@RFlagg

I am still war gaming out the situations of flat vs income, and I don't seem to follow your logic at all. Why would a rich person buy a Camry in any situation, be it flat or percentage based, if what they want in the BMW? The only motivation they would have for buying the Camry over the BMW is they want to "stick it to the man". But they would have to do that with everything to be effective in that regard.

Also, since your taxing spending instead of savings (interest and gains taxes are taxes on savings and investing). This encourages a slower but more stable growth cycle. It also rewards those who save and invest wisely. It also would lower loan rates, allowing for more small businesses to access the loan pool, with a large potential to undermine large business.

I also don't see how this "wind fall" of tax money is a bad thing, or even the thing that will happen. But if they have a windfall of cash to buy things that are chop full of sales tax, how is that not generation tax revenue?

Spending is also the largest part of the economy. Taxing it brings in revenue that you can't access otherwise. If you buy bread with money obtained from illegal drugs sales, your paying tax. Being that very few drug dealers file for w-2's on "dope sales", this would be completely new revenue! But even less insidious would be people who don't have income tax at all, like illegal immigrants, or even legal ones for that matter. It is no wonder that places with high levels of tourism have usually enacted a sales tax of some variety. Also, most cities use sales tax as a primary means of revenue generation, and they aren't usually blamed with creating massively wealthy people, nor exacerbating the conditions of the poor.

The point you make about hiring and firing actually just points out the problems of the current silly tax code, not flat taxes. If you have arbitrary tax standards, then you basically encourage business to try and manipulate it, they can't afford not to in many cases. If Microsoft successfully negotiates a significant tax break for themselves exclusively, they have an unfair advantage against competitors in price of product.

I also don't see how a direct percentage of income is more fair on the poor than a percentage of a percentage of their spending.

I think people mainly have an emotional attachment to the current idea instead of a rational appreciation for what it produces. Exclusive tax privileged for the rich, tax shelters for the crafty, and an overwhelming unfairness for those who don't try and trick the system, as the system buffs the levels of tax to account for the loopholes. The result is an extra burden on people not wanting to challenge the 5 million lines of tax documents, and who can blame them.

Don't really know, in the end. But the current system just lends itself to abuse and lobbying. If you leave it up to an arbitrary tax code, abuse will always creep in...I don't see any real way around that. Flat isn't perfect either, but I want to say its evils are easier to deal with.

I aim to please.. Dan Savage.
>> ^AdrianBlack:

I just found this comment today....The mental images made my Friday. Thank you for the soundtrack! lol>> ^gwiz665:
Hey Dan! I'm humping your face.. I'm doing it right now. lololol hump hump
>> ^AdrianBlack:
Dan is so dang buff. Too bad he's gay, I'd hump his face...and tell him so while I was doing it.

I just found this comment today....The mental images made my Friday. Thank you for the soundtrack! lol>> ^gwiz665:
Hey Dan! I'm humping your face.. I'm doing it right now. lololol hump hump
>> ^AdrianBlack:
Dan is so dang buff. Too bad he's gay, I'd hump his face...and tell him so while I was doing it.

Hey Dan! I'm humping your face.. I'm doing it right now. lololol *hump hump*
>> ^AdrianBlack:

Dan is so dang buff. Too bad he's gay, I'd hump his face...and tell him so while I was doing it.

Dan is so dang buff. Too bad he's gay, I'd hump his face...and tell him so while I was doing it.

Whoever did the writing and directing for this film needs to do real movies. This was just flat out well done, and I am not even a film buff kind of guy.

I thought she was a little better looking when she was not so buff, but she still has a great ass.

>> ^Drax:

Gonna need a lot of canned air to buff that out.


Wait, how does that work in the snow?!

Gonna need a lot of canned air to buff that out.

Loved ME1. Felt a bit rough but as others have said they just need to buff those edges. The other thing that irked me in ME2 was the story. It felt poorly paced to me and led into, well some anti-climatic boss battle. It's hard not to feel that ME2 was the weak filler and hopefully we'll see a suitably epic ME3.

And I do missing mucking around in the Mako. That sense of being able to roam freely, ridiculously and pointlessly gave a sense of freedom you don't normally see in console games where the next action item is being relentlessly highlighted for you. The Mako promised that sense of discovery and if the things you found weren't always that amazing it did FEEL like you were exploring the farthest reaches of the galaxy.

ME2's scanner was just pure grindathon.

This and parts 1 and 2 are a must see for history buffs, patriotic Canadians and those who need to understand the horror of war.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since February 23rd, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/sirex">sirex
Points to consider:
Accepting money in exchange for sexual favors. That makes you a whore.
Who the hell randomly chooses their sexual partners? Enjoy STDs much?
If anything, it makes sense that she'd make her selections from the same circle of candidates, for multiple reasons:
She obviously like athletic guys. It's much easier to obtain vital information. She'd have plenty of opportunities to court the ones she liked.
You're just calling her a whore cause our culture allows for it.


Whore is a bit slangish for this, however, I will agree with you that it is inappropriate as long as you never have exchanged a word to slightly mean something it does not really mean. For example, LawDee is a dick. While I do in fact have a penis, I am not fully a dick, and therefore you cannot call my whole person a dick. That goes for ass-holey, dumbass, gaytard, loser (What did I lose? And where did I put it?)

This rule must also apply to words that have a dual meaning---unless you correctly note what intended meaning you implied. "The bear was in the buff." Wait, did you mean "the naked was in the muscled." Or, "The animal was naked."


Of course I am being facious. But you must remember, you are your own culture. Sure, you can try to change it, but slangism is what we do. And sports teams is what she does.

The only thing I do not like---the double standard. If men are "whores" then call them that. I do.

Great stuff. I was such a Titanic buff when I was a kid.

i hate the term history buff...

it makes it sound negative to actually want to know what has gone on before our time, to give us more insight as to where we are and where we are going

those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it as the saying goes

yeah, Regan was the "golden age" to alot of conservatives... funny though because alot of what he accomplished wasn't really conservative

but i'd say the downfall of both parties is closer to the era after JFK than Regan, though bankers were corrupting the system since Eisenhower

are you:

a) 65+ to remember the "good old days" of republicanism or
b) a history buff

In reply to this comment by packo:
funny but back then, republicans were a whole different party, they actually cared about the little guy, as opposed to being corporate lackeys

and democrats with their "lack" of conservatism were close to being commies... RED SCARE!!!

but good job going back 50+ years to find something to make fun of democrats
to make fun of republicans you only have to go back as far as last week

not that I'm a fan of either really
today both are corporate stooges and are selling your rights out from under you
not that any of you seem to care