Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

Drachasor said:
I'm not sure how you get "that's really not the case." from that.
Click to expand...
The data I cite comes from here:
link
taxpayers earning over $200,000 paid 50 percent of the $866 billion in total income taxes paid that year, or $434 billion.

[...]

These taxpayers earned 25 percent of the $7.6 trillion in total adjusted gross income in the country that year.
Click to expand...

The article's brief so quoting all of the bullets is pretty much pointless. Their data is derived from 2009 tax data released by the IRS.

As far as I'm concerned whether you're comments are valid with respect to your exchange with NB or not, you're simplifying the tax fairness down to a rich vs poor class battle. It's not. The rich earned 25% of the gross income in the country and they pay more than half of the taxes. Meanwhile you have loopholes in the tax code which allow people not paying any taxes at all to get rebates. If you want to discuss fairness you're dealing with something a lot more complex than simple class warfare.
 
mhaze said:
I have to agree with Newtons Bit on this. You made a claim that the 999 plan couldn't produce enough revenue, and then you tried to support it. You were proven wrong repeatedly. Now you claim that somehow you have STILL proved the 999 plan doesn't produce enough revenue.

You simply haven't done that or anything like it.

All you've done is "repeated the claim".
Click to expand...

No, it was shown I had TWO mistakes. That's it. I accounted for those and my conclusion stood sound. You had some further objections which I showed the facts didn't back up. You of course didn't respond to this post, and Newton decided to read it and take personal offense rather than address the substance of it which shows what I am saying is correct.

You and Newton are acting like making two mistakes and then addressing and correcting them somehow makes me a liar or my claim untrue. This is incorrect.

Newtons Bit said:
Ironically, his claim is correct and it's easy to prove using a little bit of math...
Click to expand...

Which I did do. I then further provided links to show that additional concerns raised amount to nothing. You apparently don't like it because it didn't use your method, and have since decided to start repeatedly calling me a liar for no sound reason.

And yes, I am partly lumping you in with Mhaze here because you are both making mountains out of molehills. My reasoning, once I accounted for the mistakes, is perfectly valid and backed up by the evidence. You, in fact, seem to be repeatedly implying it isn't valid without any proof for that claim.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The data I cite comes from here:
link


The article's brief so quoting all of the bullets is pretty much pointless. Their data is derived from 2009 tax data released by the IRS.

As far as I'm concerned whether you're comments are valid with respect to your exchange with NB or not, you're simplifying the tax fairness down to a rich vs poor class battle. It's not. The rich earned 25% of the gross income in the country and they pay more than half of the taxes. Meanwhile you have loopholes in the tax code which allow people not paying any taxes at all to get rebates. If you want to discuss fairness you're dealing with something a lot more complex than simple class warfare.
Click to expand...

People who are rich have a lot more sources of money and wealth than just their income. When you consider the total wealth they are holding, the picture is a lot different and it makes it clear that having a higher tax rate is not remotely a burden for these people. By just looking at income, you are actually looking at a distorted picture of what is going on.

It would have been nice if your article had citations to back up its claims though, but I'll assume they are accurate for now.
 
Here's a bit of advice, Drachasor, don't use straw men, and people won't call you on it. Don't lie about peoples positions (especially when they dont HAVE one) and you won't get called a liar. It's simple. Doubling down on your lies doesn't convince people that you're right. It does however convince them that you're dishonest.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Here's a bit of advice, Drachasor, don't use straw men, and people won't call you on it. Don't lie about peoples positions (especially when they dont HAVE one) and you won't get called a liar. It's simple. Doubling down on your lies doesn't convince people that you're right. It does however convince them that you're dishonest.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't see how I am lying. Have you not said my reasoning was faulty? Have you not said those faults were not minor and ergo affected the veracity of the conclusion?

