Herman Cain
- Thread starter Blitz
- Start date
Wayne, I didn't say the current system was unfair. You did, and always have. Please re-read this, so you understand. Then proceed.
My question STILL is, do you think the solution that YOU and YOUR constituency suggests about going after the 12.5% of income in the country (the bottom 50%) will solve our problems? How much do you want them to pay? Take that number into the 12.5% of income made by this group, and tell me what you come up with. And you think this will solve or even begin to help our current situation - all things considered? How much of this income that you and your party want to go after seems realistic to take from these people that in most cases cannot survive as it is? Your solution is to take this money from these people, and what then? Build more prisons? Hire more government workers (police, guards, security, etc.)? I thought you were against expanding government? Disband the education system we have now and let those people fend for themselves, further continuing the discrepancy in educational opportunity in this country? That's progress and fairness in a progressive society to you?
Do you honestly think this is the best way to go about things, really? On top of that, you want to essentially eliminate or at least reduce the money going TO a large part OF this group, in addition to taking more money away from them? All the while, not asking anything of those who are continuing to profit in increasing amounts by the system that they exist in now? These same folks who have had all this increasing money for the past few years and are not spending it or "putting people to work?" These are the people we need to help MORE?
My question STILL is, do you think the solution that YOU and YOUR constituency suggests about going after the 12.5% of income in the country (the bottom 50%) will solve our problems? How much do you want them to pay? Take that number into the 12.5% of income made by this group, and tell me what you come up with. And you think this will solve or even begin to help our current situation - all things considered? How much of this income that you and your party want to go after seems realistic to take from these people that in most cases cannot survive as it is? Your solution is to take this money from these people, and what then? Build more prisons? Hire more government workers (police, guards, security, etc.)? I thought you were against expanding government? Disband the education system we have now and let those people fend for themselves, further continuing the discrepancy in educational opportunity in this country? That's progress and fairness in a progressive society to you?
Do you honestly think this is the best way to go about things, really? On top of that, you want to essentially eliminate or at least reduce the money going TO a large part OF this group, in addition to taking more money away from them? All the while, not asking anything of those who are continuing to profit in increasing amounts by the system that they exist in now? These same folks who have had all this increasing money for the past few years and are not spending it or "putting people to work?" These are the people we need to help MORE?
You can take 100% of top 10% and not pay off this admins deficts. It the spending--
While your bottom 50% "might" only earn 12% they pay nothing and respresent 150,000,000 people. If they just contributed 100 each it would be $15,000,000,000 revenue-- which "might" offset a bit of the "refunds" they get on the"nothing" they pay in. :facepalm:
--and people wonder U.S. was downgraded for 1st time in history.
getting back to fair share and your analogy.
The bottom 50% earning 12.75 of income and paying 0 taxes
--the top 50% earning 87.25% of income and paying 100% of taxes.
Enlighten us how someone paying nothing the other footing 100% is fair.
Last edited:
my question is this:
If you are not paying for something, do you really care what is happening and how the money that is being paid into it is spent?
Perhaps there would be a more involved constituency if everyone had skin in the game.
If you are not paying for something, do you really care what is happening and how the money that is being paid into it is spent?
Perhaps there would be a more involved constituency if everyone had skin in the game.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Herman's 9-9-9 plan is of course a joke. It could just as well be 7-7-7, 11-11-11 or 6-8-10.
He's produced no credible accounting as to how much revenue it would generate.
It's just red meat for the simpletons to gobble up.
As Mencken once said, and I paraphrase: For every complicated problem there is always a simple solution, and it is always wrong.
He's produced no credible accounting as to how much revenue it would generate.
It's just red meat for the simpletons to gobble up.
As Mencken once said, and I paraphrase: For every complicated problem there is always a simple solution, and it is always wrong.
Last edited:
Yes, Trampled. Exactly.
I want to take the vote away from the poor people.
If you think that, you are a complete idiot.
It's amazing - in my community, the majority of the elderly vote against school levys - they do not want a tax increase for the schools that they personally are not using = of course, if the school system starts to fail, their property values will like fall but they do not see it that way. They KNOW that their property taxes go to funding schools and they KNOW that they, personally, do not use the schools so they vote NO because they do not want their monthly taxes to go up.
So, since they have skin in the game, they come out to vote at elections with school levies on them.
Amazing.
Muff:
I have 15 Trillion pieces of credible evidence that says our current system of taxation does NOT work.
I'm willing to look in a different direction.
Status quo does not work.
I want to take the vote away from the poor people.
If you think that, you are a complete idiot.
It's amazing - in my community, the majority of the elderly vote against school levys - they do not want a tax increase for the schools that they personally are not using = of course, if the school system starts to fail, their property values will like fall but they do not see it that way. They KNOW that their property taxes go to funding schools and they KNOW that they, personally, do not use the schools so they vote NO because they do not want their monthly taxes to go up.
So, since they have skin in the game, they come out to vote at elections with school levies on them.
Amazing.
Muff:
I have 15 Trillion pieces of credible evidence that says our current system of taxation does NOT work.
I'm willing to look in a different direction.
Status quo does not work.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I am troubled not not one of these guys who love this guy can explain the plan or answer a couple of simple questions. And again the country is not a business in fact it is the exact of running a business. This country became great with a graduated income tax.
It took him almost 3 yrs to come up with this? Why doesn't Reid bring it to a vote? Could it be about 13 Dems won't vote for it?
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Hey lowell, nice to see you again. This might not be the right place to ask you, but how is the negro hunting going in North Carolina?:facepalm:
