Herman Cain...driving the left crazy [Archive]

View Full Version : Herman Cain...driving the left crazy

Bubblehead1980

10-11-11, 01:20 PM

The true racists in American politics...the left/democrats are really showing it with their attitude towards Herman Cain because he is not on the "democratic plantation" as he put it.A intelligent, successful, self reliant and made black man that is not "down" for the (alleged) "struggle" and does not play the victim card really does drive these people crazy.

Lawrence O Donnell is the most recent example with his attempted hatchet job on Cain during an interview last week, but Cain is too smart for a hack such as O Donnell. Anyone else enjoying this?

Cain's interview with O Donnell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqKekzazZIs

lengthy but worth the watch.

AVGWarhawk

10-11-11, 01:30 PM

I watched this last week. O'Donnell should really consider another line of work.

soopaman2

10-11-11, 01:45 PM

JU_88

10-11-11, 01:50 PM

Watched it all, he dodges questions like every other politician on the planet, whats the big deal?
And the interveiwer was piss poor.

AVGWarhawk

10-11-11, 02:08 PM

And the interveiwer was piss poor.

Frankly, if I am the owner of this station I would have sent O'Donnell packing after watching that interview.

Mr. Cain speaks truth. He is honest, not teleprompter driven.

He is not part of the establishment.

Armistead

10-11-11, 02:12 PM

I like Cain, but it doesn't matter what tax policy we have, as long as laws allow corporations to move overseas they would do so in mass. Over the last generation we passed regulations to protect workers, competitive wages, regulations, etc, but we let corps move overseas where they don't have to deal. In a global economy where corps can operate where they want at will there is only one way jobs are coming back to the USA, that's when we accept piss wages, no regulations, etc....

Before corps could operate at will overseas they still made great profits, yet worked for the good of America, now they only work for the elite few.
It's a lie for the GOP to sell tax breaks as job creators, anytime we give corps tax breaks they invest it overseas and more US jobs are lost.

AVGWarhawk

10-11-11, 02:16 PM

It's a lie for the GOP to sell tax breaks as job creators, anytime we give corps tax breaks they invest it overseas and more US jobs are lost.

I agree. Outsourcing has created a problem. I like Cain for a few reasons. I do not agree with everything and will not no matter the candidate. I think Cains 9-9-9 plan is not achievable however he recognizes that the tax code needs to be addressed.

August

10-11-11, 02:20 PM

If it comes down to Obama and Cain next year i'm voting for Cain. If it's Obama and Perry, i'm going with Obama. Obama and Romney?, it's a toss up for me at this point.

Osmium Steele

10-11-11, 02:26 PM

The bosses want Perry, They want someone who will play ball.

Disagree with you here. The public liked the thought of Perry, until he tanked a few debates. The big boys are backing Romney this time around.

(I am not as articulate as some around here,

Bah! You do fine. :up:

AVGWarhawk

10-11-11, 02:27 PM

The big boys are backing Romney this time around. And if these big boys back Romney against the voters wished?

August

10-11-11, 02:29 PM

And if these big boys back Romney against the voters wished?

You mean like overturn GoP primary results?

AVGWarhawk

10-11-11, 02:32 PM

You mean like overturn GoP primary results?

Exactly. I'm really believing at this point Cain is going to be much more prominent than first thought. He is getting his message out with little to no funding. People are responding to him....and in droves.

soopaman2

10-11-11, 02:37 PM

Cain for me represents a sane middle ground. I believe in compromise. I think a fair middle ground to achieve a happy balance.

Sure I find his comments on the Wall Street Protestors repulsive. But that is just one facet of his character. It is an honest opinion and he didn't lie or dodge it like Obammy would have.

As said above, he recognizes the tax system is broken and needs to be equalized. It may mean more taxes across the brackets, but I am willing to pay for services (police, snow removal, fireman, education, first aid, SSI etc)

AVGWarhawk

10-11-11, 02:48 PM

Cain will certainly say some dumb things. They all say dumb things. There is the ever present watch for 'got'cha' questions. It is expected now.

nikimcbee

10-11-11, 03:26 PM

If it comes down to Obama and Cain next year i'm voting for Cain. If it's Obama and Perry, i'm going with Obama. Obama and Romney?, it's a toss up for me at this point.

Curious why'd you would go with the bamster over Perry?

Armistead

10-11-11, 03:43 PM

I agree. Outsourcing has created a problem. I like Cain for a few reasons. I do not agree with everything and will not no matter the candidate. I think Cains 9-9-9 plan is not achievable however he recognizes that the tax code needs to be addressed.

I think his 999 plan just shows the politics coming out in him, he knows it's undoable, was told so, but he liked the sound of it, simple and to the point, even if it means nothing, it's a good campaign slogan.

Fact is, other than the bully pulpit the president has lil to do with passing economic policy.

AVGWarhawk

10-11-11, 03:48 PM

I think his 999 plan just shows the politics coming out in him, he knows it's undoable, was told so, but he liked the sound of it, simple and to the point, even if it means nothing, it's a good campaign slogan.

True, but I pointed out the plan not achievable but Cain recognizes tax code is a mess. This are areas that need to be addressed.

August

10-11-11, 05:05 PM

Curious why'd you would go with the bamster over Perry?

Well it's because I don't feel that Perry would make a better President and i'd prefer to go with the evil I know.

soopaman2

10-11-11, 05:13 PM

Well it's because I don't feel that Perry would make a better President and i'd prefer to go with the evil I know.

This statement is a reality in American politics today.

Who will violate me more gently?:down:

It is supposed to be, who will serve me better.:up:

Something is broken, but the damage control team refuses to fix it.

Bubblehead1980

10-11-11, 05:18 PM

Mr. 1980, I believe he is driving the right crazy too.

The bosses want Perry, They want someone who will play ball.

Herman is a loose cannon, I am (and it is no secret) more inclined to leftists beliefs, but Mr. Cain speaks truth. He is honest, not teleprompter driven.

He don't have the financial support the other candidates have, and is still making himself out to be the stronger, less controversial candidate.

At this point, just like before with Bush the country seems to be seeking an anything but Obama ticket. But seem to be less reckless this time around. When it was "anything but bush, they blew past more competent politicians (with balls and experience) like Mrs. Clinton . Who would have had the fortitude to muscle a non-cooperative congress around.(I am not as articulate as some around here,It don't make my opinions any less relevant:))

You may be on the left I like your analysis, one of few lefties on here who are fair and mostly cordial.

Curious, why do you find Cain's comments about the Occupy Wall Street repulsive? The protesters are quite disgusting, weeks without showering, rampant drug abuse, public sex, littering etc. I am no prude but come on.Too bad Rudy is not the mayor, he would not stand for this crap.These people are not even sure what they are really protesting other than cleanliness lol.

Compare them to the tea party, peaceful, clean, protesters with a real message.Sure the OCCASIONAL crackpot gets in with a dumb sign etc but again, compare to these goons in the Occupy movement.

I agree that Cain is driving the establishment right crazy as well, because he is an authentic conservative who won't do the bidding of the GOP heads.

yubba

10-11-11, 05:28 PM

I don't think I could do 4 more years of this crap, the teleprompter an chief, needs to be sent packing and we need to get rid of the establishment repubicans, because they are no better than the democrats, and we are at the end of our rope. We need to put a conservative into the white house. Cain is the ticket don't let the establishment pick our canidate...The democrats would be off, if the telepromter was running for office...

Platapus

10-11-11, 05:33 PM

I never knew that Cain never uses a teleprompter.

Takeda Shingen

10-11-11, 06:21 PM

You may be on the left I like your analysis, one of few lefties on here who are fair and mostly cordial.
.

Regardless of what his political views may or may not be, I am certain that soopaman appreciates being slapped with what is clearly intended as a pejorative. Of course, you've always had an odd notion of what cordiality entails. :-?

Tribesman

10-11-11, 06:32 PM

I don't think I could do 4 more years of this crap
Sobriety really hit you hard didn't it.

Bubblehead1980

10-11-11, 06:44 PM

Tribesman

10-11-11, 06:55 PM

I was not using it as a pejorative and would not consider "lefty" or its plural as one.
Bubbles, who are you trying to kid?
You have a habit of using left and lefty in the same way you use liberal.
What is amusing is that in political terms you have no clue what left or liberal even mean other than as a perjorative term for anyone who doesn't have a bubble view of the world

CaptainHaplo

10-11-11, 10:50 PM

He is driving the establishment of both "sides" nuts. Anyone watch the debate? It was as much of an attack on Cain as it was anything else.

TLAM Strike

10-11-11, 11:57 PM

AVGWarhawk

10-12-11, 09:15 AM

It was as much of an attack on Cain as it was anything else.

Because Cain is currently a threat.

soopaman2

10-12-11, 09:23 AM

Regardless of what his political views may or may not be, I am certain that soopaman appreciates being slapped with what is clearly intended as a pejorative. Of course, you've always had an odd notion of what cordiality entails. :-?
I dont see being a lefty as perjorative. I am what I am.

There's a quote by someone, and I'm not sure the exact wording, but I am sure I can convey the idea properly.

A society is only as strong as how it treats its weakest members.

I don't call for outright communism, but simply a more equal give and take.
(now to tie it into the topic)
Herman Cain realizes we need more taxes, we do, on everyone.

In truth I hate both sides. I am rooting for OWS (if they get their stuff together better) or the tea Party to emerge as viable third parties.
GE got a tax break that allowed them to actually get money back. The same CEO Imelt is working with Obama as one of his "Czars" (coincidence?)
There is also 49% of people who spew out kids, live on welfare, barely work and get a tax credit for each sprog they shoot out their vagina, as well as a bump in welfare payments.

Maybe I am not so leftist, there is alot of conservative gripes in there. I am just American, and think we should be able to do better.

Cain shows hope. Unless you want to vote for Bachmann, just for the gag factor. And so the Huffington Post has something to write about besides Palin.

AVGWarhawk

10-12-11, 09:34 AM

Unless you want to vote for Bachmann

She lost me with the 666 nonsense. :doh:

soopaman2

10-12-11, 09:46 AM

She lost me with the 666 nonsense. :doh:

Tell me she would not make for good entertainment.

There's an old misogynistic joke about a woman can never be president because she would nuke someone every 28 days... Bachmann would be her.
(it's an old joke ladies, be nice. I would have voted for Hilary personally, big set of cojones on her)

Go on do it, America needs a laugh.:O:

Bubblehead1980

10-12-11, 04:21 PM

Bubbles, who are you trying to kid?
You have a habit of using left and lefty in the same way you use liberal.
What is amusing is that in political terms you have no clue what left or liberal even mean other than as a perjorative term for anyone who doesn't have a bubble view of the world

I rarely respond to you because you are just a storehouse of ignorance but I will play the game this once.

Not trying to kid for anyone and uh yea I know what left and liberal means.

Tribes, you have no clue on how to have a debate, discussion etc without trying to insult someone. Typical tactic, shift the subject, name call etc.

I was actually complimenting soopa that unlike many on here(including you) he can have a cordial interation on here even if we disagree.

Tribesman

10-12-11, 05:06 PM

rarely respond to you because you are just a storehouse of ignorance but I will play the game this once.

Bubbles , you don't have to respond, your posts already say it all, the fact that you responded with a very lame denial just illustrates the point even more.

Not trying to kid for anyone and uh yea I know what left and liberal means.

Yes I know, for you it means as an example every student you are studying with and the entire faculty staff who don't know anything and are all indoctrinated and trying to brainwash you plus all the authors of the texts you are supposed to learn.:yeah:

Typical tactic, shift the subject, name call etc
...perfect, review the topic young man:rotfl2:

kraznyi_oktjabr

10-12-11, 05:22 PM

Aww... guys could you please bury Tomahawk for a moment? This is starting to lose its entertaiment value again...

CaptainHaplo

10-12-11, 09:48 PM

You don't want them to bury the hatchet....

Otherwise the battle axes will come out!

As to the OP - Herman just hit the #1 spot in a recent WSJ/NBC poll...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576627282855836292.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

He is an enemy because he isn't part of the establishment - and the establishment better wake up to the fact that the PEOPLE are the ones that make the call....

Tribesman

10-13-11, 02:05 AM

As to the OP - Herman just hit the #1 spot in a recent WSJ/NBC poll...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576627282855836292.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories)

He is an enemy because he isn't part of the establishment - and the establishment better wake up to the fact that the PEOPLE are the ones that make the call....
Sounds like a mirror of the last election.
The outsider leading the polls with an amazing surge since September.
Maybe the PEOPLE won't actually go for Clark for president as his policy positions show a lack of experience and are unworkable.......but he might make a good VP for President Dean who is the other real choice.:03:

As for the PEOPLE making the call, that would be those people who can choose in each state due to their different primary rules weighed with those people whose primaries are in states which don't really count which then will go on to the people who vote in the actual election whose call will go to college, which means even the final the majority vote of the people can be the losing vote.

CaptainHaplo

10-13-11, 05:55 AM

As for the PEOPLE making the call, that would be those people who can choose in each state due to their different primary rules weighed with those people whose primaries are in states which don't really count which then will go on to the people who vote in the actual election whose call will go to college, which means even the final the majority vote of the people can be the losing vote.

True in that winning the majority alone does not win you the contest. Then again, that is the case for primaries as well as for the presidency since we have the electoral college.

What is interesting is that this time around, with so many states moving their GOP primaries to earlier dates, and thus losing half their delegates because of it - it really changes the map when it comes to how important certain contests are.

Now, how "ironic" is it that Cain, who has surged past Romney in FL, would only get half as many delegates as he would have otherwise should he keep that momentum and win there? An establishment plot, or an unfortunate circumstance for the candidate?

Is the "jockeying" by the state GOP leaders on primary dates - with their subsequent losing of half their delegates to the convention - a scheme to make sure the "chosen" candidate wins?

A question I was asked yesterday, thought I would get feedback on it.

gimpy117

10-13-11, 08:18 AM

Cain for me represents a sane middle ground. I believe in compromise. I think a fair middle ground to achieve a happy balance.

as the resident belligerent liberal, I like this. I don't know if cain is any of this, but, I welcome a republican that actually supports individual liberties in all things, not just with guns, atheists and gays be dammed! I also would love to see a candidate who is also fiscally conservative when it comes to the defense budget, not just on all the social programs.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 09:05 AM

You have to love the media or hate it......from the link above and posted again:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576627282855836292.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Former restaurant-industry executive Herman Cain

Two days ago he was just the pizza guy!

Tribesman

10-13-11, 09:47 AM

What is interesting is that this time around, with so many states moving their GOP primaries to earlier dates, and thus losing half their delegates because of it - it really changes the map when it comes to how important certain contests are.

But how many of the penalisable states are before the date?
Are there more or less States going to take penalties than in 2008?
It changes some contests on the map in terms of importance, but is it really a major change or a even a bigger change than last time.

Is the "jockeying" by the state GOP leaders on primary dates - with their subsequent losing of half their delegates to the convention - a scheme to make sure the "chosen" candidate wins?

I think the jockeying is just the usual combination of local preferences mixed with the hope of local pork

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 09:57 AM

Is the "jockeying" by the state GOP leaders on primary dates - with their subsequent losing of half their delegates to the convention - a scheme to make sure the "chosen" candidate wins?

Quite possibly, yes. Redistricting happens constantly at the state level. In doing so it changes not only the number of voters in the newly changed district but also the demographics of the district. It can and does sway an election at a state level. Happens in MD all the time. There is no reason primary dates could not change the outcome and assure a "win" for their "guy."

soopaman2

10-13-11, 10:07 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-leaps-front-gop-primary-pack-stay-134944562.html

Romney looks so creepy, Cain beats him over the head repeatedly and he just puts on that fake smile.

