In reply to oldsaw:
I can't. Just a throwaway comment. Romney and Cain both look to be responsible businessmen. That counts for something with me.
In reply to oldsaw:
I can't. Just a throwaway comment. Romney and Cain both look to be responsible businessmen. That counts for something with me.
Joshua wrote:poopshovel wrote: He black. He young. Suruh paylin tawk dumb.Your name is poopshovel and your avatar picture says "drink like a champion." I wouldn't go making those kind of jokes if I were you.
What kind of jokes? The ones where I address the fact that exponentially more people voted FOR Obama because he's half black than voted AGAINST him because he's half black? Or the fact that people voted for him because they get their "news" and political views from watching SNL?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
madmallard wrote: why is it fair to argue about tax burdens being proportional.... ...but its NOT fair to argue about social service consumption burdens being disproportionate in a particular segment?
Because it's BS. A billionaire benefits from public services vastly more than I do - he and his business place benefit more from public infrastructure (roads on which hundereds of truck deliver goods compared to one man driving to work, for example). He derives far more value from police and emergency services (because he has more assets to be protected). He benefits from the public education of his workers. He may benefit from government grants or programs that fund scientific research, or programs that promote business, or services that help him find workers, and so on. Maybe he even gets direct handouts in the form of subsidies or tax credits in his particular industry.
Just to make an example, our current governor is the former CEO of a crappy surplus department store chain here in Maine. His company has a policy of refusing to hire full time workers, so that they can avoid offering health insurance to those workers. As a result, the costs of his employees' health care (if they receive any at all) are borne by government supported programs such as Mainecare or Dirigo Choice rather than his company. In this instance, a social program is directly helping the bottom line of his business.
Duke wrote:oldsaw wrote: A pertinent question is what were Obama's credentials that made him a superior candidate over McCain?1) Not Republican. 2) Videotapes well. 3) Young. In that order.
4) No Palin. The number of people I have talked to that voted for Obama over McCain because of that is amazing.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
When you can't measure up to Joe Biden...bad sign.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:N Sperlo wrote:See... the hole is the same size... it just a bigger part of the small girl.Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:OK, so lets compare. Big girl, big hole. Rich guy on a flat tax pays 10%. He's 10% hole. Small girl, all hole. Poor guy pays 10% so he's 10% hole. I fail to see the correlation. Maybe thats your point.DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.Skin yes, but proportionally structured. A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.
No, its not a bigger part of the small girl. It is proportional.
Say the fat girl is 1000 lbs. Yep, shes a heffer. Were going to take away 10% to put a hole in her. 10% of 1000 lbs is 100 lbs, so were going to take that away. Now she is 900 lbs. Ok, a little more bearable, but she has lets just say a 100 lb hole.
Now were going to take a 100 lb girl. Were taking her 10% away leaving her at 90 lbs. That means her hole is 10 lbs. Its a much smaller hole and directly proportionate to her weight as the girl who was 1000 lbs.
So the 1000 lb girl has a 100 lb hole, the 100 lb girl has a 10 lb hole. The hole is not the same size.
N Sperlo wrote: ...wall of text...
I do believe you missed whatever point I was trying to make.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
That smaller girls have bigger holes? Because that IS true...
N Sperlo wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:No, its not a bigger part of the small girl. It is proportional. Say the fat girl is 1000 lbs. Yep, shes a heffer. Were going to take away 10% to put a hole in her. 10% of 1000 lbs is 100 lbs, so were going to take that away. Now she is 900 lbs. Ok, a little more bearable, but she has lets just say a 100 lb hole. Now were going to take a 100 lb girl. Were taking her 10% away leaving her at 90 lbs. That means her hole is 10 lbs. Its a much smaller hole and directly proportionate to her weight as the girl who was 1000 lbs. So the 1000 lb girl has a 100 lb hole, the 100 lb girl has a 10 lb hole. The hole is not the same size.N Sperlo wrote:See... the hole is the same size... it just a bigger part of the small girl.Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:OK, so lets compare. Big girl, big hole. Rich guy on a flat tax pays 10%. He's 10% hole. Small girl, all hole. Poor guy pays 10% so he's 10% hole. I fail to see the correlation. Maybe thats your point.DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.Skin yes, but proportionally structured. A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.
I knew this thread was going nowhere. This post proves it! 
N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: That smaller girls have bigger holes? Because that IS true...
Optical illusion. It just seems like a bigger hole on a small girl... like a flat tax would on a small income. (waving hands like I am pulling you along....)
OK, maybe metaphors aren't my thing... IT IS NOT IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO GET BEHIND A FLAT TAX. The $2250 (that is 2.75 sets of Hoosier R6 in 245/50-15!!!) tax you pay on your $25k is hitting you harder than a $45k tax on a half-a-mil salary.
Simple, yes. Easy to understand, check. Will put H&R Block out of business, sure. But it is BAD for YOU. Why would willingly do something against your best interest. For the greater good? That makes you a commie bastard and an enemy of all things capitalist. Nice job, pinko.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Can you not accept that those of us in favor of a flat tax are doing it in principle and not for our own self interests? If Cain's platform was "Giant Purple Snorklewacker gets no taxes and everyone else pays his share for him, and also, he gets a free car every year" would you like him? Some of us look beyond our own situations.
