On Sep 17, 8:30*pm, Hawke wrote:

There is really no reason that there needs to be more than one rate.
Apply it to all income no matter where it comes from.

That's what the rich are arguing for. I know why too. When you have a
flat rate the richer you are the lower the rate you pay. Great for them
bad for the rest of us. Funny thing is that what is good for the
majority of us happens to be bad for the rich. So which should we do?
What's good for the rich or what's good for the majority? We know you
stand with the rich and I stand with the majority.

Hawke

Can you not read? He said one rate for everyone. Explain how that
translates to " the richer you are the lower the rate you pay". If
there is only one rate then there is no lower rate.

You seem to stand with the confused, not the majority.

Dan

On 9/17/2012 7:32 PM, wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:30 pm, Hawke wrote:

There is really no reason that there needs to be more than one rate.
Apply it to all income no matter where it comes from.

That's what the rich are arguing for. I know why too. When you have a
flat rate the richer you are the lower the rate you pay. Great for them
bad for the rest of us. Funny thing is that what is good for the
majority of us happens to be bad for the rich. So which should we do?
What's good for the rich or what's good for the majority? We know you
stand with the rich and I stand with the majority.

Hawke

Can you not read? He said one rate for everyone. Explain how that
translates to " the richer you are the lower the rate you pay". If
there is only one rate then there is no lower rate.

You seem to stand with the confused, not the majority.

Dan
a flat tax has a pernicious effect on the poor and a very beneficial
impact on the rich. Look at it this way - if you are skipping meals to
save money to pay the rent, taking away 10% means you don't eat for 3
more days out of the month (at least). If you make a million dollars,
taking away 10% means nothing to your ability to feed yourself and your
family, nor to provide housing and clothing and transportation. If you
are choosing medication or electricity, 10% can mean you don't treat
your disease or you have your power turned off, if you are rich you just
pay these things and maybe don't buy that 12th ferrari you were going to
display on the front lawn. Remember the great Anatole France, who said
"The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread".



--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not income redistribution?

On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.

See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.

On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.

See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:50:15 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:



Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.



No, such as all forms of income redistribution;



Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not income redistribution?



It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.

Yes it is. You know it, but don't want to admit it. A portion of that money goes in Joe the Boeng Stockholder's pocket, and another portion goes into Joe the Boeing Janitor's pocket and another portion goes into Joe the Alcoa Lunch Truck Driver's pocket......and another portion goes into Social Security and another portion goes into Medicare....

[condescending racist crap deleted]

That's how it is. Seriously.

I guess that's how YOU think it is, but I also guess that you think non-taxpayers shouldn't be allowed to walk on taxpayer-funded sidewalks.

On 9/17/2012 11:00 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:50:15 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:



Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.



No, such as all forms of income redistribution;



Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not income redistribution?



It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.

Yes it is. You know it, but

It isn't. It isn't redistribution. It isn't simply taking money from a
producer and giving it to a deadbeat vermin consumer.

Resto

See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.

I guess that's how YOU think it is, but

It's how it is. Government spending on defense is not redistribution -
defense is a legitimate government function. Government spending on
Section 8 housing vouchers and food stamps for Sha'niqu'a is immoral
redistribution from hardworking decent people to deadbeat layabout
parasites - immoral from start to finish. This is simply a fact, not
merely a value judgment.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:05:13 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 11:00 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:50:15 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:



On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:



On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:







Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.







No, such as all forms of income redistribution;







Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not income redistribution?







It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.



Yes it is. You know it, but



It isn't. It isn't redistribution. It isn't simply taking money from a

producer and giving it to a deadbeat vermin consumer.



Resto



See if this helps:



$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps

keep Americans secure



$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral

income redistribution to deadbeat vermin





That's how it is. Seriously.



I guess that's how YOU think it is, but



It's how it is. Government spending on defense is not redistribution -

defense is a legitimate government function. Government spending on

Section 8 housing vouchers and food stamps for Sha'niqu'a is immoral

redistribution from hardworking decent people to deadbeat layabout

parasites - immoral from start to finish. This is simply a fact, not

merely a value judgment.