This Cain thing has legs.

I really wished Hilary ran against Obama...
She possesses a spine and has more experience as a first lady, than Obama has as the actual Commander in Chief.

Until then, there is Cain. Who is as close to the center as you can be without ticking off the hardcore red states.

August

10-13-11, 10:10 AM

I really wished Hilary ran against Obama...

But she did run against Obama in the Primary. If she wasn't a crooked lawyer she might have won too...

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:11 AM

Hillary was snookered by her own party in the last election IMO. August, they wanted BO in the WH.

soopaman2

10-13-11, 10:16 AM

But she did run against Obama in the Primary. If she wasn't a crooked lawyer she might have won too...

I meant this time around. I am the resident lefty ya know. She has proven her worth by touring the world and staring women hating arabs in the face and talking to them as equals.
I just vote for whoever is most competent in my eyes, or best for the country.

I voted for GW twice, because love him or hate him, he was honest. And you knew what he was thinking. Sincere, and at time emotional.

Voted for Obama , thanks Palin you dolt. Mc Cain is close to center and was even accused of being a RINO (Repub in name only).

As of now, I'm torn between Herman Cain or Lady GaGa as a write in.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:20 AM

I meant this time around. I am the resident lefty ya know. She has proven her worth by touring the world and staring women hating arabs in the face and talking to them as equals.
I just vote for whoever is most competent in my eyes, or best for the country.

Hillary should have been the candidate last go around. The establishment did not what that. BO was groomed and pushed through. At every turn he was on the news. It was a well executed plan started long before the campaigning began. Hillary did not have a chance in her own party. I would have voted for Hillary.

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 10:24 AM

Until then, there is Cain. Who is as close to the center as you can be without ticking off the hardcore red states.

I'm sorry, someone who says that Planned Parenthood's mission is to kill black babies is not close to center. Someone who would discriminate against people based upon their religion is not a centrist. Inncreasing the deficit by eliminating taxes is not a center position. Someone that wants to see Warren Buffett taxed at the same rate as a McDonald's cashier is not a centrist candidate.

If you actually look at what he's advocating for, he's about as hard right as they come.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:27 AM

I'm sorry, someone who says that Planned Parenthood's mission is to kill black babies is not close to center. Someone who would discriminate against people based upon their religion is not a centrist. Inncreasing the deficit by eliminating taxes is not a center position. Someone that wants to see Warren Buffett taxed at the same rate as a McDonald's cashier is not a centrist candidate.

If you actually look at what he's advocating for, he's about as hard right as they come.

Can you cite your sources for Planned Parenthood, discriminate because of religion and increasing the deficit by eliminating taxes.

kraznyi_oktjabr

10-13-11, 10:36 AM

I voted for GW twice, because love him or hate him, he was honest. And you knew what he was thinking. Sincere, and at time emotional.Who is GW? I'm foreigner and those initials don't ring a bell.

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 10:39 AM

Can you cite your sources for Planned Parenthood, discriminate because of religion and increasing the deficit by eliminating taxes.

Planned parenthood: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/herman-cain-it-s-not-planned-parenthood-no-it-s-planned-genocide

Muslims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o

And his tax proposal, you can find arguments on both sides. Center for American Progress did a study that showed it would bankrupt the country, and then there's conservative groups and analysts that say it would make ice cream and rainbows rain from the sky. I tend to believe those that say it reduced revenue, as the idea it's based around, the Laffer Curve (simply put, it suggests that the lower tax rates are, the more revenue the government earns due to increased economic activity) , has been proven to be a bunch of bull.

soopaman2

10-13-11, 10:42 AM

Who is GW? I'm foreigner and those initials don't ring a bell.

George Walker Bush (Jr, Dubya) sorry. :)

GW is used to distinguish him from his father.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:42 AM

Planned parenthood: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/herman-cain-it-s-not-planned-parenthood-no-it-s-planned-genocide

Muslims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o

And his tax proposal, you can find arguments on both sides. Center for American Progress did a study that showed it would bankrupt the country, and then there's conservative groups and analysts that say it would make ice cream and rainbows rain from the sky. I tend to believe those that say it reduced revenue, as the idea it's based around, the Laffer Curve (simply put, it suggests that the lower tax rates are, the more revenue the government earns due to increased economic activity) , has been proven to be a bunch of bull.

Do you think that Cain is possibly right about Planned Parenthood? Can we simply dismiss his statement? As far as the Muslim deal, he said any that are part of the Jihad run on the country. He did clarify his statement.

As far as his tax proposal....9-9-9 has little chance of getting approved however Cain recognizes the tax code needs work. I agree.

August

10-13-11, 10:43 AM

Hillary was snookered by her own party in the last election IMO. August, they wanted BO in the WH.

I think they also realized that Hillary couldn't win in the General election. Like Palin she is just too polarizing a figure.

Sailor Steve

10-13-11, 10:46 AM

I am the resident lefty ya know.
Mookie held that title long before you came along. Credit where credit is due. And CCIP is a true communist, and makes you look like you're hardcore right.

She has proven her worth by touring the world and staring women hating arabs in the face and talking to them as equals.
I just vote for whoever is most competent in my eyes, or best for the country.
I can't think of anyone worse for the country than someone who tried to sneak a socialist healthcare bill in while she wasn't even an elected official.

I'm about as centrist as you can get. I've been called a right-wing nutjob and a flaming liberal, based on my stance on particular subjects, but I hold with neither side, and I believe that "sides" are the bane of any political discussion.

Who is GW? I'm foreigner and those initials don't ring a bell.
That would be our last president, George "Dubya" Bush.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:49 AM

I think they also realized that Hillary couldn't win in the General election. Like Palin she is just too polarizing a figure.

I don't. She was squashed by her own people. Again, they wanted BO in the WH. IMO.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:52 AM

We can simply dismiss Cain on his statement concerning Planned Parenthood:

In 2006, Planned Parenthood performed 289,750 abortions, or approximately 23% of all abortions, making them the largest abortion provider in the United States. Even as the overall national abortion rate goes down, Planned Parenthood continues to perform more abortions every year.

Sources: Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2005-2006 Annual Report. http://www.lifeissues.org/pp/report_05-06.pdf.

http://www.whyprolife.com/planned-parenthood/

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 10:52 AM

Do you think that Cain is possibly right about Planned Parenthood?

If it weren't for Planned Parenthood providing birth control to women who couldn't otherwise afford it, I personally would have been an unplanned father. And because they provide birth control to those who can't afford it, they make abortions unnecessary. I have no idea how the anti-abortion crowd has twisted that into "Planned Parenthood's sole mission is abortions." Abortion makes up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. 83% of their business is preventing abortions by making them unnecessary. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm)

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 10:53 AM

We can simply dismiss Cain on his statement concerning Planned Parenthood:

Sources: Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2005-2006 Annual Report. http://www.lifeissues.org/pp/report_05-06.pdf.

http://www.whyprolife.com/planned-parenthood/

Maybe they're the largest abortion provider by numbers because they're a larger organization than the abortion clinic that only has one office? That's a useless and misleading statistic.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:54 AM

If it weren't for Planned Parenthood providing birth control to women who couldn't otherwise afford it, I personally would have been an unplanned father. And because they provide birth control to those who can't afford it, they make abortions unnecessary. I have no idea how the anti-abortion crowd has twisted that into "Planned Parenthood's sole mission is abortions." Abortion makes up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. 83% of their business is preventing abortions by making them unnecessary. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm)

Mookie...you can get condoms at school!!!! My 13 year old daughter can get them. We can take the can't afford it off the table.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 10:55 AM

Maybe they're the largest abortion provider by numbers because they're a larger organization than the abortion clinic that only has one office? That's a useless and misleading statistic.

Does not matter....the facts are 289750 abortions are performed. That simple.

If this was a third world country Clooney would say this is genocide. Here in the US it is called "choice."

August

10-13-11, 10:56 AM

I don't. She was squashed by her own people. Again, they wanted BO in the WH. IMO.

And again: Why was she squashed?

IMO, because she couldn't win, that's why.

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 10:58 AM

Mookie...you can get condoms at school!!!! My 13 year old daughter can get them. We can take the can't afford it off the table.

Can she get birth control pills at school for free as well? IUDs? Come on now, let's be honest. The "get rid of Planned Parenthood" meme is a purely moral play from the religious right about enforcing abstinence. If you remove one of the largest sources of low cost birth control in this country, you're going to see the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions skyrocket. That makes absolutely no sense if your goal is to prevent abortions.

Does not matter....the facts are 289750 abortions are performed. That simple.

If this was a third world country Clooney would say this is genocide. Here in the US it is called "choice."

Regardless of your feelings on abortion, Planned Parenthood prevents more pregnancies than they terminate, by far.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 11:00 AM

And again: Why was she squashed?

Because BO was groomed years before. First black POTUS! Articulate and clean like Biden stated. Will swing the black vote easily. Win the media over which they did with shivers up their legs. It was well planned. Hillary was not in the plan. She would not be a puppet with Bill standing behind her. This is how I see it. Hillary would have beat McCain easily IMO.

soopaman2

10-13-11, 11:05 AM

:03:Mookie held that title long before you came along. Credit where credit is due. And CCIP is a true communist, and makes you look like you're hardcore right.

Fair enough. , at least I know I won't be horsewhipped the hardest for wanting people to eat. (As long as they aren't driving a nicer car then me to the grocery store) God bless welfare queens with Benzes, and new cars while I drive an 8 year old F150

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 11:07 AM

Fair enough. , at least I know I won't be horsewhipped the hardest for wanting people to eat. (As long as they aren't driving a nicer car then me to the grocery store)

Hah. You just have to learn how to horsewhip back. But fairly, rationally, logically, and without getting into name calling. :know:

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 11:07 AM

Can she get birth control pills at school for free as well? IUDs? Come on now, let's be honest. The "get rid of Planned Parenthood" meme is a purely moral play from the religious right about enforcing abstinence. If you remove one of the largest sources of low cost birth control in this country, you're going to see the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions skyrocket. That makes absolutely no sense if your goal is to prevent abortions.

Regardless of your feelings on abortion, Planned Parenthood prevents more pregnancies than they terminate, by far.

Pills, IUD, come on Mookie, what else do we need to provide? Glad we can make it all convenient to throw down in the back seat without having to stop to roll out a rubber. :doh: Cut me a break. Simple fact remains a condom can be had just about anywhere free of charge. Did Cain say his goal was to prevent abortions? No, he does not agree with the procedure. He stated he does not like the operation of PPH. But, he will state it like he has in interviews he has had of late . We agree to disagree now lets talk about the economy.

Tchocky

10-13-11, 11:08 AM

Do you think that Cain is possibly right about Planned Parenthood? Can we simply dismiss his statement?

No, and yes. Genocide has a rigorous and specific definition.

August

10-13-11, 11:10 AM

Because BO was groomed years before. First black POTUS! Articulate and clean like Biden stated. Will swing the black vote easily. Win the media over which they did with shivers up their legs. It was well planned. Hillary was not in the plan. She would not be a puppet with Bill standing behind her. This is how I see it. Hillary would have beat McCain easily IMO.

Nice theory but it doesn't account for the fact that primary winners are chosen by the party members in 50 different state contests.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 11:14 AM

Nice theory but it doesn't account for the fact that primary winners are chosen by the party members in 50 different state contests.

And there is no back room dealings either. :O:

August

10-13-11, 11:17 AM

And there is no back room dealings either. :O:

All kinds of back room dealings i'm sure but you'll have to show me where the primary results were ignored in favor of Obama before i'll believe it.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 11:21 AM

All kinds of back room dealings i'm sure but you'll have to show me where the primary results were ignored in favor of Obama before i'll believe it.

I can not and as you stated, a theory, however in the end, the entire campaign was cleverly orchestrated IMO. We can look at this run for the repubs and see that "Romney is their guy" attitude. This drives the media, opinions and voting.

But, I understand your position. Obama looked to be the sure thing. Hillary less of a chance to win.

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 12:02 PM

Pills, IUD, come on Mookie, what else do we need to provide? Glad we can make it all convenient to throw down in the back seat without having to stop to roll out a rubber. :doh: Cut me a break. Simple fact remains a condom can be had just about anywhere free of charge.

Why would you want to limit the types or number of birth control options if the goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancy? It has nothing to do with making it convenient to have sex or not - it's not your business or mine to pass a moral judgement on someone's sexual behavior. It does become our business when unwanted pregnancies force women onto the WIC rolls, or if you're an anti-abortion advocate, as Hermann Cain is, into the abortion clinic. Defunding Planned Parenthood is about as stupid an idea as you can get, unless your goal is to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies in America.

As a taxpayer, would you rather pay a couple bucks now for birth control pills, or would you rather pay 18 years of WIC benefits, plus all of the other societal costs of children being raised by mothers who don't want them? (crime, poverty, etc etc) Planned Parenthood (a Republican idea I may add) is an investment that makes sense if you consider yourself any sort of fiscal conservative.

antikristuseke

10-13-11, 01:00 PM

Mookie, politics is not about sense or reason, it is about geting votes, appealing to emotion works better.:88)

Sailor Steve

10-13-11, 01:03 PM

while I drive an 8 year old F150
Cool truck! My last car was a 1996 Escort wagon, which I lost to an accident in 2005. I haven't owned a vehicle since.

Tchocky

10-13-11, 01:03 PM

Osmium Steele

10-13-11, 01:56 PM

Planned Parenthood (a Republican idea I may add)

WHAT?!? Source please?

Margaret Sanger, and avowed socialist and member of the Socialist Party founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which became Planned Parenthood.

She was about as far left as you can get politically.

Margaret Sanger's experiences with slum mothers who begged for information about how to avoid more pregnancies transformed her into a social radical. She joined the Socialist Party, a political party that believes the government should own and distribute all goods, began attending radical rallies, and read everything she could about birth control practices. She became convinced that oversized families were the basic cause of poverty. In 1913 she began publishing a monthly newspaper, the Woman Rebel, in which she passionately urged family limitation and first used the term "birth control." After only six issues, she was arrested and charged with distributing "obscene" literature through the mails. She fled to Europe, where she continued her birth control studies, visiting clinics and talking with medical researchers.

SOURCE (http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ro-Sc/Sanger-Margaret.html)

Osmium Steele

10-13-11, 02:01 PM

I doubt Cain is a real contender,

Nobody considered John McCain a real contender this far out from the election.

Rudy Gulliani and Fred Thompson were leading all polls in October 2007.

Long way to go yet.

August

10-13-11, 02:06 PM

Nobody considered John McCain a real contender this far out from the election.

Yep. Nobody figured Barack Obama to be a real contender at this point either.

Tchocky

10-13-11, 02:09 PM

Nobody considered John McCain a real contender this far out from the election. McCain had plenty of fundraising and campaign trouble at this stage, true. But he also had electoral experience and past primary front-runner status, which made his resurgence more explicable.

Rudy Gulliani and Fred Thompson were leading all polls in October 2007. Rudy had media presence and name recognition, but even with that his gamble to skip the early primary states cost him a chance at the nomination. Cain has got very little apart from current attention as the "Not-Romney". It will pass and he won't be the nominee. Nothing is certain, but I wouldn't start buying up Cain futures on Intrade.

Cain could do very well in a couple of caucus states, but I doubt he'll be able to mount a visible operation in the more hotly-contended primary states, especially when it looks like they'll be earlier than normal. Following Huckabee's flight path, I think.

Long way to go yet.Indeed.

August - You've got a point there, but I think that from the beginning the Obama campaign was organised for a long primary battle, and that was evident all along, especially through the fundraising network. I don't see any of that with Cain at the moment. Things will change.

