. The government needs to get out of the business of indoctrinating children. Public education is a joke. I am going to try as hard as I can to get my kids into private school because government schools are a wasteland. Education needs to be opened up into a free market where competeition will create better and better schools. I would love to take the money confiscated from me by the government for education and use it to actually educate my kids instead of sending them to schools where teachers are underpaid and don't care and the atmosphere is one of violence, sex, and drugs rather than reading, writing, and arithmatic.

[Noah]

William, I'll readily concede that you know more than I do about the specifics of the proposed FairTax plan. Its supporters do seem to have an answer for everything, and I was impressed, when reading the FAQ at fairtax.org, with the point-for-point manner in which most of the obvious concerns were addressed. I believe the proponents of this plan are well-intentioned. I also believe it would not work half as well in practice as it may seem to work in theory, for the reasons discussed in my previous post.

The fact of the matter is, corporations and the "wealthy" do not pay taxes now.

Right, which is why I think the thing to do is end Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 5%, and establish new tax cuts for the working and middle classes. The wealthy and the corporations don't pay taxes now, but FairTax doesn't solve this problem. It legalizes it.

You have to be really stupid or really lazy to live in poverty in this country. That is unless you have a serious mental or physical disability that prevents you from working. The "poor" in this country have SUV's and cellphones. In fact in the numbers I saw last summer, the average person rated "poor" in this country had a better quality of life than the average quality of life people in Europe have. So don't claim that there are oh so many people living in poverty in America.

Do you really believe what you're saying here? I have to say I find it amazing that anyone could. Our country is full of people who live in desperate poverty, and who work incredibly hard every day to overcome this, often in a sociopolitical environment wherein everything is working against them. I see them every time I leave my apartment.

I live and work among them. I've been one of them. I have lived in Harlem. Throughout my career as a New York City tour guide, I have worked with over a hundred bus drivers, boat captains, deckhands, ticket sellers, dispatchers, and mechanics. Almost all of them worked their asses off, clocking more than 72 hours a week, and still found it difficult or impossible to provide adequately for their families. I don't know how things are where you live, but the crisis of poverty in America is something to which I bear witness on a daily basis.

Of course there are some people living in poverty who are not doing all they could to overcome it; of course there are some people whose greatest misfortune is an inherent refusal to work. But to say that this applies to all poor people is, to me, a statement of real ignorance. I don't see how you could believe that if you've ever visited the rural and urban extremes of America.

I also believe that we should be able to provide for ourselves and our families without working 72 hours a week. This is wage slavery. We should be able to live comfortably, if not extravagantly, on the fruits of 40 hours a week of labor at any on-the-books job. We should be able to feed our families and still have enough time for the pursuit of happiness.

A good friend of mine, who grew up in the cushy suburbs of South Florida, used to talk about the poor in roughly the same way you do. She thought that most welfare recipients were just lazy drunks, and that homeless people were simply not trying. It was easy for her to believe that, given her surroundings. When she was eighteen, she moved to a big city and saw with her own eyes the overwhelming number of decent, hardworking people whose only fault was that they were victims of "trickle-down" economics. Her attitude toward the homeless and the poor changed virtually overnight.

Communists use class warfare and redistribute wealth as a means to enslave its people. That should not be the way we do things here.

I'm not a communist, and as I said in my previous post, I am not advocating the complete equal redistribution of America's wealth. However, I do think there's a lot to learn from some facets of socialism, and that a policy of social conscience -- universal healthcare being perhaps the best example -- is consistent with the ideals on which America was founded. For what it's worth, the pure communism Marx and Engels wrote about was not designed to enslave people. It was corrupted, perhaps unavoidably, by many a fearsome dictator. Again, I'm not a communist, nor do I think America should be a communist or socialist country. That's not what America is about. It's also arguable that even pure communism could never really work on a large scale. But I hope you understand that Stalin, for example, was no more a true communist than Fred Phelps (of godhatesfags.com) is a true Christian.