It is only a "fact" if one accepts your definition of morality over that of the majority of Americans.

It must be very lonely for you sitting so far above everyone less fortunate than yourself. go ahead an characterize everyone without the means to support themselves at a level you find acceptable as a deadbeat parasite and see where that gets you.

I hope you can find some peace.

On 9/17/2012 11:13 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:05:13 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 11:00 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:50:15 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:



On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:



On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:







Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.







No, such as all forms of income redistribution;







Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not income redistribution?







It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.



Yes it is. You know it, but



It isn't. It isn't redistribution. It isn't simply taking money from a

producer and giving it to a deadbeat vermin consumer.



Resto



See if this helps:



$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps

keep Americans secure



$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral

income redistribution to deadbeat vermin





That's how it is. Seriously.



I guess that's how YOU think it is, but



It's how it is. Government spending on defense is not redistribution -

defense is a legitimate government function. Government spending on

Section 8 housing vouchers and food stamps for Sha'niqu'a is immoral

redistribution from hardworking decent people to deadbeat layabout

parasites - immoral from start to finish. This is simply a fact, not

merely a value judgment.

It is only a "fact" if one

It's a fact - period. It's just a fact. I know it bothers you, and I'm
glad it does. Your positions are misanthropic, and anything that causes
you to have to flail about helplessly trying to defend your misanthropy
is good - it's *very* good.


It must be very lonely for you sitting so far above everyone less fortunate
than yourself.

I am, in fact, very far above anyone who doesn't take responsibility for
his lot in life. That's a fact. Anyone who is unhappy with his lot in
life who doesn't see that he owns his own life and is responsible for
his own outcome - that person is morally *far* beneath me. That person
is beyond contempt.



go ahead an

I guess you probably meant "and", but never mind.


characterize everyone without the means to support themselves at a level you
find acceptable as a deadbeat parasite and see where that gets you.

You mean at a level that the *deadbeats* find acceptable. But we don't
care what they find acceptable, do we? No, we don't. We don't care a
thing about what those who believe others owe them comfort and ease
feel. In fact, when some Sha'niqu'a laments that those who are paying
her way in life don't "appreciate" what she suffers, we just mock her.
That is as it should be.



I hope you can find some peace.

On Sep 18, 12:52*am, a friend
wrote:


a flat tax has a pernicious effect on the poor and a very beneficial
impact on the rich. *Look at it this way - if you are skipping meals to
save money to pay the rent, taking away 10% means you don't eat for 3
more days out of the month (at least). *If you make a million dollars,
taking away 10% means nothing to your ability to feed yourself and your
family, nor to provide housing and clothing and transportation. *If you
are choosing medication or electricity, 10% can mean you don't treat
your disease or you have your power turned off, if you are rich you just
pay these things and maybe don't buy that 12th ferrari you were going to
display on the front lawn. * Remember the great Anatole France, who said
"The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread".


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.


Dan

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:41:10 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:

It's a fact - period. It's just a fact.

Again, it's only a fact if one accepts your definition of morality. Apparently, most people do not.

On 9/17/2012 10:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not
income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.

See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.





Sorry, but you are ignorant, as usual. It is a well known game of give
away by the government in how it has dealt with military procurement.
The government has purchased products at overly inflated prices that it
never uses and winds up either throwing away or giving away. The
government knows this going into it. It awards a contract to a company
as a reward for one reason or another. They give contracts to
individuals who done even have a company at the time. They buy products
the military is never going to use. It's an under the table way of
transferring funds from the government into the hands of people they
want to have it. This went on in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII as well.
It's still going on now. We reward the people the government chooses to
lavish its largess on and it's done by purchasing merchandise that the
government doesn't actually need. It's a con, a rip off, that has gone
on for decades. I'm not surprised that you didn't know about it. You are
naive in many areas as well as being a rat.