August

10-13-11, 02:18 PM

August - You've got a point there, but I think that from the beginning the Obama campaign was organised for a long primary battle, and that was evident all along, especially through the fundraising network. I don't see any of that with Cain at the moment. Things will change.

Yeah he has to break away from the Mittster. Once he's seen as something more than a flash in the pan fundraising will get easier.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 02:36 PM

Why would you want to limit the types or number of birth control options if the goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancy? It has nothing to do with making it convenient to have sex or not - it's not your business or mine to pass a moral judgement on someone's sexual behavior.

I did not say I wanted to limit the types or number of birth control options. I stated you can get a condom with a lollipop at your local schools nurses office. FREE. I did not say I was passing judgement on anyone's behavior. Sexual or otherwise. Everyone can screw like rabbits or a rabbit. What you do behind closed doors is not my business. However, there are some sexual acts that for lack of a better word defy normal. That is a entire other thread. The idea of PPH is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If PPH is performing that many abortions then perhaps their strategy needs to be addressed. It does not look like it is working. Unless abortion is considered a form of birth control. You tell me.

But again, Cain has his opinion. Right or wrong in the public's eye it is just an opinion. He is not stumping to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It does become our business when unwanted pregnancies force women onto the WIC rolls

Really? Find me the dead beat dad shirking his responsibility. It takes two to tango. Who is really forcing the women into the WIC rolls? This is an entire poorly managed system as well. Child welfare and support by the donor...there is none. But yes, it is now our business. Just like the new Obamacare..oh never mind.

As a taxpayer, would you rather pay a couple bucks now for birth control pills, or would you rather pay 18 years of WIC benefits, plus all of the other societal costs of children being raised by mothers who don't want them? (crime, poverty, etc etc) Planned Parenthood (a Republican idea I may add) is an investment that makes sense if you consider yourself any sort of fiscal conservative.

No, I would rather find the father and have him pay for the support. But this is left to the state. At any rate, I do not have a issue with PPH. Cain does over the abortion issue. He did not say he wanted to defund them that I'm aware of.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 02:37 PM

I doubt Cain is a real contender, he doesn't seem to have a real political organisation in any of the early primary states. That combined with his taking time out for a book tour, makes me think he's planning a Huckabee run - i.e. forming an exploratory committee for a Fox show.

Book tour is over. He stated today he is getting more staff. BTW, the books title, "This is Herman Cain. My Road to the Presidency". Not a bad way to campaign and make some dollars for the campaign.

August

10-13-11, 03:02 PM

Book tour is over. He stated today he is getting more staff. BTW, the books title, "This is Herman Cain. My Road to the Presidency". Not a bad way to campaign and make some dollars for the campaign.

I was thinking the same thing. A book is a great way to get ones message out in longer chunks than the sound bite the media usually cuts it down to...

antikristuseke

10-13-11, 03:21 PM

I was thinking the same thing. A book is a great way to get ones message out in longer chunks than the sound bite the media usually cuts it down to...

While I agree with you in principle, how likely do you think it is that enough people will read the book for it to make any difference in voting results?

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 03:24 PM

While I agree with you in principle, how likely do you think it is that enough people will read the book for it to make any difference in voting results?

I don't think he was peddling the book for a vote. It was a book tour as stated. Simply peddling a book and getting a free campaign message out as a benefit. Sounds like a good business decision to me. :DL

MothBalls

10-13-11, 04:23 PM

I don't think he was peddling the book for a vote. It was a book tour as stated. Simply peddling a book and getting a free campaign message out as a benefit. Sounds like a good business decision to me. :DLSounds to me more like "if you have something intelligent to say, people will listen". The more I listen to him, the more he makes sense.

The question I would ask him is; Why run for office? With his skill set and resume, he could make easily more money. Everyone has a motive, I'd like to know what his is.

August

10-13-11, 04:54 PM

Sounds to me more like "if you have something intelligent to say, people will listen". The more I listen to him, the more he makes sense.

The question I would ask him is; Why run for office? With his skill set and resume, he could make easily more money. Everyone has a motive, I'd like to know what his is.

Money isn't everything.

AVGWarhawk

10-13-11, 05:34 PM

Platapus

10-13-11, 06:14 PM

Way way too early to tell these things. Much can and probably will change in the next year.

mookiemookie

10-13-11, 08:40 PM

Money isn't everything.

In presidential primaries, it certainly is.

August

10-13-11, 08:53 PM

In presidential primaries, it certainly is.

But the question was "why run for office". Has a candidate ever come out of an election having made money rather than spent it?

Onkel Neal

10-14-11, 11:32 AM

Cain is not just the non-Romney, he is also the anti-Obama.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/herman_cain_campaign_his_appeal_to_republicans_is_ that_he_keeps_.html

Once people get to know Perry, he'll sink faster than the SS Perot. Romney? I like him, he has solid credentials, but he has that religon thing hanging over his head :(

Cain? Could he be our first African-American President? Maybe so! I'm leaning his direction. High fences and wide open doors. (http://exposethemedia.com/2011/09/16/herman-cain-on-illegal-immigration-border-security/)Brilliant.

AVGWarhawk

10-14-11, 11:43 AM

I think Perry is done at this point. Romney, not as appealing IMO as Cain. For me, Cain is not the establishment. He is focused on the economy. This is where we need to be. Having discussions about the economy. The others in the field as potentials will not beat Obama IMO. IMO, Cain is the only one with a shot at making a run to the WH with success.

Edit: He is now the flavor of the month. At the rate he is going....flavor of the year.

Now the hard questions will be asked. He needs to get some solid answers.

CaptainHaplo

10-14-11, 07:23 PM

The question I would ask him is; Why run for office? With his skill set and resume, he could make easily more money. Everyone has a motive, I'd like to know what his is.

He has answered that question. He wants to insure his grandchildren have the same opportunities and a better life than he did. He wants to insure they have a country that gives them a chance to be whatever they choose to make themselves into. He feels (as many others do) that the road we are on currently will not insure that.

Really? Find me the dead beat dad shirking his responsibility.

No, I would rather find the father and have him pay for the support.

While the vast majority of "deadbeat" parents are male - this is a pet peeve of mine. I am a single dad - my son sees his mother as ordered by the court every other weekend. She gets her weeks in the summer. He has been with me for going on 5 years. His mother has never paid a single dime to support him. In fact, just this year it was found that she was collecting welfare benefits in his name fraudulently. Still the system does nothing about it except stop the portion of benefits that were "his".

UNREAL!:stare:

yubba

10-14-11, 08:08 PM

Well it comes down to right vs left, right vs wrong, good vs evil, capitalism vs socialism, god I hope I'm on the right side this time, I backed the wrong horse the last time.

August

10-14-11, 08:16 PM

Well it comes down to right vs left, right vs wrong, good vs evil, capitalism vs socialism, god I hope I'm on the right side this time, I backed the wrong horse the last time.

You shouldn't think of right side and wrong side. When you look past party politics we're all patriotic Americans trying to do what they think is best for the country, and that includes the misguided bums presently running the government.

CCIP

10-14-11, 08:49 PM

As long as you see the world as black vs. white and us vs. them, you're never gonna be on the right side of anything... :hmmm:

yubba

10-14-11, 09:01 PM

Well, I won't want too mess up a perfect record, but I'm not looking forward to be gunned down in front of a freshly dug ditch either. I would like to see it as us vs tyranny.

CaptainHaplo

10-14-11, 09:29 PM

If it weren't for Planned Parenthood providing birth control to women who couldn't otherwise afford it, I personally would have been an unplanned father.

And who's responsible for that fact? If you can't take responsibility for what your doing - keep your fly zipped. That't not a slam on you - its what needs to be the standard for society. Actions have repercussions, and too many want to escape that fact.

And because they provide birth control to those who can't afford it, they make abortions unnecessary. I have no idea how the anti-abortion crowd has twisted that into "Planned Parenthood's sole mission is abortions." Abortion makes up 3% of Planned Parenthood's services. 83% of their business is preventing abortions by making them unnecessary. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm)

Mookie - Just because they say it - doesn't make it so. Actually - if you read the latest report they have out - 2006 numbers - a total of 9% of their clients recieved abortions.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf

Using the same document, you find that roughly one third of their funding comes from abortion services. So their largest gravy train other than the federal government grants - are abortions. To say it is unreasonable that they promote the service for pregnant clients when they refer adoption once for every 180 abortions - just doesn't fly.

There is no denying that the founder of PP was a racist who wanted to limit the breeding of blacks. Now as to the fact that PP is located in predominantly black neighborhoods - sure thats where the "greatest" need is - where the poor are. But then - if it was about the poor - abortion wouldn't be such a big revenue stream for the group. They would put their services in a more centralized location and drop the rates a little so the "poor blacks" that they claim to serve could use the savings for bus fair.

There is a reason they were started - and their is a reason they choose to "get paid" to perform the vast majority of abortions in "black" neighborhoods.

Isn't it interesting that I didn't see any demographics by race / ethnicity in that report. I may have missed it - but how many abortions do you think PP does for "the colored" vs others?

"A racial analysis of abortion statistics is quite revealing.
According to a Health and Human Services Administration report, as
many as forty-three percent of all abortions are performed on Blacks
and another ten percent on Hispanics.[13] This, despite the fact that
Blacks only make up eleven percent of the total U.S. population and
Hispanics only about eight percent.[14] A National Academy of
Sciences investigation released more conservative--but no less
telling-figures: thirty-two percent of all abortions are performed on
minority mothers."[15]

"During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from
community-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority
neighborhoods.[16] Of the more than one hundred school-based clinics
that have opened nationwide in the last decade, <none> have been at
substantially all-White schools.[17] <None> have been at suburban
middle-class schools. <*All have been at Black, minority, or ethnic
schools.>*"[17]*

Planned Parenthood itself reports[18] that of the 132,314 abortions
it did in 1991, 23.2% were on African Americans, 12.5% were on
Hispanics, and 7% were on other minorities. Thus, the total
abortions on minorities is 42.7%. But minorities comprise only 19.7%
of the U.S. population.[19] Therefore, relative to population
*Planned Parenthood preferred to abort minorities three times[20] as
much as whites.*

Note the citations - not just numbers pulled out at random - though the report is from 1994. Why do they not have those statistics now, eh?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt

Dismiss Cain all you want - but his view of PP is backed up by facts.

mookiemookie

10-14-11, 10:55 PM

And who's responsible for that fact? If you can't take responsibility for what your doing - keep your fly zipped. That't not a slam on you - its what needs to be the standard for society. Actions have repercussions, and too many want to escape that fact. And I'm glad that you've set the bar that high for yourself, but that doesn't mean that there's not a need for birth control for society at large and for those who have differing outlooks on sex than you do. To argue otherwise completely ignores human nature.

Mookie - Just because they say it - doesn't make it so. Actually - if you read the latest report they have out - 2006 numbers - a total of 9% of their clients recieved abortions.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf

Using the same document, you find that roughly one third of their funding comes from abortion services. So their largest gravy train other than the federal government grants - are abortions. To say it is unreasonable that they promote the service for pregnant clients when they refer adoption once for every 180 abortions - just doesn't fly. Of course it flies. Respectfully: your whole statement here is nothing but "blah blah blah". How many abortions have they performed (call it number X) versus how many abortions have they made unnecessary through the distribution of birth control (call it number Y) So long as number Y is greater than number X, your hand wringing about how large number X is is completely irrelevant and any argument based upon anti abortion against Planned Parenthood falls apart. So long as Y>X then they're in the business of preventing pregnancy, not terminating it. Simple math, end of story. If you want to get rid of Planned Parenthood, you're in favor of forcing women to have unwanted children. That's a gigantic step back for women's rights, and the very definition of paternalistic arrogance.

There is no denying that the founder of PP was a racist who wanted to limit the breeding of blacks. Ancient history and irrelevant to today. Now as to the fact that PP is located in predominantly black neighborhoods - sure thats where the "greatest" need is - where the poor are. But then - if it was about the poor - abortion wouldn't be such a big revenue stream for the group. They would put their services in a more centralized location and drop the rates a little so the "poor blacks" that they claim to serve could use the savings for bus fair. Huh? You've totally lost me here. PP is in the business of providing low cost family planning options. To argue that they shouldn't be located in places where, you know, the poor people are, is just bizarre.

There is a reason they were started - and their is a reason they choose to "get paid" to perform the vast majority of abortions in "black" neighborhoods. Ah, ah, ah: Y>X. Remember?

Isn't it interesting that I didn't see any demographics by race / ethnicity in that report. I may have missed it - but how many abortions do you think PP does for "the colored" vs others? Absolutely irrelevant. If you want to get into a debate about how and why blacks are poorer than whites, I won't indulge you. I find it boring as there's been volumes of studies done on that and no need for someone like me to rehash it. I can loan you my old sociology textbook if you want to get into that.

Dismiss Cain all you wantI will. He's a lunatic.

The funnest fact of all: Federal funding of PP was instituted by Nixon with the support of then-congressman Daddy Bush. Because true conservatives at one point in history figured an ounce of prevention kept women from having more babies and kept them all off welfare.

But then the religious right took over and things took a turn...

CaptainHaplo

10-16-11, 11:14 AM

And I'm glad that you've set the bar that high for yourself, but that doesn't mean that there's not a need for birth control for society at large and for those who have differing outlooks on sex than you do. To argue otherwise completely ignores human nature.

To argue that completely ignores personal responsibility for your actions. Which is one very major reason this country has slid into the morass its in now.

Of course it flies.Respectfully: your whole statement here is nothing but "blah blah blah". How many abortions have they performed (call it number X) versus how many abortions have they made unnecessary through the distribution of birth control (call it number Y) So long as number Y is greater than number X, your hand wringing about how large number X is is completely irrelevant and any argument based upon anti abortion against Planned Parenthood falls apart. So long as Y>X then they're in the business of preventing pregnancy, not terminating it. Simple math, end of story.

The problem with that theory is there is no way to quantify how many abortions where made "unnecessary". Just because they hand out a condom or a morning after pill doesn't mean an abortion was going to happen otherwise. If they wanted to prevent pregnancy - why do they refuse to even support abstinence (which is the one SURE way to prevent getting pregnant) even a little. I am not talking abstinence only - but they refuse to bring it up as even an OPTION. That shows they are not serious about stopping pregnancy.

If you want to get rid of Planned Parenthood, you're in favor of forcing women to have unwanted children.

Really? So wanting people to act in a manner that takes into account the natural repercussions of their actions, to exhibit some personal responsibility and forethought before they act - means I want women to have unwanted babies. No - it means I want women and men to not engage in a practice that result in unwanted pregnancies. You make your bed, you lay in it. Don't like the bed - don't make it. There are other ways to gain sexual satisfaction that knocking up a chick or getting knocked up.

There is other flaws in your logic as well. If PP is only focusing a small portion of their work on abortion - then why is it that insisting that they stop doing such a "small" portion of work and instead focus on what is their main focus - stopping unwanted pregnancies from happening? If their are all about education and prevention (vs termination), then why the fight to maintain the abortion service? They are NOT the only abortion provider.

Mookie - you have heard it before - its an old saying:

"Follow the Money"

A supposed "3%" of their service accounts for 1/3 of their revenue stream. Of course, I could get into the fact they lie about the 3%, as I pointed out earlier. Still, THIS is why they won't stop doing abortions - its because its PROFITABLE for them.

That's a gigantic step back for women's rights, and the very definition of paternalistic arrogance.

No, Mookie - convincing women to terminate a pregnancy without really encouraging other options just to make more money- is not a gigantic step back for women's rights - its a gigantic step back for humanity - period.

I will. He's a lunatic.

How is he a lunatic? Calling names is below you. While you can disagree with his views - you have not pointed out anything that shows him to be either insane or wildly foolish. A "lunatic" would not have been as consistently successful as he has been over so long of a time in our society. Where he insane or mentally ill, he would not make as much sense to as many people as he does.

