This is what the Republicans are talking about when they say something like 53% of households pay no taxes... because a family with $17K in income has a deduction of about $5700 per adult and $3750 per child... not to mention the possible other deductions such as the $1K per child tax credit, child care tax credits, credits for monies invested in retirement plans (such as 401Ks), etc. and then the fact that after all the deductions one then has a window of income which is below the threshold for taxation.

I could do the numbers, but without bothering I'd say that $17K for an individual is liable to lead to an effective tax rate of about 2-4%... with a (non-working) spouse... or children, you're looking at 0% (the 10% deductions from paychecks will ALL be refunded).

With Cain's plan NONE of it would be refunded (well, 10% of it wouldn't be collected... you'd have 9% rather than 10% deducted... but you would get NONE of it back). Further, under Cain's plan you would have an extra 9% federal sales tax added on top of your state/county/local sales tax (assuming you have state sales tax). This is a tax that would have no deductions and would have no exemptions... unless you buy used food, for instance (I'll leave the meaning of that to your imagination).

Meanwhile, the rich who are currently basking in the loophole wonderment of having to only pay 15% on capital gains and preferred dividends, will be able to get away with only 9%... and rather than the 15-35% marginal tax rates (applied to incomes of various levels, but increasing as the totals get higher)... they will just pay a straight 9% on all income...

And, meanwhile, corporations will pay 9% on everything, rather than rates that average about 35%...

As for the "hidden tax" that Cain suggests won't be adding to the costs of goods... what he hasn't admitted is that he's adding new "hidden taxes" that he might not even realize. Sure, the corporations will only be paying 9% income tax, and only 9% income tax for all the employees along the supply chain... and theoretically it MIGHT be possible that corporations would reduce prices as a result of the income tax expenses saved along the supply chain... but what isn't being mentioned is that Cain's plan doesn't include any accommodation for the writing-off of any of the other expenses of production or distribution. No wages expense deductions, no fuel deductions, no rent or depreciation of facilities or equipment deductions... and without these deductions, compared to which the tax expenses for generally under-paid employees along the distribution line pale and shrink to insignificance... the "hidden taxes" that Cain is expecting business will be "unburdened of" hardly compare to the one that business will become "reburdened of".

A 9% flat corporate tax rate that allows no deductions means prices WILL GO UP. A 9% corporate flat tax rate that allows deductions to continue as they are now means that the government will go bankrupt (sales tax revenue can't possibly make up for this loss)... and it also means that businesses will be allowed to continue writing off "stuff" even as individuals will be prohibited writing off "stuff"... unless Schedule C filers (sole proprietorships) are also allowed to write-off "stuff"... in which case the flat tax will be solely for laborers.

As a general rule, if you rent and work for wages, then the 9-9-9 plan will screw you or, if you're at the top edge of the bracket, it will not make things worse for you.

out Republicaning Republicans is a classic Multi-Dimensional Chess Gambit... one which depends upon a stable wall of pawns who will believe that Republican Policy is Democratic Policy if it is put into effect by a Democrat... while at the same time being able to convince Republican pawns that Republican Policy is Democratic Policy if it's enacted by a Democrat.

Of course, the real lynchpin of the successful use of this particular gambit is the gamble that Republican Pawns are smart enough to judge politicians based upon policy, while at the same time gambling that Democratic Pawns are stupid enough to fail to judge politicians based upon policy.

This is why this is not a gambit attempted in Uni_Dimensional Chess... because in Uni-Dimensional Chess all the pawns are assumed to not be retarded, whereas in Multi-Dimensional Chess... a mechanism has been built in to simulate Retarded Pawns.

Brandywine... the president is relying upon you to behave like a "fucking retarded" pawn—you won't let him down in his... term of need? Will you??

I also see a far right party rising from the ashes of the pugs... and the not-that-far-right amongst the pugs being absorbed into the Democrats... and in the process the Democratic platform morphing to please/pander to those newly aquired not-terribly-far-right voters.