Hawke

On 9/18/2012 5:08 AM, wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:52 am, a friend
wrote:


a flat tax has a pernicious effect on the poor and a very beneficial
impact on the rich. Look at it this way - if you are skipping meals to
save money to pay the rent, taking away 10% means you don't eat for 3
more days out of the month (at least). If you make a million dollars,
taking away 10% means nothing to your ability to feed yourself and your
family, nor to provide housing and clothing and transportation. If you
are choosing medication or electricity, 10% can mean you don't treat
your disease or you have your power turned off, if you are rich you just
pay these things and maybe don't buy that 12th ferrari you were going to
display on the front lawn. Remember the great Anatole France, who said
"The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread".


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.


Dan



All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

On 9/19/2012 2:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not
income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.

See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.





Sorry, but you are ignorant,

No.


It is a well known game of give away

No, that's just what ignorant lying leftists call it.


by the government in how it has dealt with military procurement.

Buying a B-2 bomber is not income redistribution. Paying Sha'niqu'a's
rent is.

On 9/17/2012 9:52 PM, a friend wrote:
On 9/17/2012 7:32 PM, wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:30 pm, Hawke wrote:

There is really no reason that there needs to be more than one rate.
Apply it to all income no matter where it comes from.

That's what the rich are arguing for. I know why too. When you have a
flat rate the richer you are the lower the rate you pay. Great for them
bad for the rest of us. Funny thing is that what is good for the
majority of us happens to be bad for the rich. So which should we do?
What's good for the rich or what's good for the majority? We know you
stand with the rich and I stand with the majority.

Hawke

Can you not read? He said one rate for everyone. Explain how that
translates to " the richer you are the lower the rate you pay". If
there is only one rate then there is no lower rate.

You seem to stand with the confused, not the majority.

Dan
a flat tax has a pernicious effect on the poor and a very beneficial
impact on the rich.

*Any* tax paid by *anyone* has a "pernicious" effect on him, you idiot.


Look at it this way - if you are skipping meals to
save money to pay the rent, taking away 10% means you don't eat for 3
more days out of the month (at least). If you make a million dollars,
taking away 10% means nothing to your ability to feed yourself and your
family, nor to provide housing and clothing and transportation.

How does a hypothetical flat rate of 25% on all income, with no
deductions, versus a steeply graduated tax structure with so many
loopholes that a rich person can pay an *effective* rate of only 10%, in
any way "benefit" the rich person? It doesn't.

What the ****tard left don't understand is that *NO ONE* ever paid those
punitive marginal rates that used to exist. The tax code was so
thoroughly rotten with deductions and exemptions and credits that rich
people paid a much lower effective rate.

On Sep 19, 5:29*pm, Hawke wrote:


I was- *not arguing for a flat tax. *I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. *But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. *He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. *How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.


Dan

On 9/20/2012 5:09 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:29 pm, Hawke wrote:


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

That's exactly what the idiot, Silver Spoon Smithers, said. He and
other leftists have an ideological fetish about the tax structure, so
much so that they call almost every tax "regressive". They have to play
Humpty-Dumpty with the word "regressive" to try to apply it as they
wish. A proportional tax on income is, by definition, *not* a
regressive tax on income. The definition of a regressive tax is one in
which the tax *rate* decreases as the amount of the tax *base*
increases. Clearly - not possible to dispute - a proportional or flat
tax on income is not regressive.

Here is what Silver Spoon Smithers and *all* leftists mean by
"regressive" tax: one that does not punitively strip the rich of their
wealth. So, imagine a hypothetical progressive tax structure in which
the tax rate increased by one quarter of a percent for each $50,000 in
income:

0 - $50,000 : 0.25%
$50,001 - $100,000 : 0.50%
$100,001 - $150,000 : 0.75%

On 9/17/2012 10:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not
income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled. Now what kind of a scumbag thinks those poor
unfortunate folks are vermin except a real piece of human trash?





See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.



You only hate redistribution when it's from the rich down. When the
money is redistributed from the poor and the middle class to the rich
you think it's good. But you are a hypocrite so that's understandable.


