Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

"O'Reilly jacked you so hard, you landed on Current TV."
slam. (will watch)

"What is it about you that makes you so hard to work with"

That's the part that got me.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Who's replacing Wiener anyhow? As much as the guy was a moron for what he did, he was still the best politician in the House by a landslide.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

most likely, his seat will disappear through redistricting.

the area his district is in now, would it be lumped into a current liberal district, or conservative?

I'm not sure how redistricting works to be honest.

 

[soul creator]

in reference to this

So we're supposed to come here for serious discussions with people like this?
A good example of why conservatives stay out of this thread.

is there something that was false about what I said?

I sometimes wonder if people like soul creator and puddles actually go through life thinking that their opinion concerning a complex and generally objective issue depending on your values really is as iron clad correct as simple math. What a bizarrely close minded way to live.

Considering that there is a major political party who's policy position by their elected representatives (and even some on the opposite "side") over the past 10 years has been "keep cutting taxes no matter what, and everything will be ok!", I don't think I'm the one using math incorrectly.

Again, if the debate was "what is the right tax rate that strikes a balance between providing services for all of our citizens to keep the country running smoothly, while also allowing them to privately spend/invest their own money". Sure, that's fine. That's something that is actually capable of being debated and discussed properly. Instead, the "debate" in America is:

"we should cut taxes some more"

"but taxes are the lowest in 50 years..."

"cut taxes"

"but we have a huge amount of debt already and need somewhere to get revenue from..."

"CUT TAXES"

"but most of the country is actually fine with targeted tax raises"

"CUT TAXES!!!!"

"but I'm talking about going back to the tax rates from the 90's, not some crazy huge increase"

"CUT TAXES!!11!!"

That's not a "debate". That's a rehearsed talking point that unfortunately a large amount of our elected representatives follow along with. The issue of taxes for example can be a complex one, but that doesn't mean every single random idea someone proposes in regards to it should be taken seriously, regardless of if it's one of their "personal values".

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Seems more than adequate under the circumstances. You've not refuted the substance contained in the link I posted, I assume because you personally know nothing about the substance and wouldn't know where to begin. You really shouldn't start arguments about which you know nothing, even though you really didn't even present an argument, just tossed out phrases as if a succession of phrases constituted an argument. I humored you, although I shouldn't have bothered, knowing you as I do.

Seems someone can't actually refute an argument with actual substance. Well it's good to know that you deny the existence of Trnopolje as a concentration camp. That's pretty messed up, but hey you seem to be happy with it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

in reference to this



is there something that was false about what I said?



Considering that there is a major political party who's policy position by their elected representatives (and even some on the opposite "side") over the past 10 years has been "keep cutting taxes no matter what, and everything will be ok!", I don't think I'm the one using math incorrectly.

Again, if the debate was "what is the right tax rate that strikes a balance between providing services for all of our citizens to keep the country running smoothly, while also allowing them to privately spend/invest their own money". Sure, that's fine. That's something that is actually capable of being debated and discussed properly. Instead, the "debate" in America is:

"we should cut taxes some more"

"but taxes are the lowest in 50 years..."

"cut taxes"

"but we have a huge amount of debt already and need somewhere to get revenue from..."

"CUT TAXES"

"but most of the country is actually fine with targeted tax raises"

"CUT TAXES!!!!"

"but I'm talking about going back to the tax rates from the 90's, not some crazy huge increase"

"CUT TAXES!!11!!"

That's not a "debate". That's a rehearsed talking point that unfortunately a large amount of our elected representatives follow along with. The issue of taxes for example can be a complex one, but that doesn't mean every single random idea someone proposes in regards to it should be taken seriously, regardless of if it's one of their "personal values".

Most of subscribe to an objective viewpoint (with an obvious subjective slant when it comes to somethings). What Republicans are doing and saying is an objective fact. It's clear cut unless you have your head up your ass or in the sand.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is such bullshit. Anthony Weiner is not responsible for the media's decision to pay a ridiculous amount of attention to him. Just because something is distracting doesn't mean you have to choose to look at it.

Actually he is to blame. Had he told the truth from the beginning we wouldn't be so distracted.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Actually he is to blame. Had he told the truth from the beginning we wouldn't be so distracted.

You are responsible for what you pay attention to. Anthony Weiner's being "distracting" does not mean that you must become distracted.