Rather than playing along though, the left needs to form a party of its own, just as the far right party you see rising from the ashes of the pugs would form. Just for the sake of ease, let's call this new Left Party the Green Party, and the Far Right Party the Teabaggers (because I feel no urge to show any restraint in the use of denigrating connotations).

At this point, there would be three parties: the Teabaggers, the Democrats and the Greens (forget Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, etc. for the moment). Obviously, with the current Electoral College system there can only be two real parties for presidential elections, but there is no such limiting factor for the Congress. As I see it, the membership of the Teabagger party that we're extrapolating would tend to be very old, demographically speaking... and I suspect that it would literally wither and disappear within one or two election cycles... at which point, by say 2024 or 2028, we'd be left with the Democrats and the Greens. Right and Left.

Of course, that presumes that the Left is ever willing to refuse to go along with the constant Rightward creep of the Democratic party... and also presumes that the Democratic Party leadership would be willing to continue its Rightward creep (presumably not fearing losing the Left from its base). From what I can see... the Democratic Party has no intentions of halting its Rightward creep in the pursuit of more and more of the (constantly shifting definition) centrist voters of the Republican Party. And, from what I can see, the Party Leadership has no intention of letting the Left stop them in the pursuit of those voters. And, increasingly, it looks like the Left might simply decide, sometime in the near future, to stop 'going along to get along'.

As a scenario, it makes sense to me... though, it all depends on the Left deciding that they've had enough... and either stopping the Rightward creep of the Democrats, or jumping ship altogether. We've clearly heard Rahm's take on that being a possibility...

in the form of legal (& punitively enforced) mandates to purchase a "product" from those corporations. The 200 billion you mention isn't provided to the employees/workers/citizens ... it is a subsidy that goes to the corporations (along with a portion to be paid by those self-same workers/employees/citizens in addition).

The mandate that these monies be directed to corporations, who will then (with some regulations) re-direct the monies (less their percentage cut) to those who are actually providing the health care... is a corporatist solution. It is a corporate-centric solution. Single payer, directed through an expansion of medicare or even of the VA, would have been a public/nationalized solution because it would have used public/nationalized resources to solve the issue of delivering health care to citizens.

You can try to spin it... but the term 'corporatist' applies to this example, because the kernel of the approach was to utilize corporations.

You can attempt to marginalize those who use the term 'corporatist', or you can sing the praises of the corporations... but when you try to marginalize those who use the term 'corporatist' by trying to conflate a corporatist policy (as explained above) with a public-interest-policy (as explained above with regards to other means of delivering health care by utilizing public/nationalized resources)... then you just make yourself look like a talking-point spewing hack... and in the process you simply marginalize yourself.

Thanks for playing... maybe you should do a little more work on that metaphorical curve ball?

The above poster is not a "loon", but is instead pointing out the implication that resources often refer to such things as coal, as is evidenced by the commonplace term "renewable resources" to refer to such things as lumber, which grow back, vs. "non-renewable resources" to refer to such things as oil or coal, which don't grow back.
The use of the term "human resources" suggests to those familiar with the term "renewable resources" an implicit equation of 'personnel', i.e. employees, with lumber... as humans are perhaps even more 'renewable' than lumber is... since trees take longer than 18-22 years to 'mature' in many cases.

I further point to one of the definitions provided by the HR OP "2.resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth." Its means of producing wealth... and that is the essence of the 'resource' nature of a company's employees. When employees are referred to as 'human resources' there is no connotation that employees are seen as 'resourceful humans'... they are rather being referred to as a 'means of producing wealth'. And, once persons are labeled as 'resources', then they become, unconsciously in the minds of those who would utilize these resources, just another class of assets... like computer monitors or accounting software or company vehicles (motor pools and whatnot). It is a linguistic means of dehumanizing the labor force, which is particularly useful when industrial engineers are doing whatever they do to optimize business efficiency models.
The company's personnel become little more than tools for carrying out the business of the company's business... like AR spreadsheets or phones... resources to be optimized and made more efficient... even if the stress causes these Human Resources to 'break down' (as in drop dead), like efforts to optimize the use of other machinery is liable to make office copiers and company vehicles break down.
And, of course, the answer is to simply invest in new resources when the old are worn out. New copiers when the old are wearing out, and new employees when the old are wearing out.
Which is, in fact, a system similar to that employed with peasants and serfs under a feudalistic system.

