A "FAIR TAX" thread so U_D can "tear me to shreds..."

[Ishmael]

Forget the thread: make your case.

1. Oswald had NO training in moving targets. It is not part of any std. military training regimen and there is no evidence that Oswald was trained beyond std. Marine marksmenship training. As good as that is, it still does not cover moving targets.

The motorcade was traveling at about 20mph which means that the vehicle was covering 29.3 ft./sec. Oswald used a 6.5 Carcano with std. loading which gave it a muzzle velocity of 2000 ft./sec. From time of discharge to time of impact over the approx. 200 yd distance the vehicle traveled 8.8 ft. (Actually it would have covered even more distance in that the Carcano round nosed bullet loses velocity rapidly.) This means that his hold point would have had to been just over the windshield top line given the slant angle of the shot. Shooters, no matter how good they are on the range, have a tendency to shot high when shooting at their first 'live' targets. Adrenaline kicks in and they jerk the trigger and other bad habits. Wizened combat leaders instruct their unblooded troops to aim low for this very reason. I contend that Oswald had fallen prey to all the bad habits associatied with green combat troops, only in this case his bad habits actually contributed to his success. This also explains why the expert shooters the Warren commision brought in were unable to duplicate his feat, they actually knew what they were doing and understood the difficulty.

Ishmael

 

[Byron In Exile]

I know. I have not been myself lately. Giving you crap about the Rover, telling Byron he does not respect my spelling, and posting about not shooting in killy's hair in that other thread.

I need a vacation.

Don't beat yourself up too much.

It's hasn't been a particularly good week.

 

[firespin]

Especially when it circumvents the taxes the government is trying to collect.

Yes, we got that part.

The gray market problem is one that people don't know how to accurately characterize for the fair tax. People will pay contractors in cash now to get a discount, even though that's probably indicating the contractors are trying to avoid taxes.

Why won't they won't be able to find people who will sell them expensive products, rent apartments, or provide services at a discount for cash, in the name of avoiding the 23% sales tax?

Why won't everybody get wholesaler license to be able to buy products tax free for "later sale"?

 

[Saint Peter]

I would never buy an asshook made in Colorado.

I might take a trip up Pike's Peak, though.

I have some advice for you. Do NOT eat the bbq beef plate at Mo's Dinner on the way up highway 24. Yes, it is close to Pikes Peak, but it is not a good choice for lunch.

yw

 

[Byron In Exile]

1. Oswald had NO training in moving targets. It is not part of any std. military training regimen and there is no evidence that Oswald was trained beyond std. Marine marksmenship training. As good as that is, it still does not cover moving targets.

The motorcade was traveling at about 20mph which means that the vehicle was covering 29.3 ft./sec. Oswald used a 6.5 Carcano with std. loading which gave it a muzzle velocity of 2000 ft./sec. From time of discharge to time of impact over the approx. 200 yd distance the vehicle traveled 8.8 ft. (Actually it would have covered even more distance in that the Carcano round nosed bullet loses velocity rapidly.) This means that his hold point would have had to been just over the windshield top line given the slant angle of the shot. Shooters, no matter how good they are on the range, have a tendency to shot high when shooting at their first 'live' targets. Adrenaline kicks in and they jerk the trigger and other bad habits. Wizened combat leaders instruct their unblooded troops to aim low for this very reason. I contend that Oswald had fallen prey to all the bad habits associatied with green combat troops, only in this case his bad habits actually contributed to his success. This also explains why the expert shooters the Warren commision brought in were unable to duplicate his feat, they actually knew what they were doing and understood the difficulty.

So, you're saying that Oswald was just really, really, really, really, really, really lucky?

 

[Saint Peter]

So, you're saying that Oswald was just really, really, really, really, really, really lucky?

Texan shoot elk in Colorado every year. Formal training?

Put it in the sites and pull the plug. It may be a lucky shot. Every dog gets his day.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Texan shoot elk in Colorado every year. Formal training?

Put it in the sites and pull the plug. It may be a lucky shot. Every dog gets his day.

