Fair Tax tactic...

There are some classic tactic that Fair Tax folks use...

not even making claims about the plan itself it just makes you start off questioning the legitimacy...

A Comment from my last fair tax post

The problem with your question is that basically all the serious economists with any credibility are paid think tankers in one way or another. Almost unanimously, those who have put the most study into the proposal agree that it would be a very good thing in the long run. Those who conclude against the FairTax usually do so because they deem the transitional problems to be too tough to weather.

Show me an unpaid economist who comes down against the FairTax and I will show you where he has missed something or changed something in his model.

I made an empirical statement and asked for an example... its bad form to try to flip the question around on me as if its now my obligation to prove the opposite. To try and make it seem... "wow thats obvious..." but never cite anyone isn't an answer. its an aversion.

I'll check out the post he mention when I get home...

fair tax people don't help their case...


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

recent thread...

I have recently had some good threads on the Obama/McCain question. I have justifiably been challenged on a few things...

I've been thinking about it at work today and want to start with this clarification

Logical fallacies are points in an argument where there is a jump in logic... one point does not follow from another. They are by nature part of our way of discussing things... they are short cuts...

The rhetorical challenge is to point out the fallacies and demand clarification. Its not necessarily a shot at the intentions of another. Its just a request for clarification.

anecdotal evidence is the fallacy I thought about at work. It can be justified in certain cases... at least in my mind. In my response I pointed out that anecdotal evidence is a classic tactic/tool of conservatives. Just watch fox news... or listen to your local right winger... we all know them!

Here is a way I consistently use it... and I feel it is justifiable... ya'll feel free to comment on this perspective...

I generalize from personal experiences with highly successful people I've come across in my life... who are next to near incompetent in many important aspects--understanding of basic economics, political institutions, and the way one should treat their neighbors. From this I generalize that there is no reason to assume people lower down on the totem pole are any different--as a broad generalization.

I take from an empirical experience and apply more broadly. Many times its used in what I see as an inverse usage. Taking the illegal immigrant, the welfare cheat, criminals, drug addicts... what have you and say broad things about poverty, will-power, determination to rise above, and hard work. I see this as something that should be challenged...

Is that inconsistent or unjustified on my part? I dunno... if it is i'm in the wrong on that one.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com