My mid-me bump...

It's Halloween. National Holiday of TransWhatever folk everywhere!

So I thought, despite having nowhere to go, that I'd get dressed up a bit for it. So I tried on an evening gown. And then a pretty dress. And then a pretty skirt and top. And then an ordinary skirt and top. And then I went back to my normal day-to-day attire.

Every time I looked in the mirror, that mid-me bump made its presence known.

Oh well. I figured I'd been eating too much fast-food, take-out food, pizzas, and so on. The evidence was visible for miles. Oh well. :-(

Next year. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Apple OS X Max...

There are reports that Apple is testing OS X 10.8. As you know, Apple names their Mac operating systems after big cats. The latest, 10.7, is called Lion. ... So, after the King of the Beasts, what do you name the next version? It's a toughie. They've used Tiger - that was 10.4. Panther was used (10.2); 10.3 was Jaguar. 10.5 and 10.6 were leopards. They've basically run out of big cats.

This is, obviously, far too important an issue to be left undecided and unresolved. The criteria for the name is pretty obvious: a fierce feline. They've gone big. So, in keeping with that advert for the SmartCar, we should try Small. As in "5 and a bit pounds" small. But with attitude. A lot of attitude. Even going so far as belligerent, perhaps? A cat that can reduce 18 pounds of Big Orange to a nervous wreck. Merely by walking past him.

So, without further ado, may I present to you the cat Apple will should be using for their next release of OS X... Maxine! :-)

 

This is Max in her natural habitat. She's a doll. With teeth and attitude. She doesn't let her disability stop her. Nor her lack of tail. She never knows where her next meal is coming from; it could be Copper's bowl or Oliver's. Or Big Orange's. Or her own. And she's fierce. As you can see from the picture. 

She's the perfect cat for the job!

:-D

Carolyn Ann

Another bites the dust?

It looks like Herman Cain's campaign has run its course. He's not going to survive this particular scandal. It might not bring him down in one go, but it will eat at his campaign efforts from hereon out. And it makes him unelectable as a candidate. He's on the defensive, which is the last place a Presidential candidate wants to be.

The more interesting question is "Who's next?" Newt has his own sex scandal (he was dating his current wife, #3, while his second wife was being treated for cancer - how's that for a campaign slogan?) Michele Bachmann has her own issues and is so far down she's vying with Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum for irrelevancy. Ron Paul is steadfast but unelectable; he's also old - and shabby. He just doesn't look presidential. Rickety Rick is fading fast; his debate performances have helped him achieve a downward trend and people are starting to not like what they see in the man.

If I had to guess - I don't, but am going to anyway :-) - I'd say Mittens is still the unloved favorite.

The really interesting question is: if he does get the nomination, will the Republican/Tea Party money follow him? There's a lot of people who think Mormons are in league with the devil! And there's a lot of people for whom "reality" just isn't part of their agenda. And then there are the evangelical pastors and radio talk show hosts... (Will it become a war of words between Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson? :-) ) For sure, some of the money will find Mitt. But all of it? It's going to be interesting to find out.

Carolyn Ann

Felipe - grow up.

Felipe Massa, Ferrari driver and Lewis Hamilton protagonist, is upset he got a drive-through penalty for forcing Mr Hamilton to crash into him.

Aww. The poor diddums.

Let me see... He's been after Lewis Hamilton since at least Monaco; in Korea, he set out to "ruin Lewis's race". And he's basically upset his stage-management failed in his latest effort? I'd say it's about time Felipe Massa grew up. And started racing for a living.

Carolyn Ann

Some folk do like to judge your life, don't they?

Dr Jillian Weiss, in a post that basically denigrates the experiences of one Danielle Brown, puts on a display of meanness I found surprising. And a little disturbing.

The nutshell is Ms Brown's father transitioned to womanhood. Ms Brown wrote a little about her experiences as the daughter of her father. There's some anger in there, a lot of grief and a more than fair amount of honest appraisal. Dr Weiss objected to the anger and that, I think, colored her whole approach.

Basically Dr Weiss adopts the pose of the victim. The transsexual woman, being put upon. She lashes out at Helen Boyd. Not a good idea. (Someone in the comments said she was going to burn Helen's book. Nice. Bring on Mel Brooks?) Helen touches on something important when she implores the transsexual person to not promise they'll be the same person afterwards. (They clearly won't be. Otherwise, why go through the whole process?) All Dr Weiss did in that little part was prove her lack of empathy, no matter how that's derived.

All in all, it was a mean-spirited and unwarranted attack upon a young lass who didn't deserve it. She's describing an aspect of her life; it's not for Dr Weiss to dispute her life. After all - how would Dr Weiss like it if someone came along and negated some part of her life, said it was invalid, or needed the benefit of wisdom drawn from some arbitrary quarter?