Hawke

On Sep 20, 8:15*pm, Hawke wrote:

Regressive, proportional (or flat) and progressive refer to how the
percentage of the tax changes as the base on which the tax is levied
changes. *If the tax percentage falls as the base rises, the tax is
regressive; if it stays the same, it is proportional (aka flat); and if
it rises, the tax is progressive.

A proportional tax on income is, by definition, proportional and *not*
regressive. *If there is a 10% flat rate and your income is $100,000,
you pay $10,000 in tax or 10% of your income; if your income is
$1,000,000, you pay $100,000 or 10% of your income. *The tax is not
regressive.


Wikipedia says you are full of ****.


From Wikipedia

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate
decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.

Hmm that seems to be exactly what George is saying. So it is more
like Wiki saying Hawke is
wrong.

Dan

Hawke

On 9/20/2012 5:09 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:29 pm, Hawke wrote:


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.


Dan



You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:11:21 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 9/17/2012 10:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not
income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled. Now what kind of a scumbag thinks those poor
unfortunate folks are vermin except a real piece of human trash?

You mean that the Military is simply a sump hole that the G'ment dumps
money down? That they provide no service to the public?

As for the senior citizens? Don't you feel that these old folks could
have given a little forethought to what is a normal problem - getting
older?

The disabled? My father's elder brother was crippled by polio in his
senior year in high school. He established a business/shop and when he
died at the age of 75 had, according to my mother, "an astonishing
amount of savings".

You left-wing-wienies are living proof that George Orwell wasn't some
sort of a kook writing wildly improbably fiction.







See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.



You only hate redistribution when it's from the rich down. When the
money is redistributed from the poor and the middle class to the rich
you think it's good. But you are a hypocrite so that's understandable.


Hawke
--

Cheers,
John B.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:26:49 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 9/20/2012 5:09 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:29 pm, Hawke wrote:


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.


Dan



You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke


You are playing with the meaning of words and (probably) listening to
left-wing deviants.

Every dictionary of English defines "regressive", but now in a frantic
effort to justify an unfair tax system you want to change the meaning
of the word.

Rather like the group deciding that "Hawke" is a synonym for
"ignoramus" and insisting that is the true meaning of the word.


--

Cheers,
John B.

On 9/20/2012 5:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not
income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled.

No, they aren't. They're debris - worthless debris who do not do and
never have done one worthwhile thing in their lives.



See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.



You only hate redistribution when it's from the rich down. When the
money is redistributed from the poor and the middle class to the rich

Does not happen.

On 9/20/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:

It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive.

No "experts" said that; none - zero. You're a ****ing liar.

On 9/20/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:


You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

No, you haven't. No "expert" has ever said that a proportional tax on
income is regressive.

On 9/20/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 5:09 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:29 pm, Hawke wrote:


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.


Dan



You look up proportional tax on the internet.

You look it up, ****. You haven't.



Learn the argument thatthose experts who say it is regressive have used.

*NO ONE* has said that a proportional tax on income is "regressive" -
*NO ONE*. You're lying.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:57:52 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 9/20/2012 5:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 10:16 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:25:48 AM UTC-4, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/17/2012 6:37 AM, deep wrote:

Such as the Air Force? Maybe that should be privatized.

No, such as all forms of income redistribution;

Where do you think the Air Force budget gets spent? How is that not
income redistribution?

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled.

No, they aren't. They're debris - worthless debris who do not do and
never have done one worthwhile thing in their lives.


"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;"

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Sep 20, 8:26*pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a *one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. *You do not get it. *it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.


Dan

On 9/21/2012 4:45 AM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

That's the definition of a proportional or flat rate system.


One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well, you *should* be commenting on what a proportional tax is, and by
*definition* it is not regressive.


Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.

Exactly: the very definition of a proportional, *not* regressive and
*not* progressive, system.

Silver Spoon Smithers doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.

