55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 03:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I can't argue with that logic. Maybe somebody can come up with something wrong with it, but I can't think of anything.


I find it very interesting that our resident liberals can't find anything wrong with my logic here.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 04:07 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
The "horrible unemployment increase"--increase from 6% to 9.5%-- didn't start to occur until 2009.


I always find it funny the way you massage the numbers to try to make your case.
Unemployment the end of Dec 2008 was 7.2. The last time I checked Dec of 2008 isn't in 2009.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
Code:2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5


By the way, unemployment is a lagging indicator. It trails by several months what the economy is.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 04:11 pm
@parados,
parados, I doubt very much okie understands trends that started during Bush's tenure (the recession started in 2007) and continued on an upward swing. They also expect miracles from Obama by stopping all those job losses (at the rate of over 600,000 a month) and show job increases during his first six months in office. Otherwise, they see Obama as a "failure."



0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:07 pm
@parados,
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5

Average for the 12 months of 2008 = 69.7 /12 = 5.8

Average for the 6 months of 2009 months of 2009 = 52.0 / 6 = 8.7

If 9,5 were to continue for the rest of 2009, Then:

Average for the 12 months of 2009 will be = 109 / 12 = 9.1
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:20 pm
The Fair Tax has two major flaws:
(1) It cannot be fair until the Income Tax--the 16th Amendment--is repealed.
(2) It cannot be fair if it were to tax more those who spend a greater percentage of their income on taxable purchases than it taxed those who spend a lesser percentage of their income on taxable purchases.

I recommend the flat--uniform--income tax, because it taxes all dollars of income the same amount regardless of how the income is spent, and it doen't require any amendments to the Constitution to be fair.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:24 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, If you feel so strongly that the 16th Amendment should be repealed, why are you the only one thinking so? Also, what have you done to repeal it?

You're a nut who belongs in a padded room.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, If you feel so strongly that the 16th Amendment should be repealed, why are you the only one thinking so?

Huh?

I actually wrote:
Quote:

The Fair Tax has two major flaws:
(1) It cannot be fair until the Income Tax--the 16th Amendment--is repealed.
(2) It cannot be fair if it were to tax more those who spend a greater percentage of their income on taxable purchases than it taxed those who spend a lesser percentage of their income on taxable purchases.

I recommend the flat--uniform--income tax, because it taxes all dollars of income the same amount regardless of how the income is spent, and it doen't require any amendments to the Constitution to be fair.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 06:41 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

The Fair Tax has two major flaws:
(1) It cannot be fair until the Income Tax--the 16th Amendment--is repealed.
(2) It cannot be fair if it were to tax more those who spend a greater percentage of their income on taxable purchases than it taxed those who spend a lesser percentage of their income on taxable purchases.

I recommend the flat--uniform--income tax, because it taxes all dollars of income the same amount regardless of how the income is spent, and it doen't require any amendments to the Constitution to be fair.


Neither are "flaws".

(1) Repealing the 16th amendment is factored into The FairTax plan.

(2) Unlike the flat--uniform--income tax, The FairTax plan is 100% fair because everyone is taxed the same rate on purchases.

Also, the flat tax does not do away with the IRS... The FairTax renders the IRS obsolete.


Quote:
I believe the mere fact that all wage earners would take home their complete paycheck without federal
deductions thus putting more disposable income in their hands would certainly jump start our economy.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 07:12 pm


http://www.fairtax.org/images/wrapper/hdr_logo.jpg
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 07:46 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I can't argue with that logic. Maybe somebody can come up with something wrong with it, but I can't think of anything.


I find it very interesting that our resident liberals can't find anything wrong with my logic here.

Two peas in a pod
K
Or nuts in a shell
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 07:53 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Neither are "flaws".

(1) Repealing the 16th amendment is factored into The FairTax plan.
There is no need to repeal the 16th amendment to institute the plan. The 16th amendment only allows an income tax, it doesn't require it.

Quote:

(2) Unlike the flat--uniform--income tax, The FairTax plan is 100% fair because everyone is taxed the same rate on purchases.