Toss a coin and have it come up heads fifteen times in a row.

Then get back to me.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Occam's razor.

 

[Saint Peter]

Toss a coin and have it come up heads fifteen times in a row.

Then get back to me.

No. It is putting something in the sites and pulling the trigger. Some shots are tougher than others. The shot from the book depository might not have been easy, but definitely not impossible.

 

[firespin]

Occam's razor.

So you think Occam did it, with a razor, on the grassy knoll?

Get a clue.

 

[cebalrai]

Mike Huckabee makes an interesting flat tax argument.

How come he's not running for pres?

 

[Byron In Exile]

*chuckle*

That must have been one of the glass prototypes...

Now they're made of an environmentally safe nerf-foam and come with helmet, goggles, knee and elbow pads, mouthpiece, legal waiver...,

You forgot mandated health insurance.

 

[Byron In Exile]

So you think Occam did it, with a razor, on the grassy knoll?

Get a clue.

Blow it out your ass, dipshit.

 

[Byron In Exile]

No. It is putting something in the sites and pulling the trigger. Some shots are tougher than others. The shot from the book depository might not have been easy, but definitely not impossible.

And cycling the bolt. Three shots in 5.6 seconds.

You're right, it's not impossible.

But it's about as close to impossible as it's possible to get without actually being impossible.

If expert marksmen aren't capable of duplicating the feat, what does that say about the likelyhood of Oswald accomplishing it at all, let alone under those circumstances?

And why does Kennedy's head fly backwards if it was struck from behind?

 

[Ishmael]

And cycling the bolt. Three shots in 5.6 seconds.

You're right, it's not impossible.

But it's about as close to impossible as it's possible to get without actually being impossible.

If expert marksmen aren't capable of duplicating the feat, what does that say about the likelyhood of Oswald accomplishing it at all, let alone under those circumstances?

And why does Kennedy's head fly backwards if it was struck from behind?

You bring up many items here Byron.

First of all the Carcano is basically a Manlicher action. That action along with the Krag-Jorgenson are acknowledge as among the smoothest in the world. That comes at a price and that price is that they are weak actions, hence the low muzzle velocity. (Max pressure is 45,000 cup, most modern rifles are good up to 60,000 cup max. pressure)

Oswald held good windage and that's to be expected from the rest postion he was using. The issue is elevation and/or target lead that would be required for a moving target at that aspect ratio. Oswald shot high, probably due to adrenaline/excitement, etc. Totatly consistent with an inexperienced shooter. Had the presidential limo been moving towards Oswald the motorcycle cops following the limo would have been in extreme danger.

The autopsy record, now in the public domain, indicates that both wounds were rear entry, front exit. Both consistent with a rear shooter shooting from an elevated position.

The backwards snap of his head has multiple possible explanations and could possibly be a combination of all three;

1. Involuntary muscle response to the massive trauma inflicted by the shot that hit his head.

2. Involuntary response to the first shot that struck his back, exiting his throat virtually destroying his trachea. He would throw his head back in an attempt to get some air in his lungs.

3. The sudden acceleration of the limo after realization of the shooting caused the driver to react. (I think the Zapruder film clearly shows the acceleration so this one we have some evidence of.)

I'm not going to address the possible existance of a shooter on the "grassy knoll" because the evidence of the autopsy indicates that even if there were a shooter there, he had no impact on the outcome.

The JFK shooting is problematic because we have no rational reason for Oswalds actions, further complicated by Rubys' actions. It has all the elements that make for good conspiracy theory. And I don't discount that there might indeed be a conspiracy there. I'm merely saying that Oswald was the shooter behind both shots that hit the president and that a great deal of his success was based on a combination of factors that contributed to his success, very little of which had anything to do with expert marksmanship.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That will give you time to work out a response to my previous note, where I explained (in essence) that you can have either:

- keep all your current gross, but everything costs 30% more, or

- keep all your current net, and everything costs the same.

You just don't get "more money in your pocket" with current prices.