Now you seem to be relying on ad hominem attacks.
 
mhaze said:
Throughout history, there has been no society that did not have slums, or something that resembled homelessness, and no society that did not have some version of "the poor".
Click to expand...

your further hand waving is reminiscent of scrooge in dicken's story.

there should be no homelessness or hunger in a land of plenty, and but for greed, there would not be..
 
mhaze said:
Throughout history, there has been no society that did not have slums, or something that resembled homelessness, and no society that did not have some version of "the poor".
Click to expand...
Nor, throughout history, has any society been destroyed from within because the poor were too well-provided-for, unless it was by the greedy rich who wanted to be richer.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Ironically, his claim is correct and it's easy to prove using a little bit of math...
Click to expand...
I know.

:)

But that doesn't make him right by just repeating the claim. As far as this discussion goes, he can cough up some supportive facts and reasoning which has to be numerical, or he loses the argumental point.
 
Welcome to Herman Cain alternate reality. No, not mere spin -- flat out lying. From last night's debate:

Paul: Mr. Cain, in the past you have been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You have said -- you've used pretty strong terms, that we were ignorant and that we didn't know what we are doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway, because if you had one, you're not going to find out anything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed. But now that we have found and we have gotten an audit, we have found out an awful lot on how special businesses get bailed out -- Wall Street, the banks, and special companies, foreign governments. And you said that you advise those of us who were concerned, and you belittled -- you say call up the Federal Reserve and just ask them. Do you still stick by this, that that this is frivolous, or do you think it's very important?


Cain: First of all, you have misquoted me. I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don't know where that came from. You've got to be careful of the stuff that you get off the Internet, because that's just not something that I have said. And I have also said, to be precise, I do not object to the Federal Reserve being audited. I simply said, if someone wants to initiate that action, go right ahead. It doesn't bother me. I've been misrepresented in that regard.

Oops:
Herman Cain said:
Some people say that we ought to audit the Federal Reserve. Here's what I do know. The Federal Reserve already has so many internal audits it's ridiculous. I don't know why people think we're going to learn this great amount of information by auditing the federal reserve. I think a lot of people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don't know enough about it. There's no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve to my knowledge ... we don't need to waste money with another audit or commission that's not necessary.
Click to expand...



transcript of debate
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
Welcome to Herman Cain alternate reality. No, not mere spin -- flat out lying.
Click to expand...
Exactly what part is lying? He never used the word "ignorant".

JoeTheJuggler said:
Because voluntary taxation is a really bad and unworkable idea.
Click to expand...
I was speaking specifically about funding charity. Voluntarily funding charity works quite well, thank you.
 
Neally said:
Exactly what part is lying? He never used the word "ignorant".

I was speaking specifically about funding charity. Voluntarily funding charity works quite well, thank you.
Click to expand...

charity is wholly inadequate to deal with the high numbers of homeless and poor.
it is the responsibility of the fortunate to help the less fortunate.
social safety nets are the responsibility of all, whether they choose to help, or not.
 
Neally said:
Exactly what part is lying? He never used the word "ignorant".
Click to expand...

That's rich. He said "they don't know enough about it". That's what "ignorant" means. To deny it is just plain dishonest. It's sort of like someone saying,

"I never said he was "stupid", I said he didn't have the brains God gave a goose."
 
bikerdruid said:
charity is wholly inadequate to deal with the high numbers of homeless and poor.
Click to expand...
And as been pointed out before, you can never make it go away no matter how much you try to redistribute the wealth. Your utopia Cuba, has put everyone into a state of poverty, with the exception of Fidel and his friends. Oh but wait, they have free medical care...
it is the responsibility of the fortunate to help the less fortunate.
social safety nets are the responsibility of all, whether they choose to help, or not.
Click to expand...
And they'll have to be jailed dammit if they just won't help out as much as you think they should...

Tricky said:
That's rich. He said "they don't know enough about it". That's what "ignorant" means.
Click to expand...
Granted the meaning is similar, but the way Cain put it was much less abrasive. You or I don't know if he was deliberately lying or responding to using the term "ignorant".
 
Neally said:
Granted the meaning is similar, but the way Cain put it was much less abrasive. You or I don't know if he was deliberately lying or responding to using the term "ignorant".
Click to expand...
But even the focus on the word ignorant is overlooking the substantive lie.

Not since the departure of our esteemed and highly entertaining colleague Art Vandalay have I seen this degree of hyper-literal parsing. Art could even make Hymie-the-Robot blush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom