Home

Nope, no such thing, Komrade Mac.

But, here's the problem with you and those like you, and de Toqueville was very correct:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

You and yours want to continue the bribery and destroy what's left of the Republic.

I, and those like me, want to end your days of influence, and restore equality and liberty to this Republic.

Address the numbers, Komrade MacLorry.

You've now got the power to solve all the nation's economic problems. What do you do?

I never tell who I vote for as it would be a violation of principle of the secret ballot. Shame on you for asking.

I don't see the PROGRESSIVE tax system as the number one problem to fix. As I said in another reply, you only need to look back to the late 90s to see that we can have a balance federal budget, low unemployment and a growing economy with the current tax system. The real problem is 25 plus years of good jobs going overseas that has now reached a critical point. The next president can either spend their political capital on fixing the real problems that face this nation or spend it on trying to give tax relief to the highest income earners.

In other words, Komrade MacLorry is an Obamite.

The '90s did NOT have a balanced budget, as the looming expenses of Social Security and Medicare were not calculated in. Those entitlements, when accounted for as every other business has to account for liabilities, have had us in the red for decades.

You should refer to SS as a mismanaged program that was stolen from, not an entitlement. I've been paying into that for a long time, and the money I'm suppose to get is unlikely to be there in another 20 years.

Still isn't an entitlement to me, more like forced wage confiscation. My 401k would look better had I been contributing what was taken for SS all my working years.

You must have missed the part where under Cain's plan there's no income tax on capital gains. That means fat cats like Warren Buffett pay at a lower rate than ordinarily workers. Thus your comment that "cause it's fair, they play under the same rules as the rest of us" is incorrect, because under Cain's system they would be at a lower percentage rate.

Concentrate on the numbers, Komrade MacLorry.

You're in charge, and have the authority to fix the nation's economic problems. What do you do?

No, I do not. If you go back and read my list of items that the hypothetical family expects to receive for its $706 tax bill, you will notice that I did not mention Social Security or Medicare.

I do not lump the payroll taxes and income taxes together into funding the general operating expenses of the government. Those taxes were designed to support the SS and Medicare programs.

If you expect a federally-funded retirement and health care package starting when you are in you 60s, then expect to fund it separately through the payroll tax. Lumping them together only further obfuscates the real problems - and, again, puts my children on the hook for [bleep] that we can't afford.

Hopefully King Mac is restrained by a BBA.

You're the one working to get Obama reelected.

The numbers on Cain's plan is that it would reduce federal revenue and there's only hope the change would jump start the economy. We tried hope and change last time and I didn't fall for it then and won't fall for it now.

I wish I had $50,000 in income. I have worked my butt off all my life. I have a college degree and never broke 40,000 in income. I just retired form a job where the average work week aw between 55 and 65 hours and I still never broke the 40,000 mark. I am now retired and get $1,244 a month. I would gladly pay my fair share of taxes. And I sure as hell would never bitch and cry about having to only pay 18% of a 50,000 income.

Concentrate on the numbers, Komrade MacLorry.

You're in charge, and can solve the nation's economic problems. What do you do?

Don't you think GeauxLSU can deal with his own posts? I'm waiting for him to post the numbers he promised. Of course of you or he wants to concede that Cain's plan raises taxes on most of the middle-class then maybe we can do the "what would you do" shtick.

Do you conced the point or just have more distractions or personal attacks to throw up?

You probably wouldn't bitch and cry about having to pay 35% of a 10 million dollar income either.

I'm not concerned with G-LSU's post. I gave you the hard and fast numbers directly from the IRS, and the problem is evident. I want to hear your solution.

It would appear that you have no solution at all.

I would if I could. I did save for retirement but then got hurt and had to live on my retirement.

I have not had insurance in over 15 years. Don't have insurance now. If I get real sick the dieing is my only option. That's fine with me. I am pretty sick of the fighting anyway. When I die the everyday all day pain will finally be gone. Not bitching, just telling it like it is.

So on your $1,244 a month income you are fine with paying another $223 per month in taxes. And you do so because you feel it's unfair for someone making a 50,000 income to pay that much more a month.

Ok, I'll accept you have a great sense of fairness. But tell me, of the 50 million plus retired folks, do you think many will vote for such a tax increase on themselves? Be honest.

Or maybe threads like these are great at showing the stupidity of many here.


Folks will support this idiotic plan, which by the way doesn't have a chance in hell of passing, even though all it's doing is shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans to the middle and lower classes. That means most here are supporting a plan that gives the government more of their money because the majority here sure as hell don't fall into the top tier income levels.


Instead of supporting a candidate who wants to get rid of income taxes altogether by reducing govt spending to the year 2000 level, we argue over these differing tax plan schemes. Flat tax, fair tax, 999,...I could give a schitt.

Just different plans politicians will sell the gullible who are too stupid to realize it does nothing to reduce government tax revenues or reduce our debt(unless they find a hidden way to increase taxes). Yet folks will blindly support such stupidity based on what a friggin' politician tells them.


Un-[bleep]' real.

Good grief, one's tax liability is based on the total of everything the government takes. Like it or not payroll taxes have been put into the general fund and used by the general fund for quite some time now.

Any fair tax plan needs to look at totality of what the federal government takes out of peoples wallets, not just a slice of it. Since Cain's 999 plan eliminates the payroll taxes, it is germane to conversation. Your failure to include it is telling that you don't really want to discuss the actual fairness of payroll taxes in the this discussion.

My recollection from the last time I looked into government revenue, individual income taxes accounted 980 billion in gov. revenue in 2010, payroll taxes brought 810 billion in government revenue. Payroll taxes make up a big slice of the pie.

The numbers on Cain's plan are that it would reduce federal revenues and make the problem even worse, so that idea could be eliminated off the top.

I would pass Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future. It's a plan that would actually work.