 

[soul creator]

Most of subscribe to an objective viewpoint (with an obvious subjective slant when it comes to somethings). What Republicans are doing and saying is an objective fact. It's clear cut unless you have your head up your ass or in the sand.

so what you're saying that Newt Gingrich has a GREAT ASS, and I've got my head...all the way up it?

 

[TacticalFox88]

so what you're saying that Newt Gingrich has a GREAT ASS, and I've got my head...all the way up it?

No, I was agreeing with you, lol.

 

[empty vessel]

Seems someone can't actually refute an argument with actual substance. Well it's good to know that you deny the existence of Trnopolje as a concentration camp. That's pretty messed up, but hey you seem to be happy with it.

If you want to continue this, I suggest you make a thread for it or take it to PM. If you do, feel free to construct an argument that something Chomsky said was inaccurate. This will require you to actually formulate a precise, i.e., not vague, proposition (i.e., Chomsky's assertion that X--X being something Chomsky actually said--is false) and mount evidence (i.e., this evidence demonstrates that X is in fact false) in support of your proposition, something you have yet to do. I wish you good luck on your learning experience.

 

[soul creator]

No, I was agreeing with you, lol.

I figured you were, I just wanted to poke fun at myself and quote Pacino

Spoiler

was this sarcasm or a typo? "What Republicans are doing and saying is an objective fact"

 

[TacticalFox88]

I figured you were, I just wanted to quote Pacino

Spoiler

was this sarcasm or a typo? "What Republicans are doing and saying is an objective fact"

Eh. It was meant to come off as what they're doing to fuck over everyone, not what they were SAYING as an objective fact. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[kame-sennin]

Democrats are looking at the bigger picture - he doesn't resign, and they all suffer come 2012. He resigns and they can claim a little bit of the moral high ground saying "Look we made Weiner resign, while Vitter is still there!"

Yup, this is the cowardly game the democrats play that always puts them on their back heel. You can't win when your playing your opponent's game - in this case, being puritanical moralistic douchebags. Weiner should have held strong, and he also should have made it clear that this was none of the public's business. The line has to be drawn somewhere. At some point a politician is going to have to say, "I'm sorry I embarrassed my wife, but my sex life has nothing to do with my job. End of story." It sucks that Weiner wasn't that guy, and it sucks (although it's not suprising) that the spineless, cowardly democrats turned on him like a snake eating its young.

 

[besada]

the area his district is in now, would it be lumped into a current liberal district, or conservative?

I'm not sure how redistricting works to be honest.

Whichever side holds power in the state will be drawing up the lines. In New York that'll be Democrats, in Texas it's going to be Republicans.

Presumably the NY Democrats will remove the districts in such a way that they profit.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Whichever side holds power in the state will be drawing up the lines. In New York that'll be Democrats, in Texas it's going to be Republicans.

Presumably the NY Democrats will remove the districts in such a way that they profit.

The NY legislature has a partisan redistricting agreement in place. Since the state is losing two seats, one will be from conservative upstate, and the other will be from liberal downstate.

 

[besada]

The NY legislature has a partisan redistricting agreement in place. Since the state is losing two seats, one will be from conservative upstate, and the other will be from liberal downstate.

I did not know this. What a sensible way to handle redistricting.

 

[Kosmo]

I did not know this. What a sensible way to handle redistricting.

Except that it guarantees that the party with the majority stays the majority.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yup, this is the cowardly game the democrats play that always puts them on their back heel. You can't win when your playing your opponent's game - in this case, being puritanical moralistic douchebags. Weiner should have held strong, and he also should have made it clear that this was none of the public's business. The line has to be drawn somewhere. At some point a politician is going to have to say, "I'm sorry I embarrassed my wife, but my sex life has nothing to do with my job. End of story." It sucks that Weiner wasn't that guy, and it sucks (although it's not suprising) that the spineless, cowardly democrats turned on him like a snake eating its young.

Man screw that noise. Weiner shouldn't have lied PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Some people here killing the DEMs for turning their backs on him are forgetting that Weiner had already turned his back on them when he knowingly lied to them and the public about his dick pics.


Wiener is now doing the right thing. Disappear for 2-4 years and come back strong in the 2016 elections or something.

 

[RustyNails]

Weiner resigning now...? Hmm. Me thinks there are even more glorious pictures of his cock floating around. I hope the ride was worth it, you fuck.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I did not know this. What a sensible way to handle redistricting.