I'm not going to address the issue because you don't understand Ishmael's response to you.

This post borders on...

A willing suspension of comprehension.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

OK for whom?

For me, I'm not a big fan of minimum wage. We upped it by a lot recently, and a lot of people are out of work now. Who could have predicted that?

I predicted it, Ishmael predicted it, but now we're too stupid not to understand the comparison between apples and oranges drug up and offered as herring...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Exactly. After much hemmin' and hawwin', Neil Boortz even admitted so.

Show me the link.




Show me where business is going to slash wages...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

People are getting seriously fed up with this shit.

They're tired of taxes, of regulations, no water for crops because of some stupid minnow, of Obama spending money as if the world is just a big Monopoly game and money is just paper...

Everyone I know has the same attitude.

Things are going to change in November.

They suddenly appear fearful of "change."

I blame Obama...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Yes, we got that part.

The gray market problem is one that people don't know how to accurately characterize for the fair tax. People will pay contractors in cash now to get a discount, even though that's probably indicating the contractors are trying to avoid taxes.

Why won't they won't be able to find people who will sell them expensive products, rent apartments, or provide services at a discount for cash, in the name of avoiding the 23% sales tax?

Why won't everybody get wholesaler license to be able to buy products tax free for "later sale"?

A few will ALWAYS try to beat the system, no matter the system...

MOST people play by the law when it is objective and thusly blind and fair. Where you get the most cheating, the most bribery, and the most protection money (campaign contributions) is when the tax code is subjective as in the progressive income tax.

That's why so many people will bend the system to the point of breaking; because they simply consider it unfair.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You bring up many items here Byron.

First of all the Carcano is basically a Manlicher action. That action along with the Krag-Jorgenson are acknowledge as among the smoothest in the world. That comes at a price and that price is that they are weak actions, hence the low muzzle velocity. (Max pressure is 45,000 cup, most modern rifles are good up to 60,000 cup max. pressure)

Oswald held good windage and that's to be expected from the rest postion he was using. The issue is elevation and/or target lead that would be required for a moving target at that aspect ratio. Oswald shot high, probably due to adrenaline/excitement, etc. Totatly consistent with an inexperienced shooter. Had the presidential limo been moving towards Oswald the motorcycle cops following the limo would have been in extreme danger.

The autopsy record, now in the public domain, indicates that both wounds were rear entry, front exit. Both consistent with a rear shooter shooting from an elevated position.

The backwards snap of his head has multiple possible explanations and could possibly be a combination of all three;

1. Involuntary muscle response to the massive trauma inflicted by the shot that hit his head.

2. Involuntary response to the first shot that struck his back, exiting his throat virtually destroying his trachea. He would throw his head back in an attempt to get some air in his lungs.

3. The sudden acceleration of the limo after realization of the shooting caused the driver to react. (I think the Zapruder film clearly shows the acceleration so this one we have some evidence of.)

I'm not going to address the possible existance of a shooter on the "grassy knoll" because the evidence of the autopsy indicates that even if there were a shooter there, he had no impact on the outcome.

The JFK shooting is problematic because we have no rational reason for Oswalds actions, further complicated by Rubys' actions. It has all the elements that make for good conspiracy theory. And I don't discount that there might indeed be a conspiracy there. I'm merely saying that Oswald was the shooter behind both shots that hit the president and that a great deal of his success was based on a combination of factors that contributed to his success, very little of which had anything to do with expert marksmanship.

Ishmael

The Bugliosi Book covers this all in a most excellent and exhaustive manner...

 

[firespin]

I'm not going to address the issue because you don't understand Ishmael's response to you.

This post borders on...

A willing suspension of comprehension.

How convenient for you! You never respond to the substantive math / economic issues raised in posts, but instead deflect for a variety of excuses, and fall back on macroeconomic hooey..."a rising tide will lift all boats" but you need a rising tide first.

What would you say if you thought I did understand his response?

Do you really think that people will keep all their current gross, and be able to buy things for current prices, even with the tax included?