On 9/20/2012 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled. Now what kind of a scumbag thinks those poor
unfortunate folks are vermin except a real piece of human trash?

You mean that the Military is simply a sump hole that the G'ment dumps
money down? That they provide no service to the public?

I mean he's calling them vermin. I mean he says that anyone who doesn't
pay 100% of their own way is a deadbeat. The military happens to be
filled with people who get government assistance. He's calling them vermin.



As for the senior citizens? Don't you feel that these old folks could
have given a little forethought to what is a normal problem - getting
older?

Sure, just like the poor could have done better in life and not been
poor. Anyone who can't care of themselves has no one to blame but
themselves. Why do we need to give them Medicare and Social Security?
Couldn't they just be responsible?



The disabled? My father's elder brother was crippled by polio in his
senior year in high school. He established a business/shop and when he
died at the age of 75 had, according to my mother, "an astonishing
amount of savings".

I'm sure most people that are disabled should also be amassing big
savings accounts. No reason for them to be deadbeat vermin. Disability
is no excuse. They're just being lazy good for nothings.


You left-wing-wienies are living proof that George Orwell wasn't some
sort of a kook writing wildly improbably fiction.


You folks are living proof that conservatives are heartless and only
care about themselves. When you were a kid no one taught you what it
meant to share. Now all you think about is number one. Just like the
stereotype says.


Hawke

On 9/21/2012 10:58 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:

It isn't. You know it isn't. It's the purchase of goods and services.
Income redistribution is simply the taking of money from people
who do
something productive and giving it to unproductive deadbeat vermin.


The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled. Now what kind of a scumbag thinks those poor
unfortunate folks are vermin except a real piece of human trash?

You mean that the Military is simply a sump hole that the G'ment dumps
money down? That they provide no service to the public?

I mean he's calling them vermin.

The people who are permanently wards of the state, put there by
Democrats, are vermin.


As for the senior citizens? Don't you feel that these old folks could
have given a little forethought to what is a normal problem - getting
older?

Sure, just like the poor could have done better in life and not been
poor.

No, not necessarily not been poor - just not become burdens on producers.



The disabled? My father's elder brother was crippled by polio in his
senior year in high school. He established a business/shop and when he
died at the age of 75 had, according to my mother, "an astonishing
amount of savings".

I'm sure most people that are disabled should also be amassing big
savings accounts.

They or their families should be taking care of their own affairs.


You left-wing-wienies are living proof that George Orwell wasn't some
sort of a kook writing wildly improbably fiction.


You folks are

The ones paying the way for deadbeat vermin, when we shouldn't have to
do it.

On 9/20/2012 9:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled.

No, they aren't. They're debris - worthless debris who do not do and
never have done one worthwhile thing in their lives.

You're an ignorant mean spirited person. That's why I can't wait until
your luck runs out and something happens to you. Maybe you'll have a
stroke and become a vermin too. Time will tell.


See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.

We really got our money worth out of those B-2s, haven't we? They're
useless and we wasted billions on them. Better Sha'niqua got the money.
At least she would have got some use out of it.


You only hate redistribution when it's from the rich down. When the
money is redistributed from the poor and the middle class to the rich

Does not happen.

It did happen. Great wealth has already been redistributed from the
middle class to the wealthy and it is still in progress right now. If
you knew the statistics you would know that yourself.

Hawke

On 9/21/2012 11:15 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 9:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

The people you call vermin are members of the military, senior citizens,
children, and the disabled.

No, they aren't. They're debris - worthless debris who do not do and
never have done one worthwhile thing in their lives.

You're an ignorant mean spirited person.

I'm not.



See if this helps:

$1 billion spent on B-2 bomber - productive expenditure that helps
keep Americans secure

$800 Section 8 voucher for Sha'niqu'a - wealth-destroying immoral
income redistribution to deadbeat vermin


That's how it is. Seriously.

We really got our money worth out of those B-2s, haven't we?

Indeed we have. They are an integral part of strategic deterrence, not
to mention an effective conventional bomber.