Speaking of which, I'm curious about how you, as a Christian, justify your attitude toward the poor. Didn't Christ teach that it's our responsibility to feed and care for them? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least fortunate among us? Didn't he say that it was easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven? And in the "loaves and fishes" parable, wasn't he teaching his followers that if everyone put their assets together and shared, there would always be enough for everybody to eat?

Jesus Christ is your messiah, not mine; to me, he's just a fascinating historical figure and an important philosopher. But obviously a liberal. And, to be even more specific, a hippie.

I lived in a homeless shelter for a while when I was a child. My mother worked hard and raised my brother and myself on her own so I know how hard it can be.

Okay then! You and your family directly benefited from a program of aid for the destitute. And what did you do? Your family summoned its energy and ambition, and its limited resources. You worked hard and lived responsibly and were able to pull yourselves out of the hole of poverty. Why don't you trust that other people are struggling to do the same thing?

I'm not going to get into one of those pointless "I-had-it-worse-than-you-had-it" arguments, but believe me, my childhood and adolescence were also marked by long periods of extreme poverty. My mother and stepfather had a small business which went bankrupt. There were plenty of times when feeding the family was a matter of counting nickels, and when it might have been impossible without food stamps. It certainly wasn't that my parents didn't work hard. The experience made me more compassionate, not less compassionate, toward the struggling poor. I'm not sure why it had the opposite effect on you.

Education is a mess in this country because of government. The government needs to get out of the business of indoctrinating children. Public education is a joke. I am going to try as hard as I can to get my kids into private school because government schools are a wasteland. Education needs to be opened up into a free market where competeition will create better and better schools. I would love to take the money confiscated from me by the government for education and use it to actually educate my kids instead of sending them to schools where teachers are underpaid and don't care and the atmosphere is one of violence, sex, and drugs rather than reading, writing, and arithmatic.

Well, we have a basic disagreement here. I think that all Americans, regardless of how much money they have, have the right to a quality education and good healthcare. You seem to think that a good education should be a luxury item, available only to those who can afford to pay tuition at a private school. I agree wholeheartedly that the underpayment of teachers is a serious problem; that's why I object to paying 30% of my income tax to the war and only 4% to education. As we have seen time and again, privatization doesn't improve things; it replaces the ideal of society's betterment with the ideal of the bottom line. I don't have a problem with the existence of private schools, but I do have a huge problem with the phasing-out of public ones.

When I was in high school, I lived in Florida, a state famous for its mediocre educational system. But my parents made sure that we lived in a town with the best public schools in the state. I was lucky enough to attend the highest-accredited public high school in Florida, and to do so during an era when education was a national priority. I got a decent education. Before we lived in that town, we lived in another, where the public school situation was so bad that my parents put themselves through incredible financial strain to send me to a private middle school for a year and a half. (That was before the bankruptcy.) In private school, whenever anyone had a complaint, they were told, "Hey, at least you're not in public school."

As it stands now, public education in America is largely, as you put it, a joke. I couldn't agree with you more when you say that our public schools are in serious trouble. I would prefer to solve those problems than to eradicate public education. You say poor people should be able to work hard and get ahead without anybody's help, but you also say that a decent education should be available only to those who can afford to pay a lot of money for it. I don't see how it's possible to have it both ways.

I hope you'll answer some of these questions. I'd like to better understand your position.

On an unrelated note, I recently read your blog -- I hope you and your family have a wonderful vacation. Is Spring in the air where you live? Here in NYC, the last few days have been the most beautiful so far this year. It's a huge relief, in this city where everyone walks, to strip down to light jackets.

Have fun and be well.