It's OK if you do, I know you believe things that are even more farfetched, but you should be able to see that you're the only one that thinks that...not even your talk show buddies or Lit wingman do.

 

[firespin]

A few will ALWAYS try to beat the system, no matter the system...

MOST people play by the law when it is objective and thusly blind and fair. Where you get the most cheating, the most bribery, and the most protection money (campaign contributions) is when the tax code is subjective as in the progressive income tax.

That's why so many people will bend the system to the point of breaking; because they simply consider it unfair.

So that's why everybody drives the speed limit? Why shoplifting and employee theft are almost unheard of?

c'mon. People cheat and steal to improve their situation, and they do it when they think they won't get caught. I don't think they really care very much about accelerated depletion allowances or the rules regarding early IRA withdrawls when they decide to buy or sell gray market cigarettes.

As you note, people will always try to beat the system. That's why I don't put much stock in lack of cheating as an advantage for the fair tax.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How convenient for you! You never respond to the substantive math / economic issues raised in posts, but instead deflect for a variety of excuses, and fall back on macroeconomic hooey..."a rising tide will lift all boats" but you need a rising tide first.

What would you say if you thought I did understand his response?

Do you really think that people will keep all their current gross, and be able to buy things for current prices, even with the tax included?

It's OK if you do, I know you believe things that are even more farfetched, but you should be able to see that you're the only one that thinks that...not even your talk show buddies or Lit wingman do.

If I'm so lacking in comprehension, if I'm so unable to understand, then does that characterization hold for all the flat taxers that commissioned this study to prove their point, and then saw the evidence and switched to this plan?

....

I've read some critical articles claiming the sales tax will really be 30% or more, not 23%. Who's telling the truth?

In a sense, both sides are. But critics of the FairTax have a way of dwelling on this figure, so we're going to spend some time on the answer to this question. Let's see if we can make it interesting as well.

What's at issue here is the mathematical equivalent of a game of semantics. At the crux of the matter is the distinction between inclusive and exclusive taxes we just mentioned.

Right now almost all Federal taxes are figured on an inclusive basis. The prime example would be your federal income tax. To calculate the amount of Federal income tax you owe, you multiply your taxable income by your effective tax rate, subtract the amount and send it to the government. A married couple reporting $112,000 in taxable income, for example, would fall into the 25% tax bracket. Because 25% of $112,000 is $28,000, that's how much the couple will owe in income tax.

But there's another way to figure your tax rate - the tax exclusive way. Here's how it works: after paying their $28,000 this couple would have $84,000 in the bank account. Here's how the critics get their 30% number, they look at the $28,000 as a percentage of the $84,000, not the original $112,000. An exclusive tax rate will always be higher than its corresponding inclusive rate. Our highest income tax bracket is 35%. Expressed as an exclusive rate, this would be closer to 54%. In both cases the revenue collected is exactly the same. The only thing that changes is the rhetoric.

Now, let's apply these definitions to sales taxes. Let's say that after the FairTax is passed, you set your sights on a $100 toaster. When you pick up that little beauty at the store, the retailer sends $23 to the Federal government as sales tax and keeps $77. The government gets 23% of your purchase price. The sales tax was included - it was an "inclusive" sales tax. If, on the other hand, you walked into the retailer and bought that same toaster for $77 and he added $23 dollars in sales tax [not 23% A_J] for a total of $100 the sales tax rate would be 29.9% That's the 30% the critics are quoting....

Boortz

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So that's why everybody drives the speed limit? Why shoplifting and employee theft are almost unheard of?

c'mon. People cheat and steal to improve their situation, and they do it when they think they won't get caught. I don't think they really care very much about accelerated depletion allowances or the rules regarding early IRA withdrawls when they decide to buy or sell gray market cigarettes.

As you note, people will always try to beat the system. That's why I don't put much stock in lack of cheating as an advantage for the fair tax.

It's a "minor" advantage, one of many.

You've not yet addressed the improvement to the planning cycle for business. Will this not raise productivity?