Your example of refusing to put a shopping cart back in the 'car corral' is rather nonsensical... since the guy (or occasional girl) who has the job of 'herding' them back into the store gets paid the same no matter where the carts are. If this employee isn't 'herding' the carts, he or she will be doing something else... there is no one who has that job and no other responsibilities... if it comes to it that poor slob will get the job of scrubbing the walls to keep them occupied if every customer brings every cart back to the by-the-door-corral after using it. The slob is a Human Resource... which should more honestly be called a labor resource... and while he or she is 'clocked in', he or she is not human... but a human resource.
Which is also not a person. Unlike those dealt with by 'Personnel'.
Resources are commodities. Human Resources is a word that 'commodifies' the labor, ideationally divorcing the labor from the laborer... and thereby dehumanizing the laborer who outputs the labor in question.

Judging by your example, however... I suppose I've just wasted a shitload of keystrokes trying to explain this to you....

The base is all them folks for whom a party does shit. If the party stops doing shit for folks, they ain't gonna be the base for long.

Start doing shit for the folks... simple.

Or maybe pass a law extending "personhood for corporations" to include the right for a corporation to vote too. It would do wonders for the employment rates for lawyers... as corporations scramble to set up millions of incorporated subsidiaries to also vote for their interests...

Hell, half a million subsidiaries in SD would be enough for a corporation to "own" 2 senators.

The taxes on those corporations might be enough to balance the budget, so the corporations could be sure to have enough money to subsidize themselves...

Makes me feel like a teabagger with the coordination to hit someone in the face with my left testicle, while only teasing them with the possibilities of my right...

It's all about "scrotum control"...

Let's lay out a sort of outline scenario for a possible revolution.

Credit card companies keep gouging their customers. Banks foreclose on a shitload more homes. Corporations outsource a shitload more jobs. In a gesture of "reaching across the aisle" a Democratic administration, in the name of free trade, opens the Mexican border to looser shipping regulations- leading to all importers of goods using Mexican ports & non-union dock workers, then non-unionized teamsters to ship to the border (or over the border)... effectively killing the Teamsters (dock workers and truckers unions). The public schools are eviscerated, and instead the kiddies are ushered into charter schools, run by administrators who take state money, hire on a small scale, and close up the school if the teachers try to unionize- if they want benefits for instance. The health care industry keeps raising prices, universal mandate forces everyone to pay, non-unionized shops provide no assistance, and more and more and more government "services" have to be cut to provide subsidies (to assure the profit margin of the health care industry). Selling oranges on the side of the road without a business license and sellers permit laws begin to be enforced, as cities desperately try to raise money. Corporations, meanwhile, negotiate increasingly sweet deals on tax rates and land sale rates and so on, under the threat of "moving elsewhere". There are not enough well paid corporate employees, however, to keep real estate prices reliably rising, as most of the "middle class" jobs are now located in India, Brazil, or somewhere else. Wages in the US are falling, and nearly so low that corporations are beginning to consider re-locating some factories to the US.

The middle class is gone.

LA looks conspiciously like Rio DeJaneiro, though its slums are more sprawling, and more dangerous.

St. Louis is hard to tell from Baku, Azerbaijan.