They're useless and

They are not useless.

The B-2's combat debut was in 1999, during the Kosovo War. It was
responsible for destroying 33% of selected Serbian bombing
targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the
War.[6] During this war, B-2s flew non-stop to Kosovo from their
home base in Missouri and back.[6] The B-2 was the first aircraft
to deploy GPS satellite-guided JDAM "smart bombs" in combat use
in Kosovo.[93] The use of JDAMs and precision-guided munitions
effectively replaced the controversial tactic of carpet-bombing,
which had been harshly criticised due to it causing
indiscriminate civilian casualties in prior conflicts, such as
the 1991 Gulf War.[94] On 7 May 1999, a B-2 accidentally deployed
five JDAMs in a target building that was actually the Chinese
Embassy, killing several staff.[95]

The B-2 saw service in Afghanistan, striking ground targets in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom. With aerial refueling
support, the B-2 flew one of its longest missions to date from
Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri to Afghanistan and back.[6]

During the Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom), B-2s operated from
Diego Garcia and an undisclosed "forward operating location".
Other sorties in Iraq have launched from Whiteman AFB.[6] This
resulted in missions lasting over 30 hours and one mission of
over 50 hours. "Forward operating locations" have been previously
designated as Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and RAF Fairford in
the UK, where new climate controlled hangars have been
constructed. B-2s have conducted 27 sorties from Whiteman AFB and
22 sorties from a forward operating location, releasing more than
1.5 million pounds of munitions,[6] including 583 JDAM "smart
bombs" in 2003.[71]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northro...tional_history


Of course, you're a 100% hate-America left-winger, and you think we
shouldn't have any military at all.


You only hate redistribution when it's from the rich down. When the
money is redistributed from the poor and the middle class to the rich

Does not happen.

It did happen.

Didn't happen.

On 9/20/2012 6:45 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:26:49 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 9/20/2012 5:09 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:29 pm, Hawke wrote:


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.


Dan



You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke


You are playing with the meaning of words and (probably) listening to
left-wing deviants.

Every dictionary of English defines "regressive", but now in a frantic
effort to justify an unfair tax system you want to change the meaning
of the word.

Rather like the group deciding that "Hawke" is a synonym for
"ignoramus" and insisting that is the true meaning of the word.


So what you are saying is that you have not done any research on
proportional taxes, right? The minute you do you will find what I did,
tax experts that say proportional taxes are regressive. You are calling
me wrong and you have not done any homework, have you? People who know
far more than you about taxes have said proportional taxes are
inherently regressive. Look it up if you don't believe me. Then tell me
why those people are wrong and you know better than them. You are not a
tax expert, right? But you will correct people who are? Mighty
conservative of you to do that.

Hawke

On 9/20/2012 10:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/20/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:

It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive.

No "experts" said that; none - zero. You're a ****ing liar.



Every time I tell you something that you are ignorant about you say it's
a lie. How about educating yourself before saying things are lies just
because you know nothing about them?

I defy you to look up proportional taxes and not find information that
says they are a regressive tax. If you say you can't you are a liar.


Hawke

On 9/20/2012 10:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/20/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:


You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

No, you haven't. No "expert" has ever said that a proportional tax on
income is regressive.



Still haven't done your homework, have you? You're a dunce. Look up
proportional tax, and confirm it.

Hawke

On 9/20/2012 11:05 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
You look up proportional tax on the internet.

You look it up, ****. You haven't.

I have and I gave a citation in another post. If you looked you could
find the same thing but you don't want to look because it will expose
your ignorance.


Learn the argument thatthose experts who say it is regressive have used.

*NO ONE* has said that a proportional tax on income is "regressive" -
*NO ONE*. You're lying.


You don't know of anyone that says proportional taxes are regressive.
Big difference. Two minutes of looking up proportional tax and
regressive and you will find information saying they are regressive. You
obviously haven't looked. You accuse me of lying when you have no clue
if you can find what I said is true or not. That makes you a lying asshole.