Also, the flat tax does not do away with the IRS... The FairTax renders the IRS obsolete.
Sales tax require an enforcement agency just like the income tax does. Without enforcement it allows for rampant fraud. An enforcement agency would still exist whether called the IRS or some new name. It would NOT be obsolete. How many states that have sales tax have no enforcement? The correct answer would be ZERO. I would guess every state has charged at least one person, if not several every year, with a crime for not paying sales tax as required by law.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:10 pm
@parados,
All true. waterboy is way above his head on most topics. They never look beyond what they think is a solution to any problem.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:10 pm
@parados,

Perhaps you and ci should read and familiarize yourselves with The FairTax Plan before spouting off false information...

Or you can be like Obama and never read the bill you want passed... your choice.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
Here's the event in the words of the Professor himself, and the police report data -

http://www.theroot.com/views/skip-gates-speaks?page=0,0

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Original_PDF/2009/07/21/0721docket_redacted_revised__1248200728_6644.pdf

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/stef406/PH2009072101803.jpg

Quote:
Skip Gates Speaks
The Root Editor-in-Chief Henry Louis Gates Jr. talks about his arrest and the outrage of racial profiling in America.

Henry Louis Gates:

==excerpt==

We flew back on a direct flight from Beijing to Newark. We arrived on Wednesday, and on Thursday I flew back to Cambridge. I was using my regular driver and my regular car service. And went to my home arriving at about 12:30 in the afternoon. My driver and I carried several bags up to the porch, and we fiddled with the door and it was jammed. I thought, well, maybe the door’s latched. So I walked back to the kitchen porch, unlocked the door and came into the house. And I unlatched the door, but it was still jammed.

My driver is a large black man. But from afar you and I would not have seen he was black. He has black hair and was dressed in a two-piece black suit, and I was dressed in a navy blue blazer with gray trousers and, you know, my shoes. And I love that the 911 report said that two big black men were trying to break in with backpacks on. Now that is the worst racial profiling I’ve ever heard of in my life. (Laughs.) I’m not exactly a big black man. I thought that was hilarious when I found that out, which was yesterday.

It looked like someone’s footprint was there. So it’s possible that the door had been jimmied, that someone had tried to get in while I was in China. But for whatever reason, the lock was damaged. My driver hit the door with his shoulder and the door popped open. But the lock was permanently disfigured. My home is owned by Harvard University, and so any kind of repair work that’s needed, Harvard will come and do it. I called this person, and she was, in fact, on the line while all of this was going on.

I’m saying ‘You need to send someone to fix my lock.’ All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, ‘This is strange.’ So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’

My lawyers later told me that that was a good move and had I walked out onto the porch he could have arrested me for breaking and entering. He said ‘I’m here to investigate a 911 call for breaking and entering into this house.’ And I said ‘That’s ridiculous because this happens to be my house. And I’m a Harvard professor.’ He says ‘Can you prove that you’re a Harvard professor?’ I said yes, I turned and closed the front door to the kitchen where I’d left my wallet, and I got out my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver’s license which includes my address and I handed them to him. And he’s sitting there looking at them.
Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me.

So he’s looking at my ID, he asked me another question, which I refused to answer. And I said I want your name and your badge number because I want to file a complaint because of the way he had treated me at the front door. He didn’t say, ‘Excuse me, sir, is there a disturbance here, is this your house?’"he demanded that I step out on the porch, and I don’t think he would have done that if I was a white person.

But at that point, I realized that I was in danger. And so I said to him that I want your name, and I want your badge number and I said it repeatedly.

...

The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.

It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, ‘What is your name, and what is your badge number?’ and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, ‘You’re not responding because I’m a black man, and you’re a white officer.’ That’s what I said. He didn’t say anything. He turned his back to me and turned back to the porch. And I followed him. I kept saying, “I want your name, and I want your badge number.”

It looked like an ocean of police had gathered on my front porch. There were probably half a dozen police officers at this point. The mistake I made was I stepped onto the front porch and asked one of his colleagues for his name and badge number. And when I did, the same officer said, ‘Thank you for accommodating our request. You are under arrest.’ And he handcuffed me right there. It was outrageous. My hands were behind my back I said, ‘I’m handicapped. I walk with a cane. I can’t walk to the squad car like this.’ There was a huddle among the officers; there was a black man among them. They removed the cuffs from the back and put them around the front.