Stop the old fallback of calling names because you simply don't agree.

The funnest fact of all: Federal funding of PP was instituted by Nixon with the support of then-congressman Daddy Bush. Because true conservatives at one point in history figured an ounce of prevention kept women from having more babies and kept them all off welfare.

Well its not the funniest thing - but it is kind of laughable - that you would call "Daddy Bush" a true conservative. Neither Bush qualified as that.

Armistead

10-16-11, 11:47 AM

Promoting abstinence is fine, but unrealistic, 90% of people have premarital sex, including christians. The only time in history when abstinence or waiting for marriage worked was when women were the property of the father in OT times and could get married at 12.5 years of age.

We did have a program here in NC in a few trial schools for sex ed where they actually took the kids to hospitals to see and talk to people dying of aids, actually viewed people with herpes, etc...but taught strong protection and birth control.

Unrealistic programs such as signing a card promising to remain a virgin are silly, often it's these that get in trouble because they never planned for birth control.

When my son turns about 16 he'll have a condom in his pocket if not glued to his member.

soopaman2

10-16-11, 11:54 AM

CaptainMattJ.

10-16-11, 12:12 PM

Abstinence is a idealistic concept. Idealism never works as well as realism for OBVIOUS reasons. Teens are going to have sex. They are going to have ALOT of premarital sex. promoting condom use, birth control, ect. is what we should be focusing on. Abstinence doesnt work because when you put horny people in proximity then you get lots of sex.

Rather than have to have abortions because they werent using protection, tell them how much good a thin piece of rubber is going to do. Tell them how deathly serious AIDS is. How deathly serious herpes is. Once you get it, theres NO going back.

But These religious groups, especially Catholicism, completely denounce any form of birth control. Even though she cant possibly afford to raise a baby and hasnt matured enough to do so, they see birth control as sinful. Ridiculous.

Thats the problem. The conservative right has unrealistic, rediculous, and outdated ideas. Theres very little to agree upon with a conservative. And the liberals are too soft. They treat illegals and affirmative action like royalty, and dont have the balls to stand up for whats right.

Seems as though the "association game" has gone too far, and that people cant simply forget party affiliation and say what they really believe in. :nope:

And parents cant smack their child it seems anymore, because that would name them "abusive". Some conservatism i can agree with is the need to teach your kid to sit down, shut up, pay attention and behave. Too many kids these days think theyre royalty and cn do whatever they want. i say that they need to be taught a lesson.

mookiemookie

10-16-11, 12:45 PM

To argue that completely ignores personal responsibility for your actions. Which is one very major reason this country has slid into the morass its in now.
Harp on personal responsibility all you want, but one of the most responsible things someone can do is practice safer sex and get periodic women's health checkups. Why would you want to get rid of a major source of birth control and women's health services just because you think abstinence is the way to go and anything less means that society is sliding into morass? Society doesn't need to conform to your ideals of morality.

The problem with that theory is there is no way to quantify how many abortions where made "unnecessary". Just because they hand out a condom or a morning after pill doesn't mean an abortion was going to happen otherwise. If they wanted to prevent pregnancy - why do they refuse to even support abstinence (which is the one SURE way to prevent getting pregnant) even a little. I am not talking abstinence only - but they refuse to bring it up as even an OPTION. That shows they are not serious about stopping pregnancy.

When it's not spending 3% of its time just killing babies, Planned Parenthood's busy giving breast cancer screenings and swabbing cervixes and preventing or treating God's curse of VD and stopping fetuses from even being conceived, which seems strange by your logic, since more pregnancies means they get to kill more babies.

Really? So wanting people to act in a manner that takes into account the natural repercussions of their actions, to exhibit some personal responsibility and forethought before they act - means I want women to have unwanted babies. No - it means I want women and men to not engage in a practice that result in unwanted pregnancies. You make your bed, you lay in it. Don't like the bed - don't make it. There are other ways to gain sexual satisfaction that knocking up a chick or getting knocked up.Preaching about morality isn't effective birth control.

There is other flaws in your logic as well. If PP is only focusing a small portion of their work on abortion - then why is it that insisting that they stop doing such a "small" portion of work and instead focus on what is their main focus - stopping unwanted pregnancies from happening? If their are all about education and prevention (vs termination), then why the fight to maintain the abortion service? They are NOT the only abortion provider. Because abortion is a completely legal procedure in this country. Sorry if you don't like it and wish it otherwise, but it is indeed completely legal and a valid option for women who are pregnant. And about them being not the only abortion provider: Right now, only 13% of the counties in America have abortion providers (and the number is declining rapidly). In 1982, there were 2,908 providers nationwide. As of 2008, there were only 1,793. In 97 percent of the counties that are outside metropolitan areas there are no abortion providers at all. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/where-abortion-rights-are-disappearing.html?_r=1) Right now, Mississippi and other states are trying to have "personhood" amendments put in their state constitutions as a way of ending all legal abortions.

The religious right would LOVE to take down the big prize, Planned Parenthood. It's why their arguments are absolutely intellectually bankrupt as they lack any sense. Just be honest, man. They would love to backdoor into an abortion ban by removing all access to it.

A supposed "3%" of their service accounts for 1/3 of their revenue stream. Of course, I could get into the fact they lie about the 3%, as I pointed out earlier. And the yearly HHS Inspector General and state Medicaid program audits that Planned Parenthood goes through never caught this. Amazing. You should work for the IRS if you figured out the scam that easily.

Still, THIS is why they won't stop doing abortions - its because its PROFITABLE for them. So? It's a completely legal procedure that makes up 3% of their business, regardless of what kooky conspiracy you think you've uncovered. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to make up your own facts.

No, Mookie - convincing women to terminate a pregnancy without really encouraging other options just to make more money- is not a gigantic step back for women's rights - its a gigantic step back for humanity - period. Is that what the completely unbiased and totally rational Catholic anti-abortion website told you how it goes down in the PP clinic? Excuse me if I take that with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Well its not the funniest thing - but it is kind of laughable - that you would call "Daddy Bush" a true conservative. Neither Bush qualified as that.

He was enough of a conservative for your Patron Saint Ronnie to choose him as VP. Perhaps your side has strayed far from what "conservative" actually is?

I think I've said enough on this topic as it's like whizzing in the wind. Done here.

Sailor Steve

10-16-11, 03:43 PM

That't not a slam on you - its what needs to be the standard for society.
The only problem I have with that thinking is that, while you may think it's what needs to be the standard, you can't dictate the standard and still have a free society. The minute you try to force everyone to adhere to your standards it ceases to be free.

I've never thought abortion was a good thing, but as long as one pregnant woman wants one, it has to be available.

CaptainHaplo

10-16-11, 04:41 PM

Harp on personal responsibility all you want, but one of the most responsible things someone can do is practice safer sex and get periodic women's health checkups. Why would you want to get rid of a major source of birth control and women's health services just because you think abstinence is the way to go and anything less means that society is sliding into morass?

I did not state that I felt that society should practice abstinence to the exclusion of al else. Nor did I say anything about the lack of abstinence being the cause of society falling down. What I stated was that the lack of personal responsibility is the cause. You know that is the case.

I accept that condoms, birth control pills and norplant, etc. are necessary. At no time did I say they were not. Stop trying to twist the argument into something you can justify your position on.

The reality is that every action has a consequence. Society has degenerated because the individual in society is encouraged more and more to avoid the responsibility of their action. Thsi is not just in terms of unwanted pregnancies - its a rampant practice throughout our communities.

Murderer's claim they should get a pass because they didn't get hugged enough as children. Students in college sign legal contracts - fully understanding that they are agreeing to pay back college loans - then go decide to participate in OWS marches calling for the cancelling of their debt. People choose to engage in an act that creates what will grow into a child (if you don't think it is one already) and then use PP or other groups to avoid the repercussions. Illegal aliens decry the law as unfair when they are the ones who chose to break it by entering into this country illegally - yet they want the benefits this society has built.

The problem is pervasive - and you can claim I am "harping" on it all you want - but the reality is that if people took ownership of their own actions more - this society would have a lot less problems.

Society doesn't need to conform to your ideals of morality.

Being responsible for your own choices isn't an issue of morality only. Its an issue of legality and ethics.

Preaching about morality isn't effective birth control.

And again you make a claim of me saying something I never said. I never said PP or anyone else should preach morality. I simply asked the question: "Why is it unreasonable for a group like PP to say 'You know, this condom can break and you could still get pregnant or an STD, but if you don't have sex, you are safe from both of those'?" PP refuses to do so and fights against the mere idea of it. Why? How is that unreasonable?

Considering you have tried to twist my words on in instead of answering the question, I can only infer you don't have an answer.

The only problem I have with that thinking is that, while you may think it's what needs to be the standard, you can't dictate the standard and still have a free society. The minute you try to force everyone to adhere to your standards it ceases to be free.

I've never thought abortion was a good thing, but as long as one pregnant woman wants one, it has to be available.

Steve - and the moment the Father of an unborn child doesn't want one - he is screwed. Freedom is only freedom when it is shared equally. In today's society, choice is not shared. A man gets a woman pregnant - he has no freedom from that responsibility if she chooses to have the child. He is on the hook for 18 years. If she chooses to abort, he has no say in that either. It took both to make the pregnancy, yet only one has the "freedom" to keep or end it. The other is at the mercy of the first, one way or the other.

AVGWarhawk

10-16-11, 07:23 PM

but one of the most responsible things someone can do is practice safer sex and get periodic women's health checkups.

Prostitution should legalized.

When it's not spending 3% of its time just killing babies, Planned Parenthood's busy giving breast cancer screenings and swabbing cervixes and preventing or treating God's curse of VD and stopping fetuses from even being conceived, which seems strange by your logic, since more pregnancies means they get to kill more babies.

Here is the problem Mookie, PLANNED Parenthood. Planned. The message is not apparently getting out if unplanned pregnancy is occurring. Perhaps the name should be Unplanned Parenthood. :hmmm:

Preaching about morality isn't effective birth control.

Preach abstinence.

The religious right would LOVE to take down the big prize, Planned Parenthood. It's why their arguments are absolutely intellectually bankrupt as they lack any sense. Just be honest, man. They would love to backdoor into an abortion ban by removing all access to it.

On the same token, those that believe abortion is the women's right would love to have clinics on every street corner. Would this make them intellectually bankrupt because of their opinion or desire?

Skybird

10-16-11, 07:33 PM

AVGWarhawk

10-16-11, 07:39 PM

CaptainHaplo

10-16-11, 08:12 PM

What it comes down to is - money, debts, spendings. And Cain's tax slogan is nothing that would cause even a single spike in the EEG of any reasonable, intellectually active person, that much intellectual potential his slogan has.

Skybird, its much more than a slogan. Its an actual plan. One with the backing of some rather well known economic minds. True, it is not the end design, nor the perfect fix, but its the start of a solution - which is something few others have put forth.

Sailor Steve

10-16-11, 10:47 PM

Steve - and the moment the Father of an unborn child doesn't want one - he is screwed. Freedom is only freedom when it is shared equally. In today's society, choice is not shared. A man gets a woman pregnant - he has no freedom from that responsibility if she chooses to have the child. He is on the hook for 18 years. If she chooses to abort, he has no say in that either. It took both to make the pregnancy, yet only one has the "freedom" to keep or end it. The other is at the mercy of the first, one way or the other.
Did Mookie have no say in the matter? I don't know, but he seems relieved.

If what you were attacking is the double standard, then I agree. The guy can be screwed either way, and effectively has no say in the matter. But I took you to be discussing abortion itself, not the double standard, and that's what my comment was directed at.

CaptainHaplo

10-16-11, 11:15 PM

Did Mookie have no say in the matter? I don't know, but he seems relieved.

If what you were attacking is the double standard, then I agree. The guy can be screwed either way, and effectively has no say in the matter. But I took you to be discussing abortion itself, not the double standard, and that's what my comment was directed at.

Oh we are in agreement then, because that is exactly what I was saying. In some ways, society says "screw repercussions - do whatever you want, nevermind the cost, we will keep you from paying it." Yet in the issue of a pregnancy - only one person matters, though it took two to create the situation, and 2 will be responsible for the child if it is kept.

antikristuseke

10-17-11, 12:51 AM

Yes, but one part of the equasion does not have to carry the little bugger inside for some months, if who got pregnant was also a choice then men wouldnt be screwed, but untill that day comes the female should have more say in wether to get an abortion or not.

Tribesman

10-17-11, 02:47 AM

Skybird, its much more than a slogan. Its an actual plan. One with the backing of some rather well known economic minds.
Its just a slogan that he said himself won't work and has been taken apart by economists and no economists alike.

Sort of like "Change" or "Hope" as a slogan. Nah....never work.
Did you miss the part about "reasonable, intellectually active"?

Tchocky

10-17-11, 04:56 AM

Skybird, its much more than a slogan. Its an actual plan. One with the backing of some rather well known economic minds.

I've seen nothing but disdain for the plan, actually. Even Grover Norquist doesn't like it.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/

http://news.yahoo.com/anti-tax-crusader-questions-cains-999-plan-003841173.html

On his website Cain quotes one former Reagan treasury official who now runs a small consultancy in Arlington, gives no supporting material or analysis, no explanation of the effect on deficit/debt.

Or the effect on anyone, actually.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/13/herman-cain/herman-cain-says-someone-earning-50000-will-save-u/

Skybird

10-17-11, 05:01 AM

Skybird, its much more than a slogan. Its an actual plan. One with the backing of some rather well known economic minds. True, it is not the end design, nor the perfect fix, but its the start of a solution - which is something few others have put forth.If you call THAT a plan, then nobody can help you. And no, cutting taxes that much, will not create jobs. The rich will says thanks, and become richer. And sure, they have some theoretic minds saying it is a good plan. Whether these theoretial minds are right, si something very different. The better part of non-American economy scientists for exmaple would disagree.

In Germany you can show by the statistical numbers that at those times there were highest taxes, there was less unemployement. When the taxes were cut, ironically by a left government, unemploymeent went up.

Low taxes=more jobs is a fallacy that America is extremely, extremely prone for. Low taxes=less payment for the rich - that is the plan here.

I do not dmeonise the rich in general. It is true that as a social class a hilariously small group of the population owns hilariously much of all the wealth in that nation. But it is also true that the upper ten percent or so pay for one quarter or one third of all the state'S income. However, whether that is an adequate contribution of the single rich man, is something different.

Then there is the problem of immense subsidies of which the are profiteering, and tax evasions holes.

In general, the split between the rich and the porr is widening both in Germany AND in America as well. The poor become poorer, and they become more by numbers. The rich become richer. That is a socail and fiscal fact in my country, AND in yours as well.

Now, there is something that hangs like a millstone around America'
neck, and that is DEBTS. Debts so high that thgey are strangling it, and pull the rest of then globe down along with you. The two biggest evil in the modern global economy, are Ameica'S debts, and Europe's dysfunctional design of implementing the Euro. I think the US simply is not in a psoiton where it can plan to decrease its incomes, instead of increasing them: by saving in service, and collecting more money. That is how it is done when you are in debts and need money: you try to raise more money, and you try to save in your spendings. And you refuse those owing you money the option to avoid paying it: close those hilarious big tax holes. I have linked tpo that list of examples two or three months ago, haven't I. When major companies not only do not pay traxes, but even get back money from the finance ministry? It is a rip-off.

And save me with clasiscal economic theory. Outside America, it is almost dead. The self-regulation of the market - leads to no market economy, but to declining self-regulation on behalf of the common good, monopolism, and economic tyranny and dictate of the few. the invisible hand, in the totality of range that is claimed for this theory, simply does not work and never has been functional at any time in history. And very often it served as just a excuse for trying to exploit the system at the cost of the many. In the long run the whole concept works as good as 5 year-plan economies and communist collectives.