[alton blair]

On the issue of Fair Tax I think in theory it is the best thing for this country since Kerry lost the election (just kidding), but in reality I can’t see it working. This is one issue Sgt Epler and I are not on the same page about. I agree companies would benefit from lowered cost and could pass the savings on to the consumer. The question I have is will they? The Fair Tax depends on competition in the market place to cause companies to pass on the savings. Lets say you always use Tide to wash your clothes, and that is all you buy. Do you think Tide is going to cut its price by 20% if it doesn’t see a 20% drop off in the market place? No, they will just bankroll the extra 20% profit and leave prices the same. There are cheaper soaps that work just as good out there now, but since Tide has a strong consumer base they remain one of the most expensive. I agree it would not work like this in all sectors of our economy, but enough companies would require a 20% drop off in customer base for the real savings to be passed on. Do you think enough consumers with more money are going to cut back on spending? I don’t.
With all the greed and “keeping up with the Jones” in this country do you think for one second a company like BMW is going to cut prices by 20%? They will use the extra 20% profits to just market harder and make the public believe they must have a Beemer as a status symbol. Now the average family in this country would just be in more debt because they had to pay a 20% tax on that car with no reduction in price. It would just reinforce a BMW as a status symbol.
How many of us have thought I need a new pair of shoes? When in reality many people in this world would love to have the pair of shoes we want to replace, because they simply don’t match the outfit we are wearing? This Fair Tax would work if we as a society were not so materialistic. I believe fair tax just reinforces the greed that we deal with on a daily basis.
Thanks for reading,
Alton

[SGTE]

You both have a profound misunderstanding of the Fair Tax system. You do not get it. It does not matter how much you tax the corporations, they DO NOT PAY TAXES. If you raise the taxes they will raise thier prices. The Fair Tax plan eliminates the loopholes the wealthy exploit to avoid paying taxes. The Fair Tax Plan is simply a transparent clone of the system we use today that cuts out all the corruption and exploitation of the current system.

If somebody has to work 72 hours a week to provide for a family maybe that person should not have started a family. Personal responsibility needs to come into play here. If the cost of living is so high that someone needs to work 72 hours a week to pay rent, then they need to move. Don't get me wrong, I know people are out their struggling. I lived pay check to pay check. Hell, sometimes we still struggle between paychecks. When my wife and I first married, neither of us knew what we were doing on our own. You should see my credit rating. I also believe that there should be safety nets available to catch the people that are struggling and truly need the help. But the fact of the matter is a lot of people on welfare abuse it, work the system, and are worthless drunks and drug addicts. I think all Americans should have the opportunity to work at good paying jobs and the Fair Tax PLan brings about more opportunities for these people. History has shown that the civilizations that used a consumption based tax system faired much better than civilizations using a confiscatory tax system. The current tax system is not what the founders would have wanted, hence the need for a Constitutional amendment to create federal income taxes. I have no problem helping the poor, which at many times would include myself, but I want the system to work in a way that people are rewarded for helping themselves. It needs to be closely monitored with a lot of oversight. I would have no problem with mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Meth is a huge problem in Iowa and there are people collecting welfare that make, use, and sell meth. They probably make twice the money I make selling meth, but the are still collecting welfare benefits as well as avoiding taxes that would help pay for the welfare. With the Fair Tax Plan at least they would be paying taxes. If you care about the poor, then you might want to closely consider supporting the Fair Tax Plan. The poorest Americans benefit the most from this plan. The current system is a drag on the economy, but the Fair Tax would revitalize it. You want to raise taxes on the very people who supply the jobs for the people who need jobs. When you raise those taxes the people you claim to support lose their jobs and will pay more for products they need to buy. Also, the rich people you really hate won't pay a dime in taxes no matter how much you raise the income tax. Many of the rich people you want to tax will not pay income tax because they will not receive an income. They live off of the wealth they have already created and the interest that builds off of it. Under the Fair Tax these people would now be taxed. Then these same people might decide to invest in the American economy again because they would no longer be paying income tax, and guess what- That's right more jobs created for the people who need a job.
As for pricing: I will give you an example of the free market at work. Congress recently let the security tax on the airlines expire. When this happened the struggling airlines thought "great, we'll pocket about 5% more". Well, within the first 24 hours every airline was watching one another very carefully and then suddenly one airline slashed its prices to gain an edge in the market. After that all the airlines cut their prices. When the tax was reinststed prices went right back up.
The free market will force prices down. It always had and always will so long as we stay free. And if there are sectors of the economy trying to pocket some extra cash they can be legislatively punish for doing so. It will not be necessary, however, because people can vote with their dollars. Everyone will drop their prices due to the competition in the economy. If Tide doesn't drop their prices, Cheer or someone else will in order to Gain an advantage in the market. If Tide wants to be competitive in the market they will drop their price or no one will buy their product. Now in a free market society everyone tries to make thier product better and cheaper so that consumers will buy that product. The same forces could be applied to education. If the public schools were forced to compete for students and if parents were given the option to get money back from the government to send their child to a private school, the free market forces would ensure public schools start churning out a better product and it would force private schools to be cheaper. The competition would create a better environment for education. I agree that education should be properly funded. But, the problem does not lie souly at the federal level. Most public schools are in poor shape because of corruption at the local level. That is why no matter how much money the federal government throws at education, it has never gotten better. Well on a final note: Alton who cares whether or not BMW cuts its prices, you are not going to buy one anyway. And Jesus was many things, but a liberal hippie was not one of them. He was more of a compassionate conservative

