Search results

Um, okay, you have better ways to spend the money, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. Other people would argue that finding ways to prevent HIV can reduce costs by more than a million, of course although I don't know if I'd agree. But again, having a "better" way to spend the money...

The Supreme Court, you tell us, won't read your briefs on how funding HIV prevention is unconstitutional because they're not defending the constitution. That, to me, is the description of a conspiracy. The other possibility is that you have some secret knowledge of what is constitutional...

HIV prevention needs to be stopped?

Then run for office and have the regulations changed. Don't tell me, there's a conspiracy against that, too.

So file a brief with the Supreme Court explaining how these programs are unconstitutional. It will then find in your favor and the programs will be changed or removed entirely.

If you can get everyone to agree on particular cuts then you don't need a flat tax at all.

According to the Treasury Department, the only way that it could be revenue neutral (and this was before the most recent years of Republican debt that was added) would be to set it at 23%, not including state taxes, sales taxes, etc. This would be a massive increase for 95% of the people in the...

No, that's directly from the Treasury Department. They state that a flat tax would increase the deficit massively. (As you can read from the link that I've already posted.) You're not arguing with me at this point, you just keep repeating that it will be revenue neutral, and I keep trying...

That's true, because there's no variation of it that will work so the promoters of it have to shuffle from one type to another type. Oka, ahere are some legitimate, objective reasons for not implementing a flat tax: 1) Because I don't want my taxes raised. 2) Because it will increase...

Okay, so everybody will pay the same percentage of their income as they do now on a sliding scale where the rich pay more. Um... wait... a sliding scale isn't a flat tax.

Lithuania suffered Europe's second worst recession in 2009, and had a 14% slump. Would you also like to credit this to the flat tax? Plus, their flat tax was set at 33% for a while, and has now been reduced to 24% with a 21% sales tax. No. Thanks. Allow me to repeat myself: No...

No, it doesn't sound like in part that I'm opposed to it because it's a Republican idea. I'm opposed to it because it's an untenable idea and it's yet another of the great Republican theories of how-things-ought-to-be. What you just described is impossible. How can a flat tax lower the...

I'm afraid of Republicans experimenting with stuff that has never been tested anywhere else in the world. Every few years Republicans come up with some great new idea which has only ever worked in theory. You come up with a few example countries which have successfully tried this despite the...

Thus the word "typically" -- flat taxes typically make things worse, not better. Or are you wanting the debt to be above the full one quadrillion dollars in forty years? Remember, you state that the debt will be 1/5th of a quadrillion dollars in only ten years and with compounding it will...

Ah, so by 2020 the debt will be a fifth of a quadrillion dollars unless we implement a flat tax. Any thoughts as to why the CBO projects reduced deficits over the next few years? And thoughts as to why studies of flat taxes show that they will typically increase the deficit and make things...

:) When someone says the debt is a fifth of a quadrillion dollars, you'd expect that the followers would twig in that something is amiss -- but they never do.

Look, I'm no math expert, all I know is what I see on TV. When the Republicans are in power they've said that the debt is $13 trillion and that deficits don't matter. The Democrats are in power and the debt is $200 trillion, and you're lucky that the Republicans don't make that $300 trillion...

It's easier for Republicans because then the debt is only $13 trillion instead of $200 trillion. It's only under the Democrats that the debt is $200 trillion.

$200 trillion is 1/5th of a quadrillion dollars. You make a good point, how do the liberals pay for the debt which stands at 1/5th of a quadrillion dollars?

See? I knew liberalism brought Afghanistan to where it is today.