After WWII, in Europe there was the early idea of what over here is called "social market economy". In the end it means the idea to leave the market alone as much a spossible, but to regulate them as much as needed when their self-regulation fails due to egoism taking over and the few start to live at the cost of the many. By idea, that'S the way to go. But of course, it got hijacked by parties incraisng the state'S debt sin order to bribe their voters, and buying promises at the cost of the future. No econoimic idea, whzatever it is, will ever work when states allow to spend more than they collect in income. And no economy ever works without ending in rebellion if it allows endless exploitation of the many by the few. A free marketr left to itself - ALWAYS will leads to ultimate monopolism, for what capitalist business wants, is not competetion, but preventing competition, no rivals, but monopolies. It'S in the nature of the thing.

CaptainHaplo

10-17-11, 07:32 AM

Lets see - off the top of my head these folks support the plan.....

Art Laffer, Economic advisor to former President Reagan

Steven Moore - Senior Economics Writer for the Wall Street Journal, holds a Master's degree in economics from George Mason University.

Paul Ryan - Congressman, House Budget Committee Chairman.

Also - Gary Robbins, also an economist for the WSJ, does not support the plan mainly due to his belief it could not be implimented, but has stated it is revenue neutral or better, and that it would be good for jobs in the country.

If anyone needs links, I can dig them up... or you can put forth a little effort yourself and become educated. Just because the media doesn't like it - which is because Cain isn't part of the establishment - doesn't mean no one does....

CaptainHaplo

10-17-11, 07:50 AM

That firm, Fiscal Associates Inc., found that Mr. Cain's plan would raise about $2.3 trillion—or roughly the same amount as the current tax system—without counting the economic growth it would produce. Counting such growth, the new system would raise about $2.66 trillion, according to the firm's estimate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204774604576627440442708356.html

9-9-9 is actually suggested to increase growth to as high as 15%....

oh - another supporter of 9-9-9... Kevin Hassett, economist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Change is hard, especially when people see their "special" goodies and deductions go away. People want to talk about fair, but now argue against scrapping all the little goodies and bennies they enjoy. Can't have it both ways.

krashkart

10-17-11, 08:02 AM

Skybird

10-17-11, 08:14 AM

Was Herman Cain's 999 plan inspired by SimCity?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/herman-cain-999-sim-city_n_1008952.html

Mr. Cain's response:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-999-plan-simcity_n_1011933.html
Politicians can play SimCity only with an infinite-money-cheat. For them, hacking the game to implement that a god-mode-cheat is what SimCity is about.

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 08:14 AM

oh - another supporter of 9-9-9... Kevin Hassett, economist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

That's not the most objective of sources...they're right up there with the Heritage Foundation. That's like someone on the other side citing MoveOn.org or the Center for American Progress. I'd be absolutely skewered here if I tried to trot them out as a citation. I would have quoted the guy from the more neutral Brookings Institute: Given the big reductions in investment taxes that the Cain plan promises, "it's got to raise taxes on the vast majority of households," said William Gale, a tax expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think thank. "And if it doesn't raise taxes on the lower middle class, then it's got to lose a lot of revenue" for the government.

CaptainHaplo

10-17-11, 08:22 AM

That's not the most objective of sources. That's like someone on the other side citing MoveOn.org or the Center for American Progress. I'd be absolutely skewered here if I tried to trot them out as a citation. I would have quoted the guy from the more neutral Brookings Institute:

And the other sources? Its one thing if that was the only source provided. It was not. One can cherry pick, or look at the whole of the sources....

Politicians can play SimCity only with an infinite-money-cheat. For them, hacking the game to implement that a god-mode-cheat is what SimCity is about.

And you continue to ignore that its a real solution, instead mocking it because you don't care for it, even when sources are provided to show it is workable and a step forward. Mockery is never a solution.

Tribesman

10-17-11, 08:23 AM

Lets see - off the top of my head these folks support the plan.....

Art Laffer, Economic advisor to former President Reagan

Is that Art Laffer of the laughter curve?
So that is a wealth redistribution economist ....sorry that is tax cutting from the top down economist whose inovative plan to redo the tax system and boost growth turned into an expensive joke.

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 08:37 AM

Is that Art Laffer of the laughter curve?
So that is a wealth redistribution economist ....sorry that is tax cutting from the top down economist whose inovative plan to redo the tax system and boost growth turned into an expensive joke.

Saying Art Laffer thinks it's a good idea is something you should probably keep under your hat. He's not only a bad economist, but a partisan hack to boot.

AVGWarhawk

10-17-11, 09:02 AM

Its just a slogan that he said himself won't work and has been taken apart by economists and no economists alike.

No, only recently has anyone taken a look at this plan that I'm aware of. Even these closer examinations reveal nothing worth talking about. There has not my much of anything that I have found on the net taking this plan apart. Do you have something I can read about.

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 09:08 AM

No, only recently has anyone taken a look at this plan that I'm aware of. Even these closer examinations reveal nothing worth talking about. There has not my much of anything that I have found on the net taking this plan apart. Do you have something I can read about.

Old school Republican Bruce Bartlett was the domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and worked in the Treasury under George H.W. Bush. He takes the plan apart here:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/

Armistead

10-17-11, 09:21 AM

I think Cain knows whatever plan he has is just that, a plan. No doubt he used 999 because it's catchy, but at least he's thinking. The fact is congress will tear apart any plan based on the special interest they serve.

AVGWarhawk

10-17-11, 09:31 AM

Old school Republican Bruce Bartlett was the domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and worked in the Treasury under George H.W. Bush. He takes the plan apart here:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/

From the article:

Little detail has been released by the Cain campaign, so it’s impossible to do a thorough analysis. But using what is available on Mr. Cain’s Web site, I’m taking a stab at estimating its effects.

I did not read any further than this.

:hmmm: Seems this gentlemen is making guestimations a well. Or as Bachmann put it..."the Devil is in the details.":88)

I think it is safe to assume that the plan will not fly however we can state that we are recognizing that the current tax code, in short, sucks. If anything, it has us talking and a few sweating that soon they must might have to start paying tax.

August

10-17-11, 09:39 AM

Old school Republican Bruce Bartlett was the domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and worked in the Treasury under George H.W. Bush. He takes the plan apart here:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/

Mookie, don't you think it sounds a bit hypocritical of you to say this just two posts after saying this?:

Saying Art Laffer thinks it's a good idea is something you should probably keep under your hat. He's not only a bad economist, but a partisan hack to boot.

So an "old school" Republican is only a partisan hack when he doesn't support your point?

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 09:44 AM

So an "old school" Republican is only a partisan hack when he doesn't support your point?

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Not all Republicans are partisan hacks. Laffer, however, is and has shown in the past that he will ignore reality and make up his own facts, misconstrue correlation and causation and generally provide bad information. I may disagree with Bartlett on many things, but he usually provides pretty sound arguments backed up with facts and data.

I'll let you in on a secret: I read American Conservative magazine and I find a lot of what they say to be intriguing and well reasoned. Particularly loved this one, in light of our recent conversations about the causes of the financial crisis: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2011/10/13/liberal-democrats-who-love-wall-street/

August

10-17-11, 10:04 AM

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Not all Republicans are partisan hacks. Laffer, however, is and has shown in the past that he will ignore reality and make up his own facts, misconstrue correlation and causation and generally provide bad information. I may disagree with Bartlett on many things, but he usually provides pretty sound arguments backed up with facts and data.

That's a nice Washington two step you're doing there Mook! :DL If he usually provides sound arguments backed up with facts and data how can you disagree with him on so many things?

Skybird

10-17-11, 11:09 AM

http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/07/1817692/cutting-taxes-to-create-jobs-is-a-lie

For thirty years, Republicans have behaved exactly like dolls with pull strings. Tug on the back, and they repeat, without fail, "we need to cut taxes on businesses so they can create jobs".
Likewise, for thirty years, Democrats have tried to tell Republicans that this is a terrible idea. "Reality" has tried slapping the GOP upside the head with facts about how tax rates are not really tied to an economy's performance, and that cutting taxes on businesses simply pushes the burden for government spending on to the middle class.
Republicans, it seems, have not and will not learn the lessons of history. And so, here we are, a nation paralyzed by something as trivial as raising the debt ceiling, with lawmakers on both sides pushing for everything from cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. Off the table? Tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and tax increases on American corporations.
Why, you might ask, are politicians from both political parties trying to balance a $14 trillion debt by cutting off food aid for grandma? Because the majority of them, particularly those on the right wing, are religiously devoted to the idea that taxes are bad. Taxes are evil. Taxing people, especially rich people, is a sin.
After all, they argue, taxing businesses kills jobs, right? Wrong.
In terms of any company of notable size, the corporate tax rate is 35%. That's 35% after deductions. Deductions to corporate rates can be pretty high, if you've got really good accountants and really good lobbyists (to bribe Congress into doing what you want). What do corporations really pay in taxes? Let's look.

Here's a list of companies that paid a lot less in taxes lately than you have. The list was compiled by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and his office.

Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/xom#NYSE)) made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

Bank of America (NYSE: BAC (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/bac#NYSE) [FREE Stock Trend Analysis] (http://www.benzinga.com/stock-trends/BAC/NYSE)) received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

Over the past five years, while General Electric (NYSE: GE (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/ge#NYSE)) made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

Chevron (NYSE: CVX (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/cvx#NYSE)) received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

Boeing (NYSE: BA (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/ba#NYSE) [FREE Stock Trend Analysis] (http://www.benzinga.com/stock-trends/BA/NYSE)), which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/vlo#NYSE)), the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/gs#NYSE))in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

Citigroup (NYSE: C (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/c#NYSE) [FREE Stock Trend Analysis] (http://www.benzinga.com/stock-trends/C/NYSE)) last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/cop#NYSE)), the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines (NYSE: CCL (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/ccl#NYSE)) made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
That's just a snapshot of some of the biggest, most egregious examples of corporate income taxes being at or below zero. And yet, we're told that grandma has to die without food and medicine so these same corporations can avoid paying higher taxes (or in these cases, really ANY taxes)? How is that even a legitimate debate point in this country?
A similar argument is made that corporations need lower taxes, so they can take that tax money and use it to hire more workers. The idea is that lower taxes lead to more jobs. That sure sounds reasonable on some level, doesn't it? How does it work in practice?
Well, as of now, corporate America is sitting on $2 trillion (and climbing) in cash. They're not hiring. In fact, in many cases, corporations are downsizing, despite booming revenues! You don't even have to listen to me on this one. How about this quote, from that noted left-wing socialist/communist rag "Fortune" magazine?
"The Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5 percent. Total profits soared 81 percent. But guess who didn't benefit much from this giant wave of cash? Millions of U.S. workers stuck mired in a stagnant job market."
That's right. Corporate America took in a 10.5 percent gain in revenues and rewarded the American people how? By slashing jobs where possible and refusing to invest that money in new jobs, anywhere. The most notable hiring binge from the last year was McDonalds (NYSE: MCD (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/mcd#NYSE) [FREE Stock Trend Analysis] (http://www.benzinga.com/stock-trends/MCD/NYSE)), which is great if you're a teenager looking for discounts on milkshakes, and not so great if you've got kids who needs shoes and clothes.
Who's been cutting jobs? How about we use this space to shame them for being anti-patriotic and cutting American jobs during a recession.

Douchebag Companies that Cut Workers Despite the End of the Recession

Nokia (NYSE: NOK (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/nok#NYSE)) cut 4,000 jobs or 3% of its workforce.

Goldman Sachs cut 1,000 jobs or 2.8% of its workforce. (Even after all the bailouts? Impressively awful, GS!)

Cisco Systems (NASDAQ: CSCO (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/csco#NASDAQ)) cut 6,500 jobs or 9.2% of its workforce. Way to go, Cisco! Way to step up for the team!

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT (http://www.benzinga.com/stock/lmt#NYSE)) cut 1,500 jobs or 1.14% of its workforce. This despite being on the payroll of the US government and a part of the war machine...during two, maybe three, wars! That's impressive!
Let's recap. Despite two massive wars, a war machine company needed to cut jobs. Despite banksters that own the government and rule the universe, Goldman had to lay people off. Despite a tech boom, Cisco laid off ten percent of its workers. And despite every single American upgrading their phone every 6 months, Nokia had to dump three percent of its workforce.
Note that this all happened despite piles of cash reserves, economic inflows that were all but guaranteed, and an improving economy. Despite that, and despite already-low taxes, these bastards are cutting jobs. And they have the nerve to ask for more tax cuts?
By now, one thing should be clear. When politicians say we need to cut taxes on businesses to provide jobs, they're absolutely full of it. They might be misinformed by staff. They might be lying to you. They might not know their ass from their elbow. They might be blinded by the religion of tax cuts, which is as powerful a force in the GOP as Jesus can be.
Or, in the case of traitors like Eric Cantor (who is pushing the country into default while owning securities that will rise in value if the US defaults), they might just be in it for the money. After all, half of Congress is comprised of millionaires, many of whom own their own businesses and almost all of whom own stocks.
So, as it turns out, we get to the real story: a tax cut for the wealthy just happens to benefit...themselves.
----
In Germany, some years ago, former minister president Jürgen Rüttgers dared to label the neo-liberal claim that tax-cuts automatzically would create jobs, a "myth". He pointed out back then that the state cannot create jobs or encourage job-building by lowering taxes, and that too many other factors additionally interfere with this - in his words, if I recall correctly - "naive" and simplistic link of taxes and employmentr rate. I would remind of the fact that you deal with a whole bunch of anonymous investors as well - and these do not tend to be patriotic, but they want to catch off and keep the cream. Jürgen Rüttgers, back in 2005 or 2006 it was, of course got crucified for his blasphemy, by his own party the CDU, and the FDP anyway. But there is just one problem: federal statistics show that he is right. The numbers show that we had higher employemtn rates at titmes when ciorprorate taxes were high, and that we had and have higher unemployemnt when corporate taxes are low.

Now be careful to consider there to be a casual link. I think there is no link of significant dimension. I think we fall for a myth when we think taxes would casue employment to go up and down. I think it is very different factors deciding on employment situations in an enconomy. These factors may correlate with the currentz tax settings, but must not, so agaionb: be careful to proclaim a causal link there.

So i agree with the author of the above article, when he says: a tax cut for the wealthy just happens to benefit themselves. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Not in Germ,any. Not in America. Not in Switzerland and Austria (whose statistics I have just checked via Google). It is a religious thing indeed: taxes are evil in themselves.

Ironcially, this does not adress the monumental structural problems of America at all. A medieval powergrid. A dangerously eroded traffic infrastructure. It does not solve the Himalaya-mountain of American debt, the lack of competitiveness of American industry, and products "made in the US". Cain just distracts from these things, or avoids them.

And maybe that is the real reason behind his simplistic slogans: hiding that he has no answers, and focusses on preserving his own wealth and profit interests. If private business and poltics get held by the same pair of hands, it never goes well, I think. The interest conflict is preset and cannot be avoided. And what entrepreneur would damage his own business for the sake of state reason or national interest if he has the power to make it happening just the other way around?