[Noah]

Thanks for clarifying -- you've made a lot of substantive points here, and again, I acknowledge that you know a lot more about this plan than I do. I still agree with Alton's view that a lot of what's good about FairTax would deteriorate in practical application, but in order to give many of your points the consideration they deserve I will have to learn more about the plan itself. I intend to do that.

I do have a few thoughts on some of your more general points:

If somebody has to work 72 hours a week to provide for a family maybe that person should not have started a family.

YES. I'm completely with you on that. At the same time, though, I think that people who want families should be able to modestly support them if they have jobs and do them well. Also, as you know, I think that access to frank sexual education, contraceptives, birth control, and abortion are essential in helping people to make the family planning decisions you're advocating.

I would have no problem with mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients.

For me, that depends on the specifics. I don't want anyone using their welfare check to buy heroin. I also don't want anyone losing their welfare benefits because they smoked a little pot.

As far as "voting with your dollars," I understand the point, and I agree that people should consider the social and political implications of where they spend their money. But taken beyond theory, I think voting with dollars is anti-democratic, because the more dollars you have, the more votes you get.

And Jesus was many things, but a liberal hippie was not one of them. He was more of a compassionate conservative

I don't know...the picture of Jesus in my head looks more like John Lennon than John McCain. But very dark-skinned, of course.

[SGTE]

I have never thought sex ed and contraception were bad things. As long as it is taught appropriately and the parents consent I believe ever child should have pratical knowledge in this department. As we know knowledge is power.

I think it is fair to drug screen in the manner your are suggesting. Ask Alton, he's been trying to convince me that pot should be legalized ever since we started discussing politics. I am not sure about that, but I definitely agree that pot is a far cry from heroin and meth.

The "voting with your dollars" thing was a metaphor of sorts. What I mean is if the corporations that manufacture products we use do something we don't like then the consumers have the right to "vote with their dollars" and buy someone elses products. Why do you think all tuna says dolphin safe now?

I think Jesus rises above the social and political spectrum and stereotypes.

[Darius]

I completely agree with your point about "voting with dollars". I think that is an extremely under-utilized power of the American people. I wonder how quickly gas prices would drop if people stopped buying gas on the weekends... for example...

I was not familiar with the Fair Tax and now still only can consider myself a novice on the subject. But I am curious what the political opposition has been. I'm still not sure what I thinnk about the points you and Noah have raised, but in my (albeit cursory) searching on-line, I have only found proponents and explanations. I imagine there must be some people making cases against the Fair Tax, politicians, economists... do you know of any and what their complaints are, STGE?

Also, it doesn't seem that the Fair Tax would replace current sales taxes imposed by the states. Is that right? So, in total, many states would be paying 29-30% sales tax, not just the 23% from the Fair Tax. Is that right? Not that it effects the over-all merits of the plan, I just haven't seen anything directly address this.

Thanks for the discussion on this.

Darius

[Noah]

The "voting with your dollars" thing was a metaphor of sorts. What I mean is if the corporations that manufacture products we use do something we don't like then the consumers have the right to "vote with their dollars" and buy someone elses products. Why do you think all tuna says dolphin safe now?