Insofar as state control of redistricting can be a sensible thing, I suppose it is. The idea that elected officials should take any role in selecting the people who will then vote for them is one of the most anti-democratic features of our political system, second only to maybe the electoral college, or the Senate if you want to be existential about it.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Either a teatard nutjob like that Alaskan republican senate candidate Whatshisface, or some idiot lapdog plucked out of obscurity.

Are all your posts this witty?

 

[besada]

Insofar as state control of redistricting can be a sensible thing, I suppose it is. The idea that elected officials should take any role in selecting the people who will then vote for them is one of the most anti-democratic features of our political system, second only to maybe the electoral college, or the Senate if you want to be existential about it.

I'm just comparing it to the redistricting schema in my own state, which runs along the lines of: Draw the most ridiculous redistricting lines imaginable in an attempt to kill off your opposition, fight about it in court for a decade, and then do it all over again.

Clearly politically driven redistricting is wrong, but there's wrong and then there's wrong and messy.

 

[Evlar]

I'm just comparing it to the redistricting schema in my own state, which runs along the lines of: Draw the most ridiculous redistricting lines imaginable in an attempt to kill off your opposition, fight about it in court for a decade, and then do it all over again.

Clearly politically driven redistricting is wrong, but there's wrong and then there's wrong and messy.

New York's demographics are fairly stable. Texas's are in the process of a multi-generational shift. The ruling party is scrambling to hold back the inevitable.

Eventually the proverbial dam will burst in Texas and the state will flip from solid red to solid blue like switching on a light. (Assuming Republicans keep doing everything in their power to alienate the Hispanic vote).

 

[RustyNails]

Good Op ed at CNN on the full blown bigotry displayed at GOP debate:

Cain should not be given a free ride to spread fear just because his chances of winning are low. He must be confronted by mainstream Republicans who oppose his views so they send a clear message to America that the GOP is not the party of hate, but an inclusive one -- for all Americans.

Indeed, there was a moment at Monday's Republican presidential debate that sent a different and alarming message. Cain was applauded when he said he was uncomfortable with a Muslim in his cabinet and Newt "I have a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's" Gingrich was cheered when he joined Cain's call for a loyalty oath for Muslims.

Gingrich equated American Muslims with communists and Nazis, saying, in part, "I'm in favor of saying to people, 'If you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period. We did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists."

But when Romney thoughtfully responded that our nation was founded on the principle that people of all faiths are welcomed in this country and that the threat of Islamic law being imposed on America was baseless because it would be prevented by our Constitution, the audience response was a little different. Not one Republican in the audience applauded.

The media must step up to ensure that Cain "keeps it real" by asking him detailed follow-up questions when he makes such grave accusations against American Muslims. Indeed, the media should demand credible evidence -- facts -- from every candidate who broadly attacks any American minority group.

"We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America -- none, whatsoever."

This wise quote was from the late Ronald Reagan, a man, who, I have no doubt, would be outraged with the hateful rhetoric of the likes of Herman Cain. It is both poisoning the Republican Party and the nation Reagan loved so much.

I was also surprised to learn that Mitt Romney was asked the same question in 2007 and he had an opposite answer back then, similar to Herman Cain's (Mittster flip flopping? you dont say!!)

This is in stark contrast to 2007 when then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated that if he were elected president, he would not pick a Muslim for his Cabinet -- not because they were a threat to America, but because there were so few in America, they didn't merit a Cabinet position.

His Republican opponent John McCain quickly and thoughtfully condemned Romney's statement, explaining: "I'm proud of the Muslims who are currently serving in the United States armed forces and my sense is that if they can serve in that manner, they can serve in any position of responsibility in America."

I miss John McCain already. And my friends, that's saying something.

 

[GhaleonEB]

in reference to this

Considering that there is a major political party who's policy position by their elected representatives (and even some on the opposite "side") over the past 10 years has been "keep cutting taxes no matter what, and everything will be ok!", I don't think I'm the one using math incorrectly.

Again, if the debate was "what is the right tax rate that strikes a balance between providing services for all of our citizens to keep the country running smoothly, while also allowing them to privately spend/invest their own money". Sure, that's fine. That's something that is actually capable of being debated and discussed properly. Instead, the "debate" in America is:

"we should cut taxes some more"

"but taxes are the lowest in 50 years..."

"cut taxes"

"but we have a huge amount of debt already and need somewhere to get revenue from..."

"CUT TAXES"

"but most of the country is actually fine with targeted tax raises"

"CUT TAXES!!!!"