AVGWarhawk

10-17-11, 12:20 PM

There is more than just 9-9-9 slogans. Similar to Change and Hope.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Cain attracting 43% support, while Obama earns 41%. Given such a matchup, eight percent (8%) prefer some other candidate, and another eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

AVGWarhawk

10-17-11, 01:45 PM

Do you know why candidates for office tend to be reluctant to propose detailed plans? Because they know the plans will be flyspecked and picked apart by just about everyone. Inviting criticism doesn’t help you to get votes.
But fear of criticism prevents you from conceiving solutions to problems. So even if avoidance of criticism helps in propelling you to an election victory, how are you supposed to effectively govern? How are you supposed to fix the problems you told everyone you were going to fix?
That’s why I’m happy to see so much criticism of the 9-9-9 plan I’ve proposed. It shows that people are thinking seriously about a substantive idea. When people stop obsessing over “gaffes” and campaign strategy, and start honing in on fixing the country’s economic problems, we are getting somewhere.
This is not to say, of course, I’m going to leave poorly founded criticisms of the plan unanswered. Certain objections to the plan are circulating in the usual places, driven by the same kind of thinking that has left us with a stagnant economy, $14 trillion in debt and mounting entitlement obligations. These criticisms deserve responses, and here they are:

http://www.northstarwriters.com/2011/10/16/9-responses-to-9-false-attacks-on-the-9-9-9-plan/

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 02:19 PM

http://www.northstarwriters.com/2011/10/16/9-responses-to-9-false-attacks-on-the-9-9-9-plan/

Also, a flat tax is not ***8211; by definition ***8211; a regressive tax. Everyone pays the same rate. WTF? A flat tax is damn sure a regressive tax! If I buy $25 worth of food and pay sales tax on that, I'm paying a higher percentage of my income if I make $100 than if I made $1000. That's simple mathematics, and shame on him for blatantly misrepresenting what regressive taxation is.

Finally, the best way to help the poor is by spurring economic growth, which the current tax code will never do, and which the 9-9-9 plan is specifically designed to do.

How? Magic? Wishful thinking? History has shown time and time and time and time again that GDP is not correlated to taxation levels. This is more trickle down BS.

It does no such thing. It is fair and neutral, taxing everything once and nothing twice. If I paid 9% income tax, and then 9% sales tax when I spent the income I was already taxed on, exactly how am I not being taxed twice? Nevermind state sales tax, which would actually make it taxed three times. And didn't the business already pay taxes when it purchased the goods it's selling me?

I gave up after this. The guy is all smoke and mirrors.

AVGWarhawk

10-17-11, 02:52 PM

I gave up after this. The guy is all smoke and mirrors.

:har:

Not unlike what is on PA Ave now and those other hopefuls running. Funny, there is no idea at all from these folks. Except..what for it...raise taxes!!!:D It is the one best way for Uncle Sam to pay his bills. No...wait for it....Uncle Sam does no pay his bills! :haha: Sadly, you have dismissed this 9-9-9 and that is fine but you have to agree...Cain has people talking about the dysfunctional tax system. This will get others who are running talking and with any luck, BO when he stops with his bus at the local burger stand. Michele does not approve!

Tribesman

10-17-11, 03:59 PM

I gave up after this. The guy is all smoke and mirrors.
Especially there with the VAT, you just pass that down the line though there is a thriving industry in fraud with that type of tax.

I was surprised by the NRO though(socialist rag that it is:03:), they did a piece and apologised for getting their numbers wrong, apparently your average "middle class" american will only get stung with a 32%tax increase not a 44% one.
So instead of the "trickle down" from Laffer which meant your average joe got urinated on from on high this time its gonna be dump down where the few squat comfortably and defecate all over the people.....and the people will predictably lap it all up.

AVGWarhawk

10-17-11, 04:53 PM

:O:Yes, the current smoke and mirrors looks great. L et's keep it.

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 05:00 PM

:O:Yes, the current smoke and mirrors looks great. L et's keep it.

False choice. If you're opposed to his brand of smoke and mirrors, it doesn't mean your in favor of the current system of smoke and mirrors.

soopaman2

10-17-11, 05:10 PM

The more he is forced to talk, the less likely I am to choose him...At one point he made sense, until he got in bed with Wall Street. Godfather Pizza boy can kiss my backside. I prefer Papa johns anyways, at least he acts Amero-Italian . Cain just acts like a rich republican.

I pull any support I had for this "thing", the more he is forced to answer questions the more fascist he seems. ( aka corporatocracy, Like Mussolinis Italy)

Is Lady Gaga, or Lars Ulrich running for president this year? We need a president who can at least make you want to dance.:)

Both of them would at least be honest.

CaptainHaplo

10-17-11, 05:29 PM

soopaman2

10-17-11, 05:34 PM

Lars Ulrich, honest?

You mean "here take our music, give it to your friends, please!" and then turns around and sues the very people who did it? Yea - thats honest and ethical...

Lady Gaga? You just want a hot chick in the whitehouse.

Yeah his anti piracy stance is "douchy" but he is one heck of a drummer.

I really love Lady Gaga, something a thirty-something man should never say.:D

August

10-17-11, 05:36 PM

False choice. If you're opposed to his brand of smoke and mirrors, it doesn't mean your in favor of the current system of smoke and mirrors.

But if it's all smoke and mirrors then maybe we ought to go with a President with some actual practical experience in balancing budgets and increasing profitability? The Harvard Professor type doesn't seem to be working out.

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 05:49 PM

But if it's all smoke and mirrors then maybe we ought to go with a President with some actual practical experience in balancing budgets and increasing profitability?

But the government can't be run like a business. It produces no product and is not in business to generate a profit.

August

10-17-11, 05:57 PM

But the government can't be run like a business. It produces no product and is not in business to generate a profit.

But it does deal with balancing budgets, managing finances and getting people to work together, things that your typical college academic doesn't deal with very much.

soopaman2

10-17-11, 06:13 PM

But it does deal with balancing budgets, managing finances and getting people to work together, things that your typical college academic doesn't deal with very much.

Seriously, who do you think is capable of this?

I see no one. I consider myself a left wing type and Obama is a "no go" for me...

Spineless Obama.
Truly interested, and not saying this in a condescending way.
Who is left to represent the people? Or is representing the people just some kind of illusion/dream ?

I see no one who will bring about change we really need. (hope and change was a scam)

mookiemookie

10-17-11, 06:25 PM

Seriously, who do you think is capable of this?

I see no one. I consider myself a left wing type and Obama is a "no go" for me...

Spineless Obama.
Truly interested, and not saying this in a condescending way.
Who is left to represent the people? Or is representing the people just some kind of illusion/dream ?

I see no one who will bring about change we really need. (hope and change was a scam)

Crony capitalism holds sway and I think that's going to be the case until the two party system falls by the wayside. If that ever happens. Even then, it's still no guarantee.

AVGWarhawk

10-17-11, 06:49 PM

But the government can't be run like a business. It produces no product and is not in business to generate a profit.

But there is vested interest. GM for starters.

August

10-17-11, 06:51 PM

Seriously, who do you think is capable of this?

Someone with the right training, personality and applicable experience is where we must start looking.

CaptainHaplo

10-17-11, 07:09 PM

But the government can't be run like a business. It produces no product and is not in business to generate a profit.

Some would argue that it is a corporation....

It produces no product? Really - what are laws, what has NASA been doing all these years. Amtrak anyone? Domestic security isn't a product? What about education? I could go on, but you get the picture.....

Its not in business to generate a profit?

Sadly, this is all too obvious, now isn't it. At least we agree on it.

AVGWarhawk

10-18-11, 08:26 AM

Platapus

10-18-11, 04:06 PM

I think having an electrified fence along the Texas border is an excellent idea

1. It will help keep some "undesirables" out
2. It will help prevent some cross border problems that have been plaguing the United States for way too long
3. It will send a clear message that the Federal Government is committed to making the US safer and to improve our quality of life.

I don't see any down side to this idea.

The only hitch is: Will Oklahoma agree to putting up this fence?

:D

soopaman2

10-18-11, 04:13 PM

Yesterday Cain said he wanted to build a electrified fence along the boarder of Mexico. The fence would be electrified enough to kill on contact. Is this a shovel ready project? He later said it was joke and that political correctness is something he has not learned yet. :hmmm:

Northeastern liberal with heavy equipment experience looking for job building a fence, minefield, guardtowers with snipers, cement bunkers with mortar and laser guided artillery equipment..

Oh damn, La Raza is knocking at my door.

Sailor Steve

10-18-11, 06:11 PM

It produces no product? Really - what are laws, what has NASA been doing all these years. Amtrak anyone? Domestic security isn't a product? What about education? I could go on, but you get the picture.....
A product is something you can sell. Government can't generate revenue, and must borrow it or steal it by coersion.

August

10-18-11, 06:27 PM

A product is something you can sell. Government can't generate revenue, and must borrow it or steal it by coersion.

Not necessarily Steve

A product may refer to something you can sell or, it might be the result of a chemical reaction or simply what you get when you multiply two numbers.

But a product could also simply be the consequence of someones efforts or the result of a particular set of circumstances.

"Skill is the product of experience and training. Their victory was the product of teamwork and conditioning.

So yeah admittedly a heckuva lot less tangible than say cars or television sets but the result of governments efforts could indeed be considered a "product".

CaptainHaplo

10-18-11, 07:53 PM

A product is something you can sell. Government can't generate revenue, and must borrow it or steal it by coersion.

Steve - the emphasis above is exactly what the leftists are saying though - that big business didn't provide a product that made them rich - its that they must have STOLE IT from the workers who they COERCE into working for slave wages while they get rich.

Whats the difference?

mookiemookie

10-18-11, 08:16 PM

Not necessarily Steve

A product may refer to something you can sell or, it might be the result of a chemical reaction or simply what you get when you multiply two numbers.

But a product could also simply be the consequence of someones efforts or the result of a particular set of circumstances.

"Skill is the product of experience and training. Their victory was the product of teamwork and conditioning.

So yeah admittedly a heckuva lot less tangible than say cars or television sets but the result of governments efforts could indeed be considered a "product".

A business provides goods and services to consumers so long as it's profitable to do so. Take Lexus cars for example. Lexus sells cars because they make money doing it. If you can't afford a Lexus, that's too bad.

A government provides things that must be provided for society to function and safeguards people's welfare, without regard to profitability and without regard to an individual's ability to pay. You still benefit from the laws and statutes of the federal government, whether you're a millionaire or a dollar-aire. Now you can argue that the millionaire gets more benefit from those laws, but that's another debate as put simply, the laws and protections apply to all regardless.

Libertarian hero von Mises wrote a whole book on why government can't be run like a business: http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

August

10-18-11, 11:09 PM

A business provides goods and services to consumers so long as it's profitable to do so. Take Lexus cars for example. Lexus sells cars because they make money doing it. If you can't afford a Lexus, that's too bad.

A government provides things that must be provided for society to function and safeguards people's welfare, without regard to profitability and without regard to an individual's ability to pay. You still benefit from the laws and statutes of the federal government, whether you're a millionaire or a dollar-aire. Now you can argue that the millionaire gets more benefit from those laws, but that's another debate as put simply, the laws and protections apply to all regardless.

Libertarian hero von Mises wrote a whole book on why government can't be run like a business: http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp

I never said that the government should be run like a business Mookie. That's a strawman of your making. I just said that business executives have practical experience in balancing budgets, managing finances and getting people to work together toward a common goal.

Academic types such as Obama tend to have little or no experience in those areas and it shows...

mookiemookie

10-19-11, 06:20 AM

I never said that the government should be run like a business Mookie. That's a strawman of your making.

I was just having fun discussing the question. It's a good one to think about. But then again, I don't think a background in business necessarily makes for a better president. Just the same as a military background. I think there's been good and bad presidents with both business and military backgrounds. I'm not sure there is a magic formula of experience that foretells success.

Penguin

10-19-11, 06:29 AM

An actor's background provided neither good presidents nor god governors! :D

mookiemookie

10-19-11, 08:23 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_occupat ion

Funny that the more business oriented ones are some of our poorer presidents - Both Bushes, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding. It may also owe to the fact that many of the Presidents were lawyers, but some of our better ones started out that way - Adams, Polk, Lincoln, Jefferson, Wilson...

August

10-19-11, 09:30 AM

soopaman2

10-19-11, 09:48 AM

Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson, James Munroe, James Polk and George Washington who were all business owners in their day.

In all fairness George Washington was also a military man. He fought with the British during the French and Indian war, we all know who elses backsides he kicked. He was commissioned as a major for the British colony of Virginia..

You can almost qualify him as a bit of both. He was no stranger to battle, and the command of poor men (at that time the soldiers were typically dregs of society)

He argued to quartermaster beaurocrats for his men in both wars (Revolutionary and French and indian) He had empathy for those outside his social standings, which is lacking today.

He saw things from both sides, and balanced the needs accordingly.
We need that, Im sure right, neutral and left can get behind that.. A fair balance. For the greater good of nation and the world as a whole.
Edit: I won't contest your other examples. I see it as an empathy and general welfare issue, than simply a background issue. Sorry for late add.

Sailor Steve

10-19-11, 11:21 AM

Actually Washington and Jefferson considered themselves first and foremost farmers. Jefferson was proud of being a farmer, writer and educator. He wasn't proud of being president, and he hated merchants. His biggest business was a nail factory, run entirely by slave labor. If he was a businessman, he would make a pretty poor example, dieing several hundred thousand dollars in debt, for which his land and belongings were auctioned off, leaving his family destitute.

August

10-19-11, 02:51 PM

Cohaagen

10-20-11, 06:07 AM

In all fairness George Washington was also a military man. He fought with the British during the French and Indian war, we all know who elses backsides he kicked. He was commissioned as a major for the British colony of Virginia..

As far as ass-kicking goes, Washington lost more battles against the British than he won, except the last couple, the important ones, where the French finally turned up. He wasn't a very good general really.

Speaking of military men, how about these fine specimens spotted at the Republican candidate debate:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/9/23/1316741180190/debate_crowd.jpg

Incredible. Not only do these people actually exist, but someone even thought it would be a good idea to give them seats right at the front, to guarantee that they'd be seen. American politics resembles pro wrestling more and more each year.

In fact, they should style US elections like sports entertainment. Instead of joint tickets there would be tag teams.

Mitt Romney would wear stylized LDS temple robes with a domino mask. Each time he enters and walks up to the mic his signature tune plays, a cover of Ace Of Spades by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He's the glamour man of the Grand Old Federation, as the party is now known, and is always surrounded by a dozen hot bitches or, as he calls them, "wives". At some critical juncture in a match he'll fall on the floor and starts flopping around speaking in tongues as he receives instructions from Moroni about whether to do an armdrag takeover or body slam.

"The Executioner" Rick Perry's gimmick would be a theatrical electric chair that he'd use to "fry" his foes after suplexing them into submission. It'd be a real spectacle, all rigged up with magnesium squibs. I can see him flipping the switch on Cain, who is in persona as a retarded death row inmate, as he yells "I'M ABOUT TO CUT BACK ON FUNDING, AND I WON'T REGRET THIS!".

Ron Paul could turn heel and come out in a red unitard as "Atlas", signature move: "The Shrug". His weedy physique and waxy flab muscles would be balanced by a Nietzschian will and belief in the power of the self. And instead of a folding chair, he can hit enemies over the head with a paving slab-sized foam copy of The Road To Serfdom. Worked interviews and promos would be carried out while flanked by a couple of fat militia dudes in jungle fatigues and carrying Mini-14s.

If the Republicans adopt this scheme I guarantee they'll make big gains with the voters and set themselves up for 2012. They'd clean out the leftists and then give the crotch chops.

mookiemookie

10-20-11, 06:30 AM

As far as ass-kicking goes, Washington lost more battles against the British than he won, except the last couple, the important ones, where the French finally turned up. He wasn't a very good general really.

Speaking of military men, how about these fine specimens spotted at the Republican candidate debate:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/9/23/1316741180190/debate_crowd.jpg

Incredible. Not only do these people actually exist, but someone even thought it would be a good idea to give them seats right at the front, to guarantee that they'd be seen. American politics resembles pro wrestling more and more each year.