So true!

[SGTE]

To answer you Darius, right now the only organized opposition to present itself is the American Retailers Association (or something like that) Their problem with it is they are afraid people will be able to save more of their money. That's right they have a problem with you being able to save your own hard earned money. After all you don't need it as much as they do....Right.
This opposition is new so I do not know much about what this group intends to do. I was surprised to hear about them though, I thought the first organized effort against the Fair Tax would come from the IRS and the tax lawyers and lobbyists in Washington. Of course there are Democrats who do not like the plan because they realize it takes away one of the weapons the Democrats have used in recent years- class warfare. If the Fair Tax is instituted they can no longer claim the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes because they would be getting taxed more than the poor and middle class who in some cases would not be paying any federal taxes at all.
In regards to the state taxes, yess the state taxes would remain in place, that is until the people start demanding that be changed to a state level version of the Fair Tax. I do not have all the data about the state level tax issues, but I am sure the concern is addressed somewhere on www.FairTax.org since they do seem to have all the answers. I do have a basic understanding of the plan, but when it gets down to very specific issues I must defer to the website. You can sign up for a newsletter from the Fair Tax website and contact any local Fair Tax members in your area. You can even Email any questions you have and they will get back to you as soon as they can. Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz is co-authoring a book all about the Fair Tax that should be out in a few weeks. They pushed back the release date so they could include a chapter about the new organized resistance to the plan.

[Shrugging Avatar]

Let me jump in here and clear up one little thing that kinda stuck out to me. Am I to understand that if I am against a clearly bureaucracy laden government sponsored poverty assisstance, that I am against poor people in general or more specifically against helping them? Cause ... you know ... well ... I'm not against those in need receiving assisstance, I just don't think the government does it right, and therefore maybe they shouldn't do it at all. Maybe I took the quote out of context (I was skimming), but it seems I often run up against the attitude, that if I am not for the government programs, then I must be against the people those programs try to help.

Oh and I am way out of my league here.

Noah said:

Speaking of which, I'm curious about how you, as a Christian, justify your attitude toward the poor. Didn't Christ teach that it's our responsibility to feed and care for them? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least fortunate among us? Didn't he say that it was easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven? And in the "loaves and fishes" parable, wasn't he teaching his followers that if everyone put their assets together and shared, there would always be enough for everybody to eat?

[Noah]

I think that's a very compelling point, Shrugging. I'd never thought to look at it that way. I do believe that a government of the people has a responsibility to assist its citizens who are struggling with poverty, illness, etc. But you are absolutely right -- it's not fair to assume that anyone who doesn't see this as a government responsibility must have contempt for those citizens. Thanks for the eye-opener.

So then -- if one believes that those in need should receive assistance, but not that the government should dispense that assistance -- who should?

[Shrugging Avatar]

I am afraid you have really hit on exactly where I get in over my head. If I knew the answer to your question I would probably have an amazingly successful career in politics or at the very least in talk radio.

I want more options than what I have been presented with.

[aaa11]

runescape gold runescape gold
runescape money buy runescape gold
buy runescape money runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk
Fiesta Gold Fiesta Silver Tibia Gold
Age of Conan Gold
buy Age of Conan Gold
aoc gold
World of Warcraft Power Leveling
cheap wow power leveling
wow power level
cheap wow powerlevel
wow power lvl
World of Warcraft power leveling
World of Warcraft powerleveling
World of Warcraft powerlevel
Warcraft powerleveling
wow fast leveling
Warcraft powerlevel
wow fast leveling
World of Warcraft fast leveling
wow fast power leveling
World of Warcraft power level

[wowposter]

Hi,Do you need advertising displays, digital signages, mp4 advertising players, digital sign and advertisement displays? Please go Here:www.amberdigital.com.hk(Amberdigital).we have explored and developed the international market with professionalism. We have built a widespread marketing network, and set up a capable management team dedicated to provide beyond-expectation services to our customers.
amberdigital Contact Us
website:www.amberdigital.com.hk
alibaba:amberdigital.en.alibaba.com[edfihdfahbadgc]