And, one day, some dumb cop pulls a "Rodney King" on some poor bastard somewhere. Rioting breaks out, as everyone, frustrated with everything, lashes out. There aren't enough little Korean Grocery Markets left to hold the attention of the rioters. The Yemeni Grocers Association has also long fled the labyrinthine slums, so there's no outlet for rage there. All the fleet-footed grocery sales entrepreneurs who've been dodging the Municipal Revenuers for years are way too slick and practiced to be caught by any unruly mob: they're gone and selling groceries to their neighbors out of a side-room shanty that's been added onto the house by their cousins and uncles as the extended family found that they didn't have enough space in the original tract house that they found abandoned and have been squatting in for so long that they've managed to "jury-rig" indoor plumbing around the Water Companies mechanisms for regulating its users.

Shit starts to burn. But there's not enough obvious targets to serve as an outlet for that rage. Somebody gets up on a car that hasn't been burned yet, and mentions the gated communities of those that still have those corporate jobs.

The security men aren't enough. The city government can't get re-assurances and guarantees of overtime for the police union, and the union officials... pissed off over all the benefits they've lost, all the pay cuts they've taken... decide to tell the rank and file to stand down... "maybe this way they will actually give us a raise to cover the increases in our health care premiums at the next round of negotiations..."

And here, you have "revolution"... as the corporate and government officials finally face the grim, grimy masses that they've been too successful at screwing in the recent past.

"Tell you what, we're going to have officials in your board meetings. We're going to have membership in the city council. Bob over there is the new City Manager."
"We're going to have membership on the county board. We're going to have membership in the State Assembly. Ann over there, she's the new governor."
"We're going to choose our national representatives. And we're going to control our electoral votes. And we're going to foreclose on the state Democratic and Republican parties, and we're going to seize all their assets."
"Or, we're just going to execute every man, woman, and child amongst you... and the Corporate HQ will have to find a different set of warm bodies to take your jobs, and the citizens (who haven't been excluded the vote because of a criminal record or unverifiable address because they're squatting...) will have to elect a new mayor and council... and the police will have to be guaranteed overtime so that they can come in here and kill us... or the Army will have to be pulled out of Afghanistan in order to come and kill us."


And the media shows up. And this makes great copy, and the local station can charge networks nationwide for access, and they might be able to forestall a hostile merger for another year or two.

And word gets out... and people in the slums around the country feel empowered... and people in the rural trailers moving from landlords unused corner of land to landlords unused corner of land like some sort of "real American" gypsies get to feeling a little inspired too.

And then it takes less of a spark for the next set of riots, and then less still for the next... until all it takes is one sneering look from some cop in Nebraska... and it's spreading everywhere.

(Or maybe it won't spread everywhere. Maybe some state does something to keep conditions from getting quite so bad. Some sort of social well being net. Like Welfare. If nothing else, to keep the fuses less flammable.)

And, in the post-revolutionary country, essentially the huge advantages built up by the rich are wiped away. Any board of directors that tries to collude with executives to try to pretend that they need to be paid 500 times what the workers are being paid- will be promptly executed for the mere suggestion. Any executives who try to hold out for that pay, will be promptly fired. Executive Nepotism will be suspected, and executives will be required to prove an absence of nepotism in all hiring.

Single Payer Health Insurance will be instituted. Business licenses and sellers permits will be priced in a more equitable manner, so that they are not prohibitive of independent work such as selling oranges on the streets.

The whole cycle will then begin again... and eventually some will succeed so well that they will have taken everything, and will be attacked by yet another unruly mob... in order to "reset the system" yet again. There will be a good long time of flourishing in the meantime.

Anyway... I've been trying to gather info here and there about the answer to your question.

Most people seem to be buying the idea that Afghani dirt is somehow more Terrorist-Empowering than Somali dirt, Qatari dirt, UAE dirt, Sudanese dirt, Algerian dirt, Colombian dirt... etc. (Terrorists Must be Denied Access to Magic Dirt !!)

On the other hand, here're a couple of interesting articles that are so complex that they hover at the edge of my capacity to digest them, but the more I try to digest them in the back of my brain, while watching new news as it comes out... the more "contextual sense" all the new developments seem to make.