Here's my comment to Dr Wiess over on her original Bilerico blog post:

Dr Weiss, I tried to find a way to be nice about this, but I can't. So I'll be as blunt as you were in your response to Ms Brown. Your response was one of the most mean-spirited efforts you could have made. You made absolutely no effort to understand what she was saying and you basically lectured her from your position of being older than she!  

Ms Brown is lamenting a loss in *her* life. Not yours. You dispute she has a loss - fine. Point out why she hasn't lost the man who raised her; don't nitpick her grief! You disdain her age: "filtering her experiences through the difficult "who am I?" twenties". What? She should wait until she's forty?  

Life has a habit of happening to us no matter our age. Ms Brown's eloquent article testifies to her experience and you offer, what, exactly? A mean-spirited riposte. 

You pick fault with Helen Boyd over something that she knows a lot more about than you and then you go on to basically say that Ms Brown's experience is invalid because she's still figuring out life. Perhaps she knows who she is? Did you ask her? Or did you merely enforce your own experience upon her depiction? 

You do not have to like what Ms Brown has to say, but I'm not so sure you should be so ready to dismiss her as readily as you did, and I certainly don't think you should be dismissing Helen's exhortation with the casualness you display. Not because of who Helen is, but because of her experience and her sensibility. 

Ms Brown was not negating your experience as a person; she was describing a little of her experience as the daughter of a transsexual woman. You profess respect for her? Well - show it.

Carolyn Ann

Mike Holmes

It strikes me that watching Mike Holmes do his thing is a bit like watching those TED lectures. You get to see a master explain the obvious. Or at least explain something so inordinately complex you had no chance of understanding it in a way that makes it not just understandable - but totally obvious.

The guys and gals who work for and with the man? They get the equivalent of a Masters in home construction. (Damon Bennet, one of his lead contractors, must be a PhD candidate.)

Carolyn Ann

All hallows eve already?

Brrr. It's a tad nippy out there! Where's that smiley all wrapped in a nice warm parka?

A lot of folk lost power, and the newspaper said 3 people were killed by yesterday's storm. I was just glad our power didn't go out. Our main heater failed and I can't figure out what's wrong with it, so we had a slightly chilly night. I'll have to call the store tomorrow; that will give us another unwelcome expense, no doubt.

We watched "Foreign Correspondent", an Albert Hitchcock propaganda piece from WW2. Quite good, and it contained the immortal sentiment that all is fair game in war. Quite. It was the enemy (the German's) who muttered about starting a war. The chief Bad Guy got off by drowning himself in The Atlantic. The ocean, not the magazine. We had tried watching "Sting of the Black Scorpion", a Chinese movie that was an obvious knock-off of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". It was also laced with really cheesy references to the virtue of the state; I find it quite tedious, and as the plot moved along like frozen honey, we switched to the aforementioned Hitchcock.

Ah well. This weekend is the annual Transgender National Holiday, otherwise known as All Hallow's Eve. In England, this evening will be Mischief Night; a "celebration" we could all do without. Unfortunately I don't have anywhere to go, and I don't have a costume. I might slip into something more comfortable, however... A woolly sweater and some thick socks! Brrr. :-)

I need more coffee.

Carolyn Ann

Has Macworld lost its mojo?

Here's a question that is on everyone's lips: has Macworld lost its mojo? :-)

You're not asking it? Or even wondering about it? Wot's Macworld? Ah. Yes.

Macworld was the premier internet site and one of the leading magazines for the Mac in the US. If you wanted to know about Mac's, get decent reviews of apps and so on - you often started at Macworld. I don't know about now... I, for instance, don't. And I suspect I'm not the only one.

Not that long ago Macworld ran a survey; they wanted to know about the site. Since then it has become iWhatever related and the design has been tweaked, but it's still old school. And by that I mean "really good if we're talking 1999" old school.

It also seems they're not quite as fast with the news as they once were, either. If I want to read Mac-related news, I go to TUAW or 9 to 5 Mac. I might go to MacLife (warning: they always have an ad you have to go through), but I can't stand their website design - it's quite reader-hostile.

The Macworld magazine is an expensive subscription - it's about $20 and while that's cheaper than the newsstand price, it's still too much. If I'm in B&N, I can go through the thing in much less than a cup of coffee. A couple of final issues: I don't rely on their software reviews any more and I have a lot of their email (they send a lot!) go straight to "junk".

All in all, I'd say Macworld has lost its focus. And the worst thing? They seem to be blissfully unaware.

Carolyn Ann

Edit: Changed a sentence so it actually made sense... :-)

Oh well. That didn't quite work.

Hmm. My argument doesn't quite work. There's no correlation, obvious or otherwise, between those who require a dumb prop like "Derailing for Dummies" and the more specific prejudice of some transsexual women. Well, beyond of a certain need for unthinking foolishness, that is.