"but I'm talking about going back to the tax rates from the 90's, not some crazy huge increase"

"CUT TAXES!!11!!"

That's not a "debate". That's a rehearsed talking point that unfortunately a large amount of our elected representatives follow along with. The issue of taxes for example can be a complex one, but that doesn't mean every single random idea someone proposes in regards to it should be taken seriously, regardless of if it's one of their "personal values".

I'd add a wrinkle to this. It's not about cutting taxes uniformly, it's about cutting taxes for the wealthy. Obama is pushing for an employer-side payroll tax cut to help spur hiring as part of the (absurd) debt ceiling package being put together. It's the sort of thing Republicans have themselves championed in the past. This time, Republicans have flatly rejected it, because it might help the economy, and that's something they're dead set against.

This is the same party that uniformly declared that protecting the top 1% from losing their Bush tax cuts was grounds to prevent the Senate from doing anything whatsoever until those got locked down.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Good Op ed at CNN on the full blown bigotry displayed at GOP debate:

I was also surprised to learn that Mitt Romney was asked the same question in 2007 and he had an opposite answer back then, similar to Herman Cain's (Mittster flip flopping? you dont say!!)

I miss John McCain already. And my friends, that's saying something.

Everytime I think I'm numb to republican bigotry....ugh.

 

[AlteredBeast]

would a flat tax be so bad? Equal taxes for all, exceptions for bottom 20% of earners?

what would be the ramifications? would the country lose out on a lot of tax receipts? Especially if capital gains and any income were taxable? I honestly don't know and would love a knowledgeable response.

 

[The Chosen One]

I didn't like at all how Weiner handled his week-long tour of blatant lies.

But at the end of the day, he didn't break any laws and it seems he may not even have broken any House rules. He basically semi-cheated on his wife and embarrassed her tremendously. Very unfortunate but not exactly strong enough reasons for leadership to force him out of office. His fate should have been left up to the public he represents.

Dems are forcing him out almost entirely because it got them off message for a week or two. But it's not entirely Weiner's fault, Dems simply have poor messaging abilities. They made this news drag out longer by constantly giving lukewarm/vague answers instead of taking a position either way. If this had been the Republicans, they would have immediately point that Weiner didn't break any laws and then go on offense mentioning all the adulterous Dems who are still in office every single time they were on TV.

But the Dem's tepid response just kept inviting the media to ask them for clarifications on a daily basis. It also meant pretty soon guys like Eric Cantor had no problem calling for Weiner's resignation because he didn't have to worry about Vitter being in thrown in his face. Stupid Dems. The Dems should have never gone on TV discussing Weiner without mentioning Vitter in the same sentence. Weiner and Vitter should have been synonymous. If the Dems messaged it properly (lol) eventually GOP congressional members would avoid the subject completely and the conservative media would have pushed to change the subject. Vitter's situation is worse than Weiner's no matter how you slice it. One is a tabloid embarrassment, the other is an actual crime. As others have pointed out, has it really been investigated if Vitter used campaign money to pay for high class prostitutes? You pull the scab off that and it could get nasty.

I guess some credit has to go to that Cragslist Republican who resigned after 3 hours. He probably had some dick pictures out there as well and knew he would never survive it. It seems as long as congressmen don't have their illegal activities photographed, they can pretty much survive anything. But a few candid pictures of embarrassing but ultimately harmless activity, and you're gone.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

would a flat tax be so bad? Equal taxes for all, exceptions for bottom 20% of earners?

what would be the ramifications? would the country lose out on a lot of tax receipts? Especially if capital gains and any income were taxable? I honestly don't know and would love a knowledgeable response.

You just answered your question right there.

 

[Vanillalite]

The Incidental Economist!

Comments on the GAIN bill (antibiotic incentives)
June 16, 2011 at 11:31 am Kevin Outterson

Yesterday, Rep. Gingrey introduced bi-partisan legislation to promote the development of new antibiotics to combat the growing tide of drug resistant infections, the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Bill of 2011, H.R. 2182. Expect a lot of media attention (indeed, it started earlier this week).

I like several things about this bill, which focuses on serious resistant infections. Most importantly, the bill gives a direct incentive for conservation, for the first time. Section 4 gives 6 months of additional exclusivity if approval of the new antibiotic is paired with a relevant companion diagnostic. This is historic – until now, drug companies lost sales when doctors used diagnostics carefully to limit antibiotic use. My criticism of Section 4 is that it doesn’t go far enough. We need much longer periods of exclusivity, but only if conditioned on the actual use of the diagnostic to reduce inappropriate use.