Hawke

On 9/21/2012 4:45 AM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:26 pm, Hawke wrote:

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.

Dan

You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke

I said it has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is
regressive or not. I was commenting on the obvious flaw in your
statement. If it is a one rate system, then the rate can not change
when one earns a lot more money.

One more time, I am commenting on your statement, not on what a
regressive tax is.

Well maybe once more. You seem to have a problem comprehending what
people say. If it is a one rate tax system, there is only one rate ,
by definition. There is no change in the rate depending on how much
is earned.



Does your name have three letters in it? Okay, do we need to discuss it?
We don't. The issue is whether proportional taxes are regressive or not.
Does a system that charges everyone 10% have only one rate? Yeah? No one
is arguing that. The rate is constant but the effect is regressive. That
was my point. Maybe I was like Mitt and was inelegant in how I put it,
but I would think everyone would know that a flat rate tax has only one
rate. But when you look into the proportional tax it is more complicated
and it works like a regressive tax and that is one where those with more
pay a lower rate. The effect of a proportional tax is for the wealthy to
pay a lower rate than the poor even though the official rate is the
same. But as usual you miss the big picture and wind up focused on some
trivial point that no one but you cares about.

Hawke

On 9/21/2012 11:56 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 6:45 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:26:49 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 9/20/2012 5:09 AM, wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:29 pm, Hawke wrote:


I was- not arguing for a flat tax. I believe that a progressive
rate
is the right thing. But was just pointing out that Hawke can not
express himself in a clear manner. He claims he can, but then posts
really silly things as he did. How he ever came up with the rich
paying a lower rate, when there is only one rate is truly a mystery.

Dan

All you have to do is read up on how flat tax or proportional systems
are regressive. When you can understand how a proportional tax is
regressive and you know what a regressive tax is then you will
understand how the richer people pay a lower rate than the poor in a
proportional tax system. I'm not going to explain it to you. I don't
think you would get it.

Hawke

You idiot. You said in a one rate system, the rich pay at a lower
rate. This is obviously not true. If there is only one rate, it is
impossible for anyone to pay at another rate.

It has nothing to do with whether a one rate system is regressive or
not.

You certainly can not explain it to anyone, as you are just flat
wrong. You do not get it. it has to do with being able to write
clearly.


Dan



You look up proportional tax on the internet. Learn the argument that
those experts who say it is regressive have used. Come back and tell us
all why they are wrong. It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive. So see what the experts say and then tell me why they are
wrong, because it is the arguments they made that I use when I say a
flat tax is regressive. I say that because I have read economic experts
say that is the truth. If it's not regressive then you prove it. I have
taken the word of experts who say it is.

Hawke


You are playing with the meaning of words and (probably) listening to
left-wing deviants.

Every dictionary of English defines "regressive", but now in a frantic
effort to justify an unfair tax system you want to change the meaning
of the word.

Rather like the group deciding that "Hawke" is a synonym for
"ignoramus" and insisting that is the true meaning of the word.


So what you are saying is that you have not done any research on
proportional taxes, right? The minute you do you will find what I did,
tax experts that say proportional taxes are regressive.

No, you will not find *ANY* "tax experts" saying that, you cocksucking
liar. You found a *single* bull**** left-wing journalist, Dan Froomkin,
a ****ing liar at Huffington Post, who said it, and he's completely full
of ****. He is wrong.

Stop this "tax experts" bull****, you ****ing liar.

On 9/21/2012 11:59 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/20/2012 10:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/20/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:

It is after all the view of experts that say
flat taxes are regressive that I relied on when I said they are
regressive.

No "experts" said that; none - zero. You're a ****ing liar.



Every time I tell you something that you are ignorant about you say it's
a lie. How about educating yourself before saying things are lies just
because you know nothing about them?

I defy you to look up proportional taxes and not find information that
says they are a regressive tax.

I did. Every definition says you're full of ****. Your one source, a
****ing left-wing liar at Huffington Post who is not a tax expert, says
they are, and he is wrong.