|
|
On September 22 2012 09:11 Cardmaniac wrote:
I wonder if the closeness in votes in who will you vote for and who do you think will win is optimistic thinking, actually realistic, or biased perspectives.
Hard to tell. Based on previous TL.net polls from the SC2 side of the house it would appear people are bias.
(Voting that the popular player will win over the Korean GSL champion for example)
As much as I hate it, I do think Obama will win. So I voted for him in that catigory. I did vote for Romney only for the lesser of 2 evils.
|
On September 22 2012 09:08 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:02 rogzardo wrote:
Are you fucking kidding me. You're really going to start arguing on Herman Cain's behalf?!?!!?
Read above, mod's note. Romney/Obama only. No one will take you seriously anymore anyhow. When the truth wins: 1) Attack your opponent directly via Ad homage 2) Ignore his points 3) Belittle his views 4) ignore him, thus taking him out of debate It's ok, I wouldn't want to admit i was wrong either- it's a hard thing to do sometimes, like saying sorry. It isn't easy.
To be fair, Cain's 9-9-9 plan was rightly ridiculed as complete garbage, and his campaign was regarded across the political spectrum as a joke, so taking him seriously is, uh.... head scratchingly curious, to put it one way.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 22 2012 09:11 Cardmaniac wrote:
I wonder if the closeness in votes in who will you vote for and who do you think will win is optimistic thinking, actually realistic, or biased perspectives.
All of the above, I would presume. The internet is known to have a liberal bias, just like the media.
|
United States43918 Posts
On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist.
How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay?
|
On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay?
Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something?
|
On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay?
But haven't you heard, Kwark? The diminishing marginal utility of income is a thing of fantasy and liberal bias!
|
United States43918 Posts
On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something?
Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay?
Not taxing the wealthy would be fairer I would presume. They're the ones giving us our jobs!
On September 22 2012 09:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:[quote] Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something? Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded.
LOL. Best. Response. EVER!
|
On September 22 2012 09:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:[quote] Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something? Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded.
I don't see how it's not fair... The rich pay the most, the poor pay the least- the middle is the middle.
The only other plan that I think could be more fair is the removal of all taxes with a massive increase on sales tax.
This way you are only taxed on what you buy. Rich people buy alot of junk they pay the most.
Poor people buy the least expensive things and would pay the least.
I thought the UK was pro flat tax....
|
Removing income tax altogether is a really good plan Saygen. I don't see how that wouldn't work out.
|
On September 22 2012 09:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:On September 22 2012 08:05 SayGen wrote:Obama will win. Let's be realistic here. As fun as this whole conversion/disscussion is. Most Americans arn't smart. Hate to say that but we arn't. One person says- vote for me and I will Give you 'free stuff' One person says- I will do my best to fix the economy and give you the shot at getting a job. Who wins? Take the names and ideology away and it comes down to "What's best for me" People don't care about http://www.usdebtclock.org/People don't care if our schools, Reseach Facalities, Military are all in decline. I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? But haven't you heard, Kwark? The diminishing marginal utility of income is a thing of fantasy and liberal bias!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism
Supply/demand fixes Marginalism
|
United States43918 Posts
On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax....
Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9.
|
On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:17 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:08 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I'm poor and broke, but I'm still not going to vote for somebody for "free stuff" I'm going to vote for the person that isn't going to completely destroy our economy so my kids aren't going to have to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it. On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:
[quote]
Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse.
Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something? Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded. I don't see how it's not fair... The rich pay the most, the poor pay the least- the middle is the middle. The only other plan that I think could be more fair is the removal of all taxes with a massive increase on sales tax. This way you are only taxed on what you buy. Rich people buy alot of junk they pay the most. Poor people buy the least expensive things and would pay the least. I thought the UK was pro flat tax....
I am afraid your sales tax idea is a little backwards. As a % of income the rich spend less than the poor who have to spend most of their money just to buy the basic things like food and gas. This would essentially make it even harder for the poor to get by and the rich would still be fine if not even better off.
|
SayGen, the reason people are giving up on talking with you is that you're coming from a different universe. You're coming from a universe in which Herman Cain wasn't a joke. You're coming from a universe in which loose change stuffed into a sock* can cover the cost of a serious illness. You're coming from a universe where the president literally has a vendetta against you and wants to kill you. (That's the most reasonable claim of the three.)
None of these is the real universe. This is why people are running out of patience.
*I'm not trying to make fun of you for not having more money. I'm aware that $300/mo isn't loose change to you, me, or most people. But it is loose change compared to a serious medical bill in this country.
|
On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9.
Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea.
As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse.
|
On September 22 2012 09:08 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:02 rogzardo wrote:
Are you fucking kidding me. You're really going to start arguing on Herman Cain's behalf?!?!!?
