Herman Cain...driving the left crazy

[CaptainHaplo]

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Say what we want...Cain keeps climbing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...-cbs-nyt-poll/

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.