On 9/21/2012 6:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.

I've said it frequently. Until this ****ty citation, he has never
provided one, and this one is worthless - it's to a 14 year old
statement by a Marxist columnist for Huffington Post that simply states
a lie:

A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay
the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich.

The fact that the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes
as the rich is precisely why it *ISN'T* a regressive tax. Froomkin
should have been fired from the Post for making that bald-faced lie alone.



I've provided cites on a number of occasions. You generally act like you
never saw them or you pretend they don't matter because you don't like
the source. But you only like right wing think tanks for sources so what
do you expect? But just watch, next thing you know you will be saying
again, Hawke never provides cites for anything. Maybe it's you that's
senile, not Dan.

Why is it that no one but you has taken exception to Froomkin? Could it
be that you don't understand it? You are taking a much larger percentage
of someone's income when they are poor than when they are rich when the
tax rate is the same. Regressive taxes take less from those who make
more. You don't get it?


Hawke