The primary weakness of the GAIN bill is in Section 3 – granting 5 years of exclusivity for new qualified antibiotics, without adequate consideration for the impact on conservation or long-term human health. We need to treat antibiotics as a potentially exhaustible resource, but Section 3 is “drill, baby, drill” – financial incentives to rush antibiotics to market without a long-term plan.

A better proposal is to grant exclusivity (and huge prizes), but only so long as the companies successfully implement long-term public health goals.

Finally, the GAIN bill calls for a study of antibiotic incentives (in Sec. 7), but the terms of reference are limited to “incentives to encourage the research, development, and marketing of qualified infectious disease biological products” – again, missing the boat on conservation.

 

[RustyNails]

New York's demographics are fairly stable. Texas's is in the process of a multi-generational shift. The ruling party is scrambling to hold back the inevitable.

NY is slowly but steadily losing its demographics whereas Texas is rising at a good pace. No state has lost more electoral votes than Pennsylvania though. In any case,

 

[polyh3dron]

You just answered your question right there.

I lol'd

 

[GhaleonEB]

Dicks >>>> Jobs

ALL Major Cable Nets Cut Away When Pelosi Talks Jobs Over Weiner (VIDEO)

The DC media's jaw-dropping obsession with the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal will peter out when the New York congressman officially resigns this afternoon. But there's no better illustration of how this story came to consume the press than the video below.

Democrats had been prepared to up the pressure on Weiner to resign Thursday, but not before House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press availability in a large studio in the basement of the Capitol Visitors Center.

Her conference began minutes after the news of Weiner's impending resignation leaked, and so reporters and cameras scrambled to what otherwise would have been a fairly routine press event. Indeed, because Dems are in the minority, it's not uncommon for Pelosi events to be under-attended by members the media. Not this time.

Unfortunately for them, Pelosi refused to offer a money quote. In a sign that Democrats want to turn the page on the Weiner scandal, she insisted up front that she'd maintain silence on Weiner's resignation until he announced it himself.

"As usual we're here to talk about jobs, about protecting Medicare and protecting the middle class. If you're here to ask a question about Congressman Weiner, I won't be answering any."

If you thought disappointed news networks decided then to make do with the other items on her agenda, you'd be wrong. All three of the major cable nets -- CNN, MSNBC, and Fox -- all cut away right then.​

 

[besada]

But at the end of the day, he didn't break any laws and it seems he may not even have broken any House rules.

At least one of his ladies claims he used Congressional phone lines to have phone sex with her. He was going to get popped on using Congressional resources if the ethics investigation ran its course.

 

[Evlar]

would a flat tax be so bad? Equal taxes for all, exceptions for bottom 20% of earners?

what would be the ramifications? would the country lose out on a lot of tax receipts? Especially if capital gains and any income were taxable? I honestly don't know and would love a knowledgeable response.

The lowest end of the second quintile (the portion of the population making slightly more than the bottom 20%) makes $18,500 per household per year. If you tax them at a flat 20% they'll have $14,800 per household to live on.

The lowest end of the top quintile is $157,176. If you tax them at a flat 20% they'll have $125,741 per household to live on.

All numbers from Wikipedia, sourced from 2004 census data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Quintiles

 

[TacticalFox88]

Dicks >>>> Jobs

ALL Major Cable Nets Cut Away When Pelosi Talks Jobs Over Weiner (VIDEO)

The DC media's jaw-dropping obsession with the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal will peter out when the New York congressman officially resigns this afternoon. But there's no better illustration of how this story came to consume the press than the video below.

Democrats had been prepared to up the pressure on Weiner to resign Thursday, but not before House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press availability in a large studio in the basement of the Capitol Visitors Center.

Her conference began minutes after the news of Weiner's impending resignation leaked, and so reporters and cameras scrambled to what otherwise would have been a fairly routine press event. Indeed, because Dems are in the minority, it's not uncommon for Pelosi events to be under-attended by members the media. Not this time.

Unfortunately for them, Pelosi refused to offer a money quote. In a sign that Democrats want to turn the page on the Weiner scandal, she insisted up front that she'd maintain silence on Weiner's resignation until he announced it himself.

"As usual we're here to talk about jobs, about protecting Medicare and protecting the middle class. If you're here to ask a question about Congressman Weiner, I won't be answering any."