In fact, they should style US elections like sports entertainment. Instead of joint tickets there would be tag teams.

Mitt Romney would wear stylized LDS temple robes with a domino mask. Each time he enters and walks up to the mic his signature tune plays, a cover of Ace Of Spades by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He's the glamour man of the Grand Old Federation, as the party is now known, and is always surrounded by a dozen hot bitches or, as he calls them, "wives". At some critical juncture in a match he'll fall on the floor and starts flopping around speaking in tongues as he receives instructions from Moroni about whether to do an armdrag takeover or body slam.

"The Executioner" Rick Perry's gimmick would be a theatrical electric chair that he'd use to "fry" his foes after suplexing them into submission. It'd be a real spectacle, all rigged up with magnesium squibs. I can see him flipping the switch on Cain, who is in persona as a retarded death row inmate, as he yells "I'M ABOUT TO CUT BACK ON FUNDING, AND I WON'T REGRET THIS!".

Ron Paul could turn heel and come out in a red unitard as "Atlas", signature move: "The Shrug". His weedy physique and waxy flab muscles would be balanced by a Nietzschian will and belief in the power of the self. And instead of a folding chair, he can hit enemies over the head with a paving slab-sized foam copy of The Road To Serfdom. Worked interviews and promos would be carried out while flanked by a couple of fat militia dudes in jungle fatigues and carrying Mini-14s.

If the Republicans adopt this scheme I guarantee they'll make big gains with the voters and set themselves up for 2012. They'd clean out the leftists and then give the crotch chops.

Oh my god. Best of Subsim post of the year right here. Contest's over. :rotfl2::har::haha:

soopaman2

10-20-11, 07:11 AM

As far as ass-kicking goes, Washington lost more battles against the British than he won, except the last couple, the important ones, where the French finally turned up.

While I won't disagree fully, I will have to say there was multiple factors than just the French.

Considering the minutemen were never professionally trained soldiers, they typically lacked the discipline to stay in line to repel a bayonet charge.

That did change when a man claiming to be a Prussian general showed up..
Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben. He trained the militia in European drill. The British were dumbfounded when they didn't run from bayonet charges anymore. (Von Steuben was later only found to be a captain or something, but hoax or not, he delivered.

We also took part in guerrilla tactics. Once again professional army versus farmers.

And as for the French, they didn't show up until they were sure they would be on the winning side.

Once again, it was not so much the French Navy, but a German officer.:D

Sailor Steve

10-20-11, 11:37 AM

As far as ass-kicking goes, Washington lost more battles against the British than he won, except the last couple, the important ones, where the French finally turned up. He wasn't a very good general really.
Yes and no. Washington may or may not have been a good tactical commander. Then again, given the odds at the beginning of the war, it's a miracle the Continental Army survived at all. That, or their commander's genius for eluding a vastly superior enemy and keeping them alive. As for the French, Rochambeau, in a display of decidedly un-French behaviour, cheerfully placed himself under Washington's command and followed his orders, deferring to him in every respect.

He wasn't all that good a president either. A great one, yes, since he defined what the US Presidency would be, and refused to let the office be more than a representative one, first citizen if you will. As an actual leader he was less than strong, concerning himself with holding a neutral course, guided by archenemies Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, and when Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State Washington allowed himself to be led by Hamilton away from the center and into a disastrous alliance with Britain against the French.

Once again, it was not so much the French Navy, but a German officer.:D
Well, De Grasse's fleet did keep Cornwallis from getting reenforcements. But I agree, all the help that Washington recieved was given because the people involved recognized his greatness. More than one contemporary (King George III and Napoleon Bonaparte included) were amazed when he stepped down after the war was concluded, and even more so when he retired after two terms as president, refusing to be a dictator.

Not the best tactical general nor the best administrator, he was still the greatest man America has known.

Yes, I'm a fan. :sunny:

soopaman2

10-20-11, 11:59 AM

:DWell, De Grasse's fleet did keep Cornwallis from getting reenforcements. But I agree, all the help that Washington recieved was given because the people involved recognized his greatness. More than one contemporary (King George III and Napoleon Bonaparte included) were amazed when he stepped down after the war was concluded, and even more so when he retired after two terms as president, refusing to be a dictator.

:sunny:

I wasn't trying to discount the French fleet at all. I was trying to say that if we didn't start winning tactical land victories (Von Steuben), the French would have never stuck their neck out. :)
They risked an all out war with England for supporting our "insurrection" and wanted to be sure it would not be in naught.

I am a huge fan of the man as well, he was a fan of this man they say.
Though I don't know who said, I saw it on the military channel:03:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

Was given dictatorship by the senate to defeat a triple threat of invasions.

Upon winning he relinquished his title and returned to his farm. Just as Washington did. I believe the presidency was pushed on him due to his "hero" status. But he died a pauper on his farm. The first and last "man of the people"
:rock::rock::rock:

I'm biased, I live 15 miles from Monmouth battlefield park and always watch the re-creations. I love stuff like this.

AVGWarhawk

10-20-11, 12:24 PM

Herman Cain thread is now a history class! :hmmm:

soopaman2

10-20-11, 12:33 PM

Herman Cain thread is now a history class! :hmmm:

I'll take partial blame in that, sir.:oops:

So I will bring it back.

I was a huge fan of Cain until he was actually pressed to say something of substance. I am glad I stay open minded.

Vote for Lady Gaga, at least she can dance.

I want a Mitt and Perry ticket. To watch them argue for 4 years would be comedy gold.:har:

Any dems want to run against Obammy? And at least give a viable choice.

The flea circus from the GOP is amusing, but we don't need comedy right now.

August

10-20-11, 01:16 PM

I was trying to say that if we didn't start winning tactical land victories (Von Steuben), the French would have never stuck their neck out.

I think you're overestimating Von Steubens effect. Nothing against his contribution but I believe it was actually our decisive victory at the Battle of Saratoga which convinced the French that we were worth backing.

Takeda Shingen

10-20-11, 02:52 PM

Personally, I find the switch to the historical to be an improvement.

soopaman2

10-20-11, 05:27 PM

I think you're overestimating Von Steubens effect. Nothing against his contribution but I believe it was actually our decisive victory at the Battle of Saratoga which convinced the French that we were worth backing.

Here is some copypasta from wikipedia, short section on his effect, echoing my main point about the Americans actually not running from bayonet charges.

Training program
Steuben's training technique was to create a "model company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(military_unit))", a group of 120 chosen men who in turn successively trained other personnel at Regimental and Brigade levels. Steuben's eccentric personality greatly enhanced his mystique. He trained the soldiers, who at this point were greatly lacking in proper clothing themselves, in full military dress uniform, swearing and yelling at them up and down in German and French. When that was no longer successful, he recruited Captain Benjamin Walker, his French-speaking aide, to curse at them for him in English. Steuben introduced a system of progressive training, beginning with the school of the soldier, with and without arms, and going through the school of the regiment. This corrected the previous policy of simply assigning personnel to regiments. Each company commander was made responsible for the training of new men, but actual instruction was done by selected sergeants, the best obtainable.
Another program developed by Steuben was camp sanitation. He established standards of sanitation and camp layouts that would still be standard a century and a half later. There had previously been no set arrangement of tents and huts. Men relieved themselves where they wished and when an animal died, it was stripped of its meat and the rest was left to rot where it lay. Steuben laid out a plan to have rows for command, officers and enlisted men. Kitchens and latrines were on opposite sides of the camp, with latrines on the downhill side. There was the familiar arrangement of company and regimental streets.
Perhaps Steuben's biggest contribution to the American Revolution was training in the use of the bayonet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet). Since the Battle of Bunker Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill), Americans had been mainly dependent upon using their ammunition to win battles. Throughout the early course of the war, Americans used the bayonet mostly as a cooking skewer or tool rather than as a fighting instrument. Steuben's introduction of effective bayonet charges became crucial. In the Battle of Stony Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stony_Point), American soldiers attacked with unloaded muskets and won the battle solely on Steuben's bayonet training.
The first results of Steuben's training were in evidence at the Battle of Barren Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barren_Hill), 20 May 1778 and then again at the Battle of Monmouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monmouth) in June 1778. Steuben, by then serving in Washington's Headquarters, was the first to determine the enemy was heading for Monmouth. Washington recommended appointment of Steuben as Inspector General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General) on April 30; Congress approved it on May 5. During the winter of 1778-1779, Steuben prepared Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, commonly known as the "Blue Book."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben#cite_note-5) Its basis was the training plan he had devised at Valley Forge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_Forge).

Once again I am biased, not discounting you. But he was a large percentage in our sucess.I honestly think our battles would have been moot without european drill. My opinion.:salute:
Though I respect yours too August.. After all no one knows for sure, unless we were there.
So we can all be wrong:D

August

10-20-11, 06:31 PM

Once again I am biased, not discounting you. But he was a large percentage in our sucess.I honestly think our battles would have been moot without european drill. My opinion.:salute:
Though I respect yours too August.. After all no one knows for sure, unless we were there.
So we can all be wrong:D

Soopaman2,

You'll soon note that people tend to have a dim view of Wikpedia around here.

But be that as it may your copy paste lecture was unnecessary. I am quite aware of von Strubens contributions to our war effort. I am also quite aware of Washington's continued efforts to mold a "continental" Army, capable of fighting conventional battles.

What I am saying is that it's not discipline or tactics or sanitation that brought the French in on our side, it was a major military victory. We had to demonstrate that we could beat the British in a major battle. How we did it was secondary.

The defeat of Burgoyne at Saratoga was that victory. It's cited as the primary motivating force in the French recognition of the fledgling republic and their pledges of military and financial aid signed just a few months later while von Stuben was still training Washington's troops at Valley Forge.

CaptainHaplo

10-20-11, 07:41 PM

Oh my god. Best of Subsim post of the year right here. Contest's over. :rotfl2::har::haha:

He's the glamour man of the Grand Old Federation, as the party is now known, and is always surrounded by a dozen hot bitches or, as he calls them, "wives".

I can see him flipping the switch on Cain, who is in persona as a retarded death row inmate.

And instead of a folding chair, he can hit enemies over the head with a paving slab-sized foam copy of The Road To Serfdom.

Real classy the both of you. One of you demeans women, relgion, claims a successful businessman is "in persona" as a retarded death row inmate, takes shots at an old man with convictions in what he believes in.

The other - encourages it and thinks its the subsim post of the year.

What has this site come to - that this kind of thing is not just tolerated - but lauded?

mookiemookie

10-20-11, 08:19 PM

Real classy the both of you. One of you demeans women, relgion, claims a successful businessman is "in persona" as a retarded death row inmate, takes shots at an old man with convictions in what he believes in.

The other - encourages it and thinks its the subsim post of the year.

What has this site come to - that this kind of thing is not just tolerated - but lauded?

WE. ARE. THE. FUN. POLICE. THERE. SHALL BE. NO. LEVITY. PARODY. OR. HYPERBOLE. USED. FOR. COMEDIC. EFFECT. UNACCEPTABLE. UNACCEPTABLE. BZZZZZZTTTT.

By the way, what's more offensive: the fact that Texas executes retarded people or making light of the fact that they do?

CaptainHaplo

10-21-11, 05:54 AM

mookiemookie

10-21-11, 06:45 AM

Yea, whatever mookie.

Making fun of policy positions you disagree with are one thing. Making fun of people is the politics of personal destruction. Can't debate Perry's stands on issues, make fun of his religion. Can't win against Cain's economic plan, call him a retard who should get the electric chair. Can't beat Paul's stand on the mess the debt has us in, mock him for being old and serious.

It was you that said that hank williams comment about golf was a "poorly" worded statement and that it was fine that he got canned for it. It was not a comparison, it was an allegorical statement - on demonstrating the ludicrous nature of the action.

Kinda like what your saying went on here. Course - the "republican" guy was perfectly fine being fired - here its just all in good fun - because it makes fun of the "right" side. Even it is much more about the people, not their positions.

Double standard much?

To answer your question as to what is more offensive - if you have a problem with mentally deficient people being killed, then making light of the fact they do merely demeans your cause. So you decide for yourself.

When I was in college, we all watched WWF wrestling. We all knew it was fake, but it was good for a cheesy soap opera that catered to what college kids love - crude humor and T&A. I'd say Cohaagen nailed the WWF experience there. His post was hilarious if you've ever watched even one episode. It was nothing worse than what you see on Saturday Night Live. Let me guess, you fired off angry letters when Keenan Thompson did his "Pizza will come" impersonation of Herman Cain and chastised NBC for not taking him ultra super serious all the time.

Double standard? Heck, I'm waiting for his take on a Democrat WWF. That'd be some funny, funny stuff.

If you're that easily offended, it may be time to go outside for a walk or something.

AVGWarhawk

10-25-11, 10:33 AM

Say what we want...Cain keeps climbing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20125120-503544/herman-cain-tops-mitt-romney-in-latest-cbs-nyt-poll/

Tribesman

10-25-11, 12:50 PM

Say what we want...
With his new 909 tax plan he now has to ask middle America to take an even rougher shafting than they would have had with 999.

AVGWarhawk

10-25-11, 12:57 PM

With his new 909 tax plan he now has to ask middle America to take an even rougher shafting than they would have had with 999.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion? :hmmm:

Tribesman

10-25-11, 01:20 PM

Please explain how you came to that conclusion?
Who will be the people making up for the losses due to those being taken out of the full flat plan with the 909 branch?

AVGWarhawk

10-25-11, 01:31 PM

Who will be the people making up for the losses due to those being taken out of the full flat plan with the 909 branch?

No side stepping. Where have you seen, completed or formulated the calculations that the middle class will take the shaft deeper? The lower income folks pay no taxes or very little as it is.

August

10-25-11, 02:00 PM

There would be no change (at least from that). Those that would qualify for 909 already don't have to pay taxes.

Tribesman

10-25-11, 02:06 PM

No side stepping. Where have you seen, completed or formulated the calculations that the middle class will take the shaft deeper?
Think about it.
It ain't rocket science.

The lower income folks pay no taxes or very little as it is.
Yes exactly under 999 they would have shared in the bill for the tax cuts for the very top earners. Since 909 will remove their share of tax increases who is left to pick up the bill for the massive tax cuts to a few?

There would be no change (at least from that). Those that would qualify for 909 already don't have to pay taxes.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Its about the middle segment.

AVGWarhawk

10-25-11, 03:17 PM

You're right, it is not rocket science however 909 is the first change in the code. Those above the poverty rate are still at 999. The middle 9 did not change to 10 or higher to compensate for the those in 909 did it? How is the middle class getting shafted deeper? :hmmm:

Tribesman

10-25-11, 03:45 PM

The middle 9 did not change to 10 or higher to compensate for the those in 909 did it?
How do you expect the difference to be made up?
The plan was sold on it raising a certain revenue, removing one source of that revenue leaves a shortfall which has to be made up elsewhere in the formula.
It really is simple. If 999 across the board becomes 999 and 909 then some digit in the plan has to be shifted upwards to compensate for the missing 9.
So either he puts the upshift onto only the wealthiest(which goes against the whole principle of his plan) or it goes across the remaining board. Any increase across the remaing board further hits the vast majority who are already getting hit with a tax hike.

Unless of course he has revised down his whole system and is now saying he will accept the tax plan pulling in less money than he planned to pull in.

CaptainHaplo

10-25-11, 04:12 PM

The plan was "sold" as being either revenue neutral or revenue positive.

The creation of opportunity zones - the "909" plan - does remove revenue from one area. However, the economic GROWTH this plan can create will more than offset that.

However, lets say for a minute that the 909 areas do in fact result in a shortfall.

Government getting less money to spend is a bad thing?