In my (our) opinion, a flat tax would lower unemployment, raise wages across the board and make the US a more competitive place for companies to be. Better!
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
For the greater good is not communist. Its American.
Edit: Actually, its Utilitarianism, but I wish it was American.
tuna55 wrote: In my (our) opinion, a flat tax would lower unemployment, raise wages across the board and make the US a more competitive place for companies to be. Better!
Unless you work for H&R Block.
If we have a "no loopholes for the poor" flat tax there will be tons of capitalist dollars to be made in privatized debtors prisons. It is a blood from a stone situation.
What principle is it exactly that you are doing it for? That really well off people deserve a bit of a break from carrying all the weight of this country on their backs even though they benefit more too? That those low-life motherberkeleyers that clean hotel rooms need to pull their own weight? Is the $600 bucks they are compelled to fork over really going to help pay down the debt or is it more likely they will just go on welfare and berkeley all that working for nothing E36 M3?
Flat taxes sound awesome if you are wealthy - I get why a wealthy guy is pimping it. I don't get why everyone else is so keen. It sucks for everyone but those wealthy enough not to really give a E36 M3 how much they have to pay.
N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: For the greater good is not communist. Its American. Edit: Actually, its Utilitarianism, but I wish it was American.
It is actually a socialist ideal and a good idea locally - but on a national level it is a naive invitation for corruption, tyranny and misery.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: For the greater good is not communist. Its American. Edit: Actually, its Utilitarianism, but I wish it was American.It is actually a socialist ideal and a good idea locally - but on a national level it is a naive invitation for corruption, tyranny and misery.
Which is the prime reason communism never worked. Just because it sounds like a duck doesn't mean it is though. Some cats sound like ducks.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Flat taxes sound awesome if you are wealthy - I get why a wealthy guy is pimping it. I don't get why everyone else is so keen. It sucks for everyone but those wealthy enough not to really give a E36 M3 how much they have to pay.
Yes.
When I was in about 6th grade I thought flat taxes seemed like a great idea, then I started paying attention and figured this out. Scary huh?
N Sperlo wrote: Some cats sound like ducks.
That explains a lot about the Peking dish at the Chinese place I had lunch at.
Joshua wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Flat taxes sound awesome if you are wealthy - I get why a wealthy guy is pimping it. I don't get why everyone else is so keen. It sucks for everyone but those wealthy enough not to really give a E36 M3 how much they have to pay.Yes. When I was in about 6th grade I thought flat taxes seemed like a great idea, then I started paying attention and figured this out. Scary huh?
Then why do two think the rich fight so hard to keep their loopholes so they can pay 1%? Or is that some bullE36 M3 they made up on the news?
The problem with strict utilitarianism is that if 101 people say it would make them one percent happier to set a person on fire and drop him out of a plane, we're morally obligated to do it. It would be a lot of hassle electing a new congress every day.
1988RedT2 wrote:N Sperlo wrote:I knew this thread was going nowhere. This post proves it!Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:No, its not a bigger part of the small girl. It is proportional. Say the fat girl is 1000 lbs. Yep, shes a heffer. Were going to take away 10% to put a hole in her. 10% of 1000 lbs is 100 lbs, so were going to take that away. Now she is 900 lbs. Ok, a little more bearable, but she has lets just say a 100 lb hole. Now were going to take a 100 lb girl. Were taking her 10% away leaving her at 90 lbs. That means her hole is 10 lbs. Its a much smaller hole and directly proportionate to her weight as the girl who was 1000 lbs. So the 1000 lb girl has a 100 lb hole, the 100 lb girl has a 10 lb hole. The hole is not the same size.N Sperlo wrote:See... the hole is the same size... it just a bigger part of the small girl.Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:OK, so lets compare. Big girl, big hole. Rich guy on a flat tax pays 10%. He's 10% hole. Small girl, all hole. Poor guy pays 10% so he's 10% hole. I fail to see the correlation. Maybe thats your point.DILYSI Dave wrote: ^^^ Agreed. Everyone should have skin in the game.Skin yes, but proportionally structured. A wise old drunk once told me whilst defending his preference for rubenesque ladies with loose morals... "Big girl... big hole. Small girl... all hole". A flat tax is a little like that.
Yep. From Herman Cain's flat tax proposal to drinking, shoveling poop and the size of women's holes. 
I will change the subject.
Cain says Jesus Christ was the perfect conservative who was killed by a liberal court.
Regardless of your political leanings, that is some batE36 M3 crazy stuff your crazy great uncle would say after he had been drinking.
Otto Maddox wrote: Cain says Jesus Christ was the perfect conservative who was killed by a liberal court.
I heard he was a lousy carpenter and not much of a fisherman either. Bit of a wino.
So the 1000 lb girl has a 100 lb hole, the 100 lb girl has a 10 lb hole. The hole is not the same size.
how do you measure the weight of a hole? it's a hole
... although I have guessed their weight using the hole as a index location for accuracy and repeatability
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Otto Maddox wrote: Cain says Jesus Christ was the perfect conservative who was killed by a liberal court.I heard he was a lousy carpenter and not much of a fisherman either. Bit of a wino.
He also hated bankers and like to help the poor.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:N Sperlo wrote: Some cats sound like ducks.That explains a lot about the Peking dish at the Chinese place I had lunch at.
runs to hug his kitties.
You'll need to log in to post.