If you thought disappointed news networks decided then to make do with the other items on her agenda, you'd be wrong. All three of the major cable nets -- CNN, MSNBC, and Fox -- all cut away right then.​

That shows you where there priorities are. Fucking idiots.

 

[Kosmo]

That shows you where there priorities are. Fucking idiots.

You're just figuring this out now?

 

[Kosmo]

The lowest end of the second quintile (the portion of the population making slightly more than the bottom 20%) makes $18,500 per household per year. If you tax them at a flat 20% they'll have $14,800 per household to live on.

The lowest end of the top quintile is $157,176. If you tax them at a flat 20% they'll have $125,741 per household to live on.

All numbers from Wikipedia, sourced from 2004 census data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Quintiles

...But you would be collecting FAR MORE from the top end, who often come in around 15% overall tax rate and that money would go to support the social programs you would no doubt want funded for lower income people, no?

 

[polyh3dron]

"We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America -- none, whatsoever."

This wise quote was from the late Ronald Reagan, a man, who, I have no doubt, would be outraged with the hateful rhetoric of the likes of Herman Cain. It is both poisoning the Republican Party and the nation Reagan loved so much.

Reagan also coined what he referred to as The 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

 

[speculawyer]

That shows you where there priorities are. Fucking idiots.

Their priorities are ratings. Dicks get ratings, policy wonking does not.

This is why things like NPR and the PBS Newshour remain important.


The nightly news on the major television networks used to be a money-losing public service operation . . . the money was made in prime-time. Now the news is just another time for profit. Hence news is tailored not for informing the public but for getting ratings. The big development in this area is tailoring the news to fit what people want to hear (Fox "News").

 

[Chichikov]

would a flat tax be so bad? Equal taxes for all, exceptions for bottom 20% of earners?

what would be the ramifications? would the country lose out on a lot of tax receipts? Especially if capital gains and any income were taxable? I honestly don't know and would love a knowledgeable response.

A flat tax can yield the same revenue as a progressive one, it all depends on the rates.

But what it will do is lower the tax burden on the rich, and shift said burden to the poor and the middle class.

Some people think that's a good thing, I'm not one of them.

 

[PhoenixDark]

To be fair, I don't want to hear a bunch of talking points and unrealistic goals from Pelosi either.

 

[Plinko]

would a flat tax be so bad?

Yes, horrible. Flat/fair taxes are awful for the poor/lower middle-class.

 

[RustyNails]

Flat tax unfairly target lower class and puts a greater burden on their shoulders, while removing the burden from the shoulders of upper class. So lower income people not only earn less, but pay more out of their pockets while at the same time, higher income people earn good, yet pay less out of their pockets.

It's inherently unjust.

 

[chaostrophy]

Global political spectrum/American equivalent:
Far left/none
Center left/Sanders, Kucinich, the farthest left elected Democrats go
Center right/Obama, mainline Dems
Far right/Blue Dogs, RINOs
Off the scale right/mainline Republicans

 

[Zabka]

would a flat tax be so bad? Equal taxes for all, exceptions for bottom 20% of earners?

what would be the ramifications? would the country lose out on a lot of tax receipts? Especially if capital gains and any income were taxable? I honestly don't know and would love a knowledgeable response.

Everyone already pays the same tax rates in a progressive system. A person who earns $250,000 a year pays the same on his first $50k that someone who earns $50k does.

Flat taxes are a scam to bring down taxes for top earners.

 

[Kosmo]

Flat tax unfairly target lower class and puts a greater burden on their shoulders, while removing the burden from the shoulders of upper class. So lower income people not only earn less, but pay more out of their pockets while at the same time, higher income people earn good, yet pay less out of their pockets.

It's inherently unjust.

How, exactly, would a flat tax of say 20% remove the burden from the upper class, which typically come in around a 16% effective tax rate?

 

[Matt]

How, exactly, would a flat tax of say 20% remove the burden from the upper class, which typically come in around a 16% effective tax rate?

Because rich people don't spend all their income buying things. They save it and invest it.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

How, exactly, would a flat tax of say 20% remove the burden from the upper class, which typically come in around a 16% effective tax rate?

Before this discussion proceeds any further: are you clear on the distinction between marginal and effective tax rates? It was demonstrated quite thoroughly in the last thread that you were not aware of, or tried hard to misrepresent the difference between the two.