Considering that Cain has advocated for a balanced budget - the government being able to spend less isn't a negative.....

AVGWarhawk

10-25-11, 06:14 PM

I see your point Tribesman. But, the middle 9 remains at 9. Furthermore, the other two 9' s are still present in the 909 plan. These two 9's are taxes that very little if any are collected presently. The empowerment zones will be a hit spot destination! I'm see many address changes if this type of taxation passes. Truthfully I don't see it happening but we do see unfairness at both ends of the spectrum. The middle guy is getting his leg humped consistently. But, we recognise the current tax code needs to be addressed.

Tribesman

10-25-11, 06:25 PM

The creation of opportunity zones - the "909" plan - does remove revenue from one area.
The oppertunity zones were a seperate aspect already in the original the 909 was intrduced after people started crunching the numbers and looking at how much more tax people would be expected to pay.

However, the economic GROWTH this plan can create will more than offset that.

That is what they said with the laughter curve. It never did mange to catch up and offset did it.

Government getting less money to spend is a bad thing?

It is when you have a debt to service and require constant restructuring and refinancing to service that debt.

Considering that Cain has advocated for a balanced budget
Anyone can advocate for a balanced budget, achieving one is another matter entirely.

Tribesman

10-25-11, 06:30 PM

The empowerment zones will be a hit spot destination!
Depends how it works, similar incentives elsewhere have lead to bursting bubbles where business just cycles through, and also in the process it can badly or fataly damage that business which is already there.

AVGWarhawk

10-25-11, 06:50 PM

Depends how it works, similar incentives elsewhere have lead to bursting bubbles where business just cycles through, and also in the process it can badly or fataly damage that business which is already there.

I don't follow. Are we talking empowerment zones for business or the economically disadvantaged disenfranchised people? It is to my understanding the 909 plan is for the areas that have a overwhelming number of poor people or below poverty level. These folks will not pay a certain tax...which they don't already. These areas do not include business's as being eligible for 909.

Tribesman

10-25-11, 06:58 PM

I don't follow.
You are mixing two aspects. As said already one was in the original (business)the other was added(low paid workers).

AVGWarhawk

10-25-11, 07:04 PM

mookiemookie

10-25-11, 08:03 PM

Ok, got it. Here is article that somewhat explains what he is thinking.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/24/9-9-9-take-2-cains-tax-plan-revamp-still-stings-the-middle-cl/

His plan is radical and I don't see a sweeping change. Might be a odd ball mix like Perry dreamed up over a cup of coffee.

Good article. One major, major issue I see is that reducing the actual take home pay of the lower and middle classes would result in a direct hit to GDP. On average, 2/3rds of GDP is comprised of consumer spending. If you take away the ability for the consumer to spend, you necessarily hamstring GDP.

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 10:03 AM

Good article. One major, major issue I see is that reducing the actual take home pay of the lower and middle classes would result in a direct hit to GDP. On average, 2/3rds of GDP is comprised of consumer spending. If you take away the ability for the consumer to spend, you necessarily hamstring GDP.

Let's look at it in simpler terms. I go and purchases a new washer for $200.00. Remember, no tax on used items(tax savings right off the bat if I find a used washer). The $200.00 is taxed at 9% for the sale or $18.00 under Cain's plan. Currently in the state of MD our sales tax is 6%. Under this tax of 6% my tax would be $12.00. I have paid a additional $6.00 in tax with Cain's plan. However, my income tax is around 15% I believe. If I gross $200.00/week after taxes at 15% I take home $170.00. Under the new 9% on the $200.00 weekly I would take home $182.00. I have a extra $12.00 income. I do see where the take home pay is lower under this plan. Cain's plan is empowering people to spend with additional cash. Plus, there is that option of looking for used products that will not be taxed. Used cars sales would probably increase. A used 15K car would not be taxed $1350.00. Unless I'm missing something this is how the plan would work in the simplest terms.

Tribesman

10-26-11, 10:27 AM

In simplest terms AVG you are removing a sum which will not be removed.
Your "reduced" liability in your equation is because you did a minus where there is a plus.

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 10:28 AM

What sum might that be? I keep hearing a 9% national sales tax. Are you saying the 9% national sales will be on top of the state sales tax? :hmmm:

frau kaleun

10-26-11, 10:43 AM

What sum might that be? I keep hearing a 9% national sales tax. Are you saying the 9% national sales will be on top of the state sales tax? :hmmm:

Do you really think the states are going to give up revenue from state sales tax just because the federal government wants to tax you on the same purchase? I certainly don't.

Tribesman

10-26-11, 10:59 AM

What sum might that be? I keep hearing a 9% national sales tax. Are you saying the 9% national sales will be on top of the state sales tax?
Thats the plan:yeah:
One thing that hasn't been clarified though, possible double taxing on sales. So is it on top of or alongside?

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 11:05 AM

Do you really think the states are going to give up revenue from state sales tax just because the federal government wants to tax you on the same purchase? I certainly don't.

Of course states are not giving up sales tax on top of all the other taxes we are being raped on. The Federal sales tax as part of the 999 plan needs to be explained in detail or turned to 0 as done in the empowerment zones. The Federal sales tax from what I understand does not tax items such as food. This tax is left to the state. As simple as Cain likes to push the plan it is not as simple as it seems. What is first seen as a fair tax for all becomes a unfair tax when 909 is thrown in. I'm sure other things will be thrown in. So, what we once called loopholes will just be termed something else. But, again as stated, this is a sweeping change and I don't see it coming to pass. Perry's pick and chose tax plan will not work either. Personally, the government should learn to live on what is collected now. We, as individuals, live on a budget.

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 11:07 AM

Thats the plan:yeah:
One thing that hasn't been clarified though, possible double taxing on sales. So is it on top of or alongside?

May not be at all. It is a double dip like we get now with a tax on used items. I understand used items will not be taxed again. I believe food will not be taxed by the fed. This is were Cain needs to come clean on his plan.

Tribesman

10-26-11, 11:19 AM

or turned to 0 as done in the empowerment zones
I thought we had got through that already, the 0 is for low paid workers. empowerment zones are tax exemptions for business, you know like what there are in the current tax code, loopholes is another word.....or domestic outsourcing may be another new one to consider using.

I believe food will not be taxed by the fed.
Thats what a lot of people were told about national sales taxes.

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 11:29 AM

I thought we had got through that already, the 0 is for low paid workers. empowerment zones are tax exemptions for business, you know like what there are in the current tax code, loopholes is another word.....or domestic outsourcing may be another new one to consider using.

Thats what a lot of people were told about national sales taxes.

Correct, 0 for lower wage earners and loopholes for business. As far as what is to be taxed by the Fed, the list has not been provide. But again, this is all in vain. This will not pass in either house. No matter Cain's aspirations to do so I do not think it can be done on a 9 sheet bill. Hence the 1900 page mess we have now. :salute:

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 11:44 AM

“Americans by a 20-point margin, 56-36 percent, hold an unfavorable opinion of the 9-9-9 plan. And intensity runs against the idea: it’s seen “strongly” unfavorably rather than strongly favorably by a 3-1 margin, 35 percent vs. 12 percent,” according to ABC News pollster Gary Langer. http://abcn.ws/tcEM6M

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/the-herman-cain-conundrum-the-note/

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 11:51 AM

And so it begins:

Perhaps some of Cain's anti-tax fervor can be traced to his own past encounters with the taxman. According to documents obtained by ABC News, in February 2008, the Georgia Department of Revenue hit Cain and his wife Gloria with a lien for $8558.46 in unpaid personal income taxes from 2006.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/herman-cain-hit-tax-lien/story?id=14817100

Looking to dig up whatever they can on Cain. The media is fresh on the trail once again. It never ends no matter who you are or what you are running for.

mookiemookie

10-26-11, 11:55 AM

"The experience serves as an example of how broken our federal and state bureaucracies are with respect to the collection of revenue," Gordon told ABC News. "The entire process is driven by automated letters generated in response to deadlines."

Well how else are you gonna do it? Handwritten notes on Hallmark stationary saying "pay it whenever"?

AVGWarhawk

10-26-11, 12:01 PM

Well how else are you gonna do it? Handwritten notes on Hallmark stationary saying "pay it whenever"?

See the bigger issue....why is there so many in trouble with taxes that automated machine/response needs to be generated? Gordon is right. This notice would not need to be generated if people would pay their taxes. I hate seeing those commercials were lawyers bargain down for clients what is owed in taxes. "Hi, I got out of paying $80,000.00 in taxes and only cut a check for $10,000 thanks to Wee, Cheatem and How." There are so many red flagged returns at the doing of tax payers it is not a wonder there is automated letters.

CaptainHaplo

10-26-11, 11:15 PM

Which is exactly why the political class - both sides of the same coin - don't want to ever reform the tax code. Doing so means that while the middle class pays - they won't have all the loopholes.

Look at how any true reform of the tax code gets attacked. Its rather telling.

Tribesman

10-27-11, 02:02 AM

Doing so means that while the middle class pays - they won't have all the loopholes.

The middle have all the loophles they have, the poor and the wealthy have all the loopholes they have.
Some of those loopholes overlap but none of them have all the loopholes.
Likewise with business.

Look at how any true reform of the tax code gets attacked
To look at that you would first have to produce an example of true reform.

CaptainHaplo

10-27-11, 07:46 AM

Throwing out the multi-hundred page tax code and instituting a flat/fair tax isn't reform?

Moving from an income tax structure to a consumption tax structure isn't reform?

Tribesman

10-27-11, 09:27 AM

Throwing out the multi-hundred page tax code and instituting a flat/fair tax isn't reform?

Moving from an income tax structure to a consumption tax structure isn't reform?
Yes it isn't, its just more of the same.
Look how quickly Cains simple plan hit reality, as it was at first it already had probably a hundred pages of ah buts, once he tried to actually work some numbers he had to add a couple of hundred pages for but ifs anda few hundred pages of but thens which would soon come back to the ah buts with extra pages for them.
As for consumption tax, bloody hell what a nightmare of paperwork, forget multi hundred page, cut down a whole forest for the paper.
Flat tax/fair tax isjust a sloganeering gimmick and consumption tax is such a nightmare its why they moved to income in the first place.

mookiemookie

10-27-11, 10:23 AM

If the main driver of this country's GDP is consumer spending, how is a consumption based tax system that provides disincentives to consumer spending a good thing?

tater

10-27-11, 10:31 AM

If the main driver of this country's GDP is consumer spending, how is a consumption based tax system that provides disincentives to consumer spending a good thing?

It's only a disincentive if the total tax paid is somehow more. Note that I'm not defending 999, it seems half-baked to me. I was thinking something more like the fair tax. It eliminates all other federal taxes, so consumers have more to spend in the first place (and in the case of fair tax, the tax rate times the poverty level is refunded to everyone, so the poor pay no tax whatsoever).

That said I'm more in a flat tax camp.

I see no reason why the personal income/payroll tax code cannot fit on a page or two.

No breaks for anything. If they want to make it more progressive, make it tax XX% of all income over a certain level. Say the poverty line.

Ditto the corporate rate. Make it flat, no special cases, no exceptions—but a low rate.

CaptainHaplo

10-27-11, 02:23 PM

as it was at first it already had probably a hundred pages of ah buts, once he tried to actually work some numbers he had to add a couple of hundred pages for but ifs anda few hundred pages of but thens which would soon come back to the ah buts with extra pages for them.

Now see - you have no idea if that is accurate - its a "guess". Plans take time to create - the "at first" is what is called a work in progress. 9-9-9 actually is SIMPLE - its not hundreds of pages. Trying to make a "guess" or a "probably" into something factual is not gonna fly. The final product is what is important - and that is simple enough for the public school educated crowd to even get it.

As for consumption tax, bloody hell what a nightmare of paperwork, forget multi hundred page, cut down a whole forest for the paper. Flat tax/fair tax isjust a sloganeering gimmick and consumption tax is such a nightmare its why they moved to income in the first place.

Apparently your not familiar with the US tax system. They didn't "move" to an income based tax system because consumption tax is a nightmare. They did so to create another revenue stream. Otherwise the US government would be stuck with only tariff income.

The US has a consumption tax system - or rather - a lot of consumption tax systems. It is called state sales tax. There is no reason that a consumption tax could not be federally applied with each state being responsible to collect it - for a very small percentage of it to cover the cost since the infrastructure is already in place.

Tribesman

10-27-11, 03:01 PM

Now see - you have no idea if that is accurate - its a "guess". Plans take time to create - the "at first" is what is called a work in progress. 9-9-9 actually is SIMPLE - its not hundreds of pages.
999 is so simplistic it was in reality unworkable and just a slogan.
How many pages do you think it would take to set out all the parameters just for the initial "empowerment" nonsense(which is a only a version of existing tax breaks for incentivising business in deprived areas)?

The final product is what is important - and that is simple enough for the public school educated crowd to even get it.

Then you should have understood...."To look at that you would first have to produce an example of true reform."
Apparently your not familiar with the US tax system. They didn't "move" to an income based tax system because consumption tax is a nightmare. They did so to create another revenue stream. Otherwise the US government would be stuck with only tariff income.

They did the same move as the rest of the western world for the same reasons.

There is no reason that a consumption tax could not be federally applied with each state being responsible to collect it
Yes there is no reason why not, but there are and always will be lots of questions about the impact, effectiveness and shall we say "Black" issues that have always dogged sales taxes.

vienna

10-27-11, 03:34 PM

tater

10-27-11, 05:32 PM

You know what, I think Warren Buffet has it right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Any system where one person earning a middle class income is taxed at twice the rate of a millionaire or billionaire due to exclusive deductions, deferrals, reclassifications, etc. is very, very unfair. If we are going to get serious about reforming taxes, we need to have a parity across the board: everyone pays at the same rate and no deductions (except, perhaps for charitable comtributions, emergency disaster loss/recovery, or one-time only exigencies) and no "special status" due to occupational "conditions" (you know, those near-mythic "job creators"). If a millionaire/billionaires maid pays at a 38% tax rate, so should their boss: conversly, if the boss pays at a 17% tax rate, sho should the maid...

Yawn.

He pays less than the mean for the 1%. He pays less than the mean for the 0.1%. He in fact manages to pay less than the norm for the top 400 tax filings.

The reason is simple, most of his income is "capital gains." He only pays himself 100k a year—for no other reason than to dodge taxes. Most people making around a million pay an effective rate around 30% since they do not have the luxury of deciding to pay themselves differently.

Regardless, he STILL pays far more than "his share." He lives in the same, low key house he always did. He uses no more services than anyone else, yet still pays millions in taxes every year.

There is no inherent reason why even identical % of income is "fair." The only possible objective definition of fair would be a system of shares. (Total budget)/population = per capita share. If you have a family of 4, you pay 4 shares. Under the current, insane levels of spending this is obviously impossible for most, so we pretend to have a system where everyone pays, but in fact all the bills are paid by the very top tier of taxpayers. Under a "share" system, clearly spending would have to be gutted back to some reasonable % of GDP. Realistically, the best we can do in terms of fairness would be a single rate for all, and make deficit spending harder.

The story (editorial) was talked about by the credulous press without much (if any) examination. Has he submitted his tax returns for public review? What about his maids, etc? They must make a lot if they have an effective rate even equal to 17%. Since he demonstrably pays less than others in his income range, why doesn't he simply pony up extra cash as a donation to the feds? What, he'll only do so if someone making 1M$ a year does the same compared to his vast earnings?

Also, most of his wealth is in unrealized capital gains. When liquidated, they will be taxed at that rate. Which is low, but it will be a huge chunk of money.

What's most funny, is that even if the "Buffett Rule" he proposed were made law it would raise... wait for it... 19 billion a year. That covers less than 2 days of current spending.

BTW, a flat tax would solve this.