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark> (from www.energybulletin.net ) ... this one makes the invasion of Iraq, as well as the determination to pressure Iran despite its continuing to be in compliance with International Law, make more sense.

Welcome to Pipelineistan —By Pepe Escobar (from www.motherjones.com ) which makes sense of the "importance" of Afghanistan as a gateway between Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and probably some other 'stan's... and Pakistan's ports... and the apparently renewed importance of that alternate pipeline as the Russian invasion of Georgia revealed the essential weakness of the pipeline through Georgia into the Balkans and thence into Europe.

Maybe it's just paranoia... but the assertion that it's all about oil sure makes an awful lot of sense, and explains an awful lot of wars... Magic Dirt Indeed!

= 'You can't blame me, just because I was smart enough to not enlist; while you were so dumb and bloodlusty that you didn't know any better.'?


= 'It's your own fault... you should've known how wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan have gone in the past, and you should've known that Bush was an incompetent opportunist of a human being.'?


= 'Now you're saying that I should feel guilty because you're dumber than I am, dumber than a lot of others too, and you're saying that Obama should "tie himself up" and defer to you, despite the fact that you've already shown yourself to be dumb enough to enlist in the military after 9/11 (military solutions never really work anyway).' ??


= 'Why do you expect us <presumably FrenchieCat & Obama> to suffer as a result of your lesson <learning that you are dumb for having enlisted after 9/11, which was your own fault for being dumb enough to do>.' ???


Is this really what you are saying? Have I translated your 'prose-etry' correctly? I mean... really?? Calling soldiers/marines/airmen/sailors dumb (slow, technically) for enlisting... implying all the suffering they're enduring is their own fault... I suppose there is some logical foundation (heartless and vindictive, but logical) for saying that... but... to then imply that Obama and yourself shouldn't have to "pay pennance" for that suffering/endurance??... let alone mocking any contribution or the idea of "let<ting them> call the shots, when <they> have been proven wrong < /slow> already" ??... Are you fucking kidding??

I got a call from a Democratic Party telemarketer this morning, asking for donations to maintain Democratic majorities in the 2010 elections.

"If the Democratic Party is only willing to fight for Centrist policy, then I think you'll have to turn to Centrists for donations. I'm not interested in donating to the party as things currently stand." I answered.

"Well, the House just passed a health care bill..." she pointed out.

"Yes, a health care bill with a weakened public option, mandates, and which will limit women's access to reproductive health care. If that's the best that the Democratic Party can do with a super majority, then I don't see any reason to care if the Democratic Party majorities are maintained or not. Try calling some Centrists if the Party is only interested in representing Flaming Centrists." I then enjoined her.

We concluded by each wishing the other a good day.

I hope that my disgruntlement is memorable enough to be mentioned to the phone banking supervisors/organizers.

... So, all you DUers who make arguments about "fact based reality" to defend the Democratic Party... here's a fact for you: You might want to take it upon yourselves to open your wallets wider, because I'm probably not the only leftist who isn't interested in paying good money to be told to sit down and STFU.

I can use the money I just saved to buy better whiskey for the next month... and the money I save the next time I'm contacted to help pay for the mandated health insurance I'm liable to have foisted upon me in the interests of trying to provide the Insurance Industry with one less theoretical justification for gouging the country with ever increasing rates (as if they won't just come up with another justification).

which may better reflect the subtleties of details in politics and human society in general... but which are just so much work to try to understand.

Much easier to pretend everything is black and white... bundle up a couple 3-5 stock comments... and trundle off to a discussion, all ready to tweak the grammar of your stock comments in order to try to make them fit more "organically" into a conversation... so that they don't feel so much like a hamfisted job of pasting the same comment/sentiment into a conversation at every lull... over and over and over again.

Sorry again... didn't mean to infringe on your conversational schedule with... gasp... the "convoluted logic" inherent in an explanation of a subtle, complicated, and perhaps even "convoluted" point.

From now on I'll stick to sarcasm when/if I respond to you.