A crowd had gathered, and as they were handcuffing me and walking me out to the car, I said, ‘Is this how you treat a black man in America?’

From the police report:

http://cache.boston.com/...

Narrative

On July 16, 2009 at approximately 12:44 PM, I Officer Figureoa#509 responded to an ECC broadcast for a possible break at __ Ware St. When I arrived, I stepped into the residence and Sgt. Crowley had already entered and was speaking to a black male.

As I stepped in, I heard Sgt. Crowley ask for the gentleman's information which he stated "NO I WILL NOT!". The gentleman was shouting out to the Sgt. that the Sgt was a racist and yelled that "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!" As the Sgt. was trying to calm the gentleman, the gentleman shouted "You don't know who you're messing with!"

I stepped out to gather the information from the reporting person. __. Ms. _ stated to me that she saw a man wedging his shoulder into the front door as to pry the door open. As I returned to the residence, a group of onlookers were now on scene. The Sgt., along with the gentleman, were now on the porch of __ Ware ST. and again he was shouting, now to the onlookers (about seven), "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA"! The gentleman refused to listen as to why the Cambridge Police were there. While on the porch, the gentleman refused to be cooperative and continued shouting that the Sgt is racist police officer.

Statement of Facts

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. ___, of _ Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at _ Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

Signed: Sgt. James Crowley


Let's assume the event went down somewhere in the middle of the two reports, just for the sake of compromise. Can you put yourself in his shoes for a minute? At home, intimidated by a cop (for whatever reason) who will not provide his name or badge number, arrested for no damn good reason, and paraded around in front of all your neighbors?

I certainly would have been indignant, I don't know if I would have accused racism instantly. But, then again, I have to remind myself that cops didn't just storm my house and arrest me (for what exactly?); if my life experiences were different, I might very well feel that was exactly what was happening.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 08:17 pm
http://giovanniworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/liberals20are20wrong20smug20billboard20road20sign.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 11:06 pm
The most telling statement in all of the mostly non-information press conference tonight was when President Obama was asked if he would be willing for himself and his family to receive healthcare under the plan he is proposing for the rest of us. He ducked the question.

How about the people of the USA stand up and DEMAND that whatever the President and Congress enact into law re healthcare will apply to them too. Immediately when the bill is signed into law, all of the magnificent Congressional healthcare plan they enjoy will be cancelled and they will be enrolled in the public plan mandatory for those who do not have private insurance and will be subject to the same rules, regulations, requirements, and restrictions that will be imposed on the general public. And they will all have to find a physician who is serving the general public in the plan.

Can anybody make an argument why that should not happen?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 05:39 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Can anybody make an argument why that should not happen?


Besides that I think everybody should be able to get additional private insurance (or private insurance instead, or the private insurance for public servants and additional private insurance or ...[that's done here]), I don't think that head of states, government, parliament are usually as equal in all affairs like any other John Q. Public.

At least not here in Europe.

(Finding a physician who is serving the general public plan is quite easy: there are no others, besides those who have some skeletons in the closet or beauty surgeons or any other "special" doctor who uses a non-recognised therapy. And some for upper 100-class, who must get some money besides to get mentioned in the tabloids.)
0 Replies
 
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 06:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
The the Professor just showed his ID and not antagonize the situation, I am sure the police would have left the premise and we would not be talking about this today.

What I find fascinating is how someone can reach a conclusion after admitting they do not have the facts, and concluded the police acted "stupidly".
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 06:19 am
@H2O MAN,
And what did I say that goes against what the FairTax plan is, squirt?

The 16th amendment is NOT mandatory when it comes to income tax so the Congress can repeal the income tax any time they want to.

All taxes require enforcement because someone will always try to not pay them. The IRS is the collection and enforcement agency. Sales tax will require collection and enforcement.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 06:22 am
@parados,


Perhaps you should read and familiarize yourself with The FairTax Plan before spouting off false information...
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 08:38:49