No, it isn’t fair. $2000 can do a lot more for someone who makes $10,000 than $200,000 can do someone who makes $1,000,000. Both are 20%, but the impact is much, much greater at the bottom of the spectrum. It’s called basic survival.
Is it?
Do rich people and poor people consume an equal share of the resources of the nation?
Here, I present to you again, a video of Palin’s speech. At every instance that you can see the teleprompter, you can see that it is exactly sync’ed with what she is saying. At 37:29, in fact, there’s a nice example of the prompter waiting patiently during a long period of applause for the cellmate of McCain, with the next words that she says all ready for her to go.
This is simply pathological lying. There’s no point to lying that the teleprompter was broken - she read the speech fine, so there’s nothing to try to make an excuse about. It’s just crazy.
Another such example is at 18:56. The prompter waits very nicely for her through an applause line, and you can see just exactly what she says next.
Goddamn crazy.
ETA Link: Sarah Palin's Address to the RNC | RealClearPolitics
You and I go to the grocery store. We both buy a gallon of milk.
You get charged $10. I get charged $1. Would this be fair to you?
If I told you that the reason that you were charged more is because you make 10 times more money, would this be fair to you? Why, specifically?
What if I told you that the reason is because you make 8.4 times more money than me, would this be fair? Or 13.4 times? If the differential was fair when you were making 10 times more but became unfair at 8.4 or 13.4, why?
What I’m trying to show is that the fairness that you think exists in a flat tax system is a product of your imagination. Why? Because the “fairness” is based on a completely arbitrary standard. There’s nothing objectively fair about getting charged at the same rate as someone else. You’re still going pay more than the poor guy for the same privilege of living in the country (ie. gallon of milk). .
The only thing that flat tax has going for it is consistency. A foolish consistency…but a consistency nevertheless.
Gosh, whose opinion should I trust more - Cecil’s or Weirddave’s? It’s so hard to decide…
I’d trust mine, cuz Cecil is flat out wrong on this one. It happens, look at the The Barn House forum.
Look at it this way: the cost of being an Americaian citizen is X% of your earnings, no matter what you earn (with a floor-I believe I proposed up thread 200% of poverty level income. People making less than that are exempted from taxes). That’s fair for everyone. The only way you can argue against that is if you view the tax system as a vehicle to redistribute wealth. Many do. They are despicable people. Of course this impacts the poor more than the rich, that’s the definition of poor and rich.
That’s the only way? You couldn’t argue that the poor, while giving less in absolute terms, are hit harder by financial outlays than the wealthy? That would be despicable?
Weirddave makes perfect sense once you realize that he belongs to the “Fuck you, I got mine!” party. They are always willing to make the other guy “pay his fair share.”
Right, because having college kids serve food to the less fortunate or do some yard work for elderly shut-ins is comparable to eradicating the Jews.
You’re scum.
I personally would pay at least 10K more yearly in taxes under a flat tax plan. I still think it’s the right thing to do, but thank you for playing.
And if you actually read the page, you can find out that it’s not mandatory: people are encouraged in various ways to do community service (mostly fiscally, but still). The only thing on there that you can really read as being ‘required’ is the middle school/high school thing, which was already the case in my middle school.
Bullshit. Her gender is irrelevant. The key point is simply that she is lying by pretending to be some simple honest person when in reality she is playacting the role of simple honest person.
If she was man I would have thought of a corresponding romance movie hero and used a quote from him. If I’d done that, would you have been calling me sexist? Of course not. So who’s actually the one being sexist here?
Withholding funds from schools that don’t comply makes it not a voluntary program. It’s mandatory.
You got a cite for that? It doesn’t say so on the page you linked to.
Allow me to be perfectly clear here: since the school has the option of not complying and thus forgoing federal funding, technicality it is not a mandatory program. As a practical, real world matter, no school will ever give up their funding. It’s not gonna happen. If the many times more onerous NCLB act didn’t get schools to tell the government to stick their funding where the sun don’t shine, this sure won’t, so the voluntary nature of the program is an illusion. My last post was unclear on this point. This is what I meant when I stated “It’s mandatory”.
He asked for a cite.
We need to slow things down a bit for Weirddave.
Boyo Jim’s post was a request for a cite that Obama wants to withhold federal funding from non-compliant schools, not a request for a cite that proves the definition of the word “mandatory.” 
I’d like to know where you get that idea as well, because it sure as hell isn’t on the page you linked to.
That make sense?
Weirddave, my apologies for not coming back to this thread yesterday. Stoopid work. 
Is this a bad thing? Aren’t we, um… spread a bit thin? And isn’t part of the goal of recruiting more people to be able to stop contracting out to companies like Blackwater? Because while I can understand your “less government” preference here, I personally am completely on board with not having an army of mercenaries, and I think most people could see the advantage to having the army actually answerable to the government.
Unless I’m missing it, which is entirely possible, the plan doesn’t say where the money is coming from. This is not, I grant you, a point in Obama’s favor, but it’s not one in yours, either. Meet me back here this time next year and we’ll see if the federal budget increased by $50B.
Shrug. Not enough info there for me to judge. Again, no points awarded to either side. Although I will say that IMO, taxing the oil companies is a better way of getting the money to appease people with $1000 checks than NOT taxing them, and just running up the defecit. YMMV.
Erm… they already have that information. They’re the IRS. They’re not expanding their data collection.
Hey, at least it’s pork for small farms. Do I love it? Nope, but I’m indifferent. I’m pretty sure they need the money more than say, Tyson.
Where does it say that it will be required for graduation at the primary education level? It would be required at the college level in exchange for a tax credit.
Hardly incipient facism.
If you’re unable to differentiate between a credible source, and… that, I suspect there’s nothing I can do to help you.
I understand what the word mandatory means. I am asking you to provide some evidence that funding would be withdrawn if these programs aren’t implemented. There is no such statement on the page you linked to.