Read above, mod's note. Romney/Obama only. No one will take you seriously anymore anyhow. When the truth wins: 1) Attack your opponent directly via Ad homage 2) Ignore his points 3) Belittle his views 4) ignore him, thus taking him out of debate It's ok, I wouldn't want to admit i was wrong either- it's a hard thing to do sometimes, like saying sorry. It isn't easy.
Your perception of truth is so distorted that we don't even know where to start.
We feel that it's the best way to just let you discover the world the hard way.
|
On September 22 2012 09:26 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:17 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:04 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2012 09:00 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 22 2012 08:55 SayGen wrote:On September 22 2012 08:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
So you're going to vote for a third party candidate? Because neither of the main candidates has a comprehensive plan to avoid economic fall-out post-Eurozone, which is the only thing I can think of that could lead to hyperinflation bar natural disasters (heck, even if you're an Austrian economics dude Romney isn't touching the fed). Neither of them even seems willing to mention it.
[quote]
Took you seriously until Herman Cain. He unintentionally quoted Pokemon and had no idea what he was talking about at any point during his run. The fact that he was "leading" at one point points to the hilarity of this last primary season. Rather him quote Pokemon than Obama talk about reality TV and make appearences on TV sitcoms The key is unintentionally. The man was at best out purely for advertisement and at worst a buffoon. There was no compelling reason to vote for him over having no president at all, to be honest. 1) Support government transparency 2) 9-9-9 tax plan that would close loop holes for the rich, lower taxes for the rich- and attempt to be very close to revenue neutral as possible. 3) Common Sense solutions- less government 4) Traditional conservatives views. 5) He wasn't a politican, he was a business man. Ladies and gentleman, we've found ourselves a believer in the 9-9-9 tax. My goodness, I thought they didn't really exist. How could anything be fairer than a flat tax rate taking the same proportion from those most able to pay as those least able to pay? Is that sarcasm or do you actually agree with me on something? Of course it's sarcasm. The proportion of people who can't see the obvious problems with the 9-9-9 plan is actually lower than the proportion of people in society who are actually legitimately retarded. I don't see how it's not fair... The rich pay the most, the poor pay the least- the middle is the middle. The only other plan that I think could be more fair is the removal of all taxes with a massive increase on sales tax. This way you are only taxed on what you buy. Rich people buy alot of junk they pay the most. Poor people buy the least expensive things and would pay the least. I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... I am afraid your sales tax idea is a little backwards. As a % of income the rich spend less than the poor who have to spend most of their money just to buy the basic things like food and gas. This would essentially make it even harder for the poor to get by and the rich would still be fine if not even better off.
We don't have sales tax on life essencial goods- least in my state
http://revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/332F2097-1179-4EBC-989F-C5074B482593/0/sufacts_v6n2.pdf
Now gas isn't needed, because cars arn't needed.
Maybe it's different for others, but a poor person could still get by without ever paying a single tax dollar.
But name one rich dude who doens't own a nice car/home/boat
all are taxable.
|
On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse.
history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country.
Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out.
(Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII)
I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow.
I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups.
|
On September 22 2012 08:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 08:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 22 2012 08:47 SayGen wrote:Hence why I don't like Romney. He sucks. It's his lucky day Obama sucks worse. Where is Ron Paul/Hermain Cain/Rand Paul/ Gary Johnson when you need him..... Let's go through this together. You say 'fuck obama' because now we won't have funding for schools and research. Romney's plan cuts funding for schools and research. Obama's does not. You need to think this out more. Counterargument: Obama's reckless increase in government debt and unfunded liabilities will, over the long run, eat into school and research budgets. Romney's cuts by comparison are smaller and more sustainable. Difficulty funding pensions is already having such an effect on state budgets, why not the Federal budget too? Counterargument: This just brings us back full circle to the Bush debacle, the tax debate, and Republican obstructionism.
How do you figure?
|
On September 22 2012 09:37 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:30 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 22 2012 09:24 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2012 09:20 SayGen wrote:
I thought the UK was pro flat tax.... Thought with the same high quality thinking that backs 9-9-9. Maggie Thatcher tried to implement a flat tax rate, the Poll Tax. Cue months of sometimes violent protests until she abolished the idea. As Kwark pointed out taxing the poor a flat rate regardless of individual circumstance, income, expenditure etc isn't the best of ideas, and will quickly make their bad situation worse. Added to which why would you advocate taxing the middle class and especially the upper class less? That would debase the tax base even more, making the hole that is the US economy even worse. history shows that it is the middle class/ rich that are the lifeblood of any country.
Poor people don't ever contribute to society--or to be more correct- they dont put in as much as they take out.
(Hence why Stalin took all his poor and put them on the front lines in WWII)I don't want the poor to be abused, or mistreated- but I do want them to carry their weight- because I want my country to thrive and grow. I want less tax for everyone, including the poor that actually do the right thing and pay their bills- I just want less hand outs- and more hand ups.
What in the flying fuck.
I don't even...*facedesk*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