Oh well. It's raining. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Dullard's prove their Wit...

Out on the internet, somewhere, there's a ridiculous buffoon of a text, "Derailing For Dummies". It contains explicit instructions on how to tell if your conversation is being derailed. It doesn't, or at [least] the version I read doesn't, tell you what "derailing" actually is. Pity.

Because it would help the creators of that idiotic text realize that they were derailing their own conversation about conversation and debate. It wouldn't help them realize that they were teaching people how to be simple-minded, but that's because anyone who could create such a moment of sheer inanity has to be rather simply minded anyway. Have you ever seen a political debate that stays on topic? (Game... Set and Match! ;-) )

Debating is a bit of an art form; the rules, if there are any, can be considered meaningless guides. At best. At worst, they become imposed restrictions. Let's say I'm debating free expression. You assert that you have the right to not be offended. I offer a response: twaddle! You have two choices. You can respond, or you can walk away. If "Derailing for Dummies" is your debating manual, you're going to get huffy and then walk away. Oh dear. Did I just derail your conversational gambit? Sorry about that. That's what derailing for morons is all about - it's a guide on how to be outraged and actually avoid debating a topic.

One of the many flaws I've come across in arguments with, ahem, certain individuals is their complete rejection of the idea that controversial writing can invite a controversial response. Let's say someone calls your doctor to verify that the surgery you've had is actually such-and-such an operation. And you write about your communication. And get called on it. Do you have the right to be angry with the person calling you out? Sure, you have the legal and political right - but you do not have the moral right. Timid thinkers often confuse the two discrete rights.

Now let's suppose that you're arguing that some group should be discriminated against because of some characteristic you don't like. You profess abhorrence of intolerance, except against this particular group. Unfortunately a few individuals in the disliked group object to your writings and say so - in writing. A veritable slangfest ensues and nothing is actually resolved. Mostly because if you're willing to discriminate against one group, you've already stepped away from anything like human compassion and any willingness to consider your fellow human anything but an orangoutang. (Not to insult orange apes, of course.) If you argue that you treat everyone equally, but not "that group", but you consider them (just about?) human, all you're doing is fine-tuning your discriminatory prejudices: you're denying you're a hooker as you negotiate an extra 50c on your sexual services fee.

It's here that many of the discriminatory transsexual lasses (not to mention Radical Feminists) need to resort that Dullard's Wit. You see, you can actually look up the crime (?). It's often the one everyone else calls "ad hominem" and the Lacklustered Imbecile needs to look up. In short, if you need to insult someone to prove your superiority to them - you're not actually debating your point. All you're proving is that you're a prejudiced SOB. If you're a transsexual lass applauding the gender-police lieutenant, you're not proving you're an open-minded individual, willing to accept people as they are. You are, instead, letting the world know you can't think for yourself and that anyone who spouts discriminatory nonsense can do your thinking for you.

If you read one of these Tedious Tantrums, you might want to think for a moment. "Would I agree with this is if, instead of being against "trannies" or "the crossdressers", it was against blacks, Chinese, Asians, homosexuals, insert-name-of-a-group-or-class-here?"

Well, would you?

Carolyn Ann

What about who?

I was looking at Carl Sandburg's "The People, Yes" and I thought the GOP's mantra should be "The people. Yes... What about them?"

Carolyn Ann

Green politics versus common sense

While I am normally a big fan of green energy (I was planning to put in a geothermal system and use solar power as much as possible; indeed, when things get a little financially brighter I will resume my plans), I am also a fan of thinking things through. (Okay, not so much a fan of that... :-) ) So when I read about Germany's plan to do away with nuclear power I immediately wondered how Russia would benefit. It wasn't difficult to figure out, either: gas.

Germany gets a lot of its gas from Russia. If memory serves, it gets almost all of its gas from Gazprom, the state-owned Russian gas company. And, again if memory serves, the gas is supplied under long-term contracts... You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see where this is heading.

So I wasn't surprised to read, in The Economist, that gas prices have fallen - but that the long term contract prices haven't. And guess who's leading the way in efforts to keep gas prices high? Yup, you got it: Gazprom. To the point where they're making noises about buying European energy companies.

When Angela Merkel announced, after the Japanese earthquake and tsunami earlier this year, that Germany would shut down all its nuclear facilities I thought it was a stupid thing to do. Many green energy fans do have a particular fetish about nuclear energy, but it's usually not thought through - if you remove nuclear power, solar and wind energy don't take over. Existing fossil fuel systems do; the myopia is assuming that energy is of a particular form (electricity, in that case) and the rather naive and strange assumption that solar power, etcetera, will fill in the gap. Except they can't. Solar and wind power require vast acreages, usually in nicely scenic places. They also need massive equipment installations that are, like all power generation facilities, expensive to build, install and maintain. Nuclear power fills a decent gap between fossil fuels and all that green energy. Sure, there's a problem with waste; it's an engineering and policy question that needs to serious attention (something it hasn't really gotten, except in spurts). But the carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant is allegedly quite low. Nuclear power, in other words, poses solvable problems.

On the other hand, relying on Gazprom is one of those unsolvable problems. They're the mafia of the energy business. So the greens, in Germany, in not thinking through the issue of nuclear power, have managed to ensure that Europe pays much, much higher prices for energy than they could be. And they've managed to ensure that most European energy policy - and, to an astonishing extent, European foreign policy - is held hostage to one of the most brutal and unforgiving corporations in the world. (Tell you what, I wouldn't be surprised if one or two (or four) leading Greens were found to be in the pocket of Gazprom, or one of its many subsidiaries.)

Nice going, Greens. You've saved Germany from nuclear power. But the punishment you'd meted is far worse than anything you could imagine.

Carolyn Ann

Drupal 7's versioning

A minor perlexion... [Is that a word? It is now! :-) ] Drupal 7, the content management system, has major versions only. Which means that the point releases are 7.1, 7.2 and so on. There was a jump from 7.5 to 7.7 because - I kid you not - the version number of 7.6 was incorrect.

Well... ... This morning saw the release of Drupal 7.9. So the next release should be 8? Nope. Drupal 8 is supposed to be about a year away. Looking at the various discussions, I'd say it's about 3 to 5 years away.  Mind you, the releases that have happened are all minor ones; there was some functionality added in one of them (I forget which, 7.4?) but the rest have been maintenance fixes. The sort that usually get labeled "7.0.1" and "7.0.11".

Now, I know that they can go to whatever they want; at this point, I expect 7.1,013½ to crop up before Drupal 8 is released. But people have come to expect certain version numbering practices - especially in the open source field. In general, there are two schemes: the odd/experimental, even/you-can-use system and the version.major.minor systems. In the former you release 7.1 would be something you could use, but you're advised to wait for 7.2. It's a bit convoluted, but it's common enough that it's not surprising when you see it. I still think it's unnecessarily complicated. The other is much more common - my version of OS-X is, for instance, 10.7.2; there's a "build" number, but I can't tell you what that is. (Seriously, I can't. I could get into trouble.) So I know I'm using OS X (10), Lion (7) and it's a maintenance release (2).

Drupal, of course, being Drupal has to make things slightly more complicated still. And by "slightly" I mean "pull your hair out" complicated. The various modules, bits of code that allow you to do things, have their own version number system. That the module developer may or may not adhere to. So you get things likes "Drupal Super Widget 7.Alpha.0-1" The 7 tells you it's for Drupal 7, the alpha tells you it's almost working code and the 0-1 (or 0.1) tells you the developer's version number and the date of the release tells you how busy the developer is. A wee while ago and he or she is probably very busy and hasn't time to look at it, or has abandoned the project or got it working and not updated the copy on the Drupal site or any of a zillion other reasons.

But I don't get the versioning in Drupal 7. It seems rather silly, really.

Carolyn Ann

I take a nap and the GOP becomes destructive...

Wow - I'm out of it (I put my back out and had to take some Advil; that stuff knocks me cold!) and so much happens it's difficult to know where to start!

Rick Perry is following all the other Savior Candidates into oblivion. What's different is that he's trying to find the fastest way all on his own. (Birthers? Really?) Herman Cain has discovered a new campaign issue: smoking. And CNN released a new poll that shows that Mitt Romney is in the lead. Perhaps. In a couple of states. And the Democrats are reminding people that the the GOP isn't the party of rugged individualism - it's the party of "your on own, bud". I did wake up long enough to see some Republican strategist whining about it, so I'm guessing Mr Obama's speeches are hitting their targets. And then the Congressional budget people released a survey that shows the richest 1% really are getting richer - and at a substantially faster rate than anyone else.

I did see something about a conversation between Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch; apparently Mr Jobs called Fox News "destructive". I'd agree with that; in fact, I'd say there's a lot to Mr Jobs observation in many areas of politics. These days, the GOP really is a destructive force. This topic even made it onto John King's CNN program, but more terms of the negativity and dourness of the GOP field. Eric Erickson agreed that the field isn't inspirational; I think it's one of the very few times I've seen Cornell West and Eric Erickson actually agree on stuff. Mr Erickson had better watch out - some will be saying he's not a True Conservative. Because he's not living in the more common la-la land.

I think it's a shame, really. The party of William F. Buckley has become rooted in a destructive fantasy.

Carolyn Ann

Writing about ideas for six years!

I've been blogging for six years as of today! :-)

How do I know? Google sent me an email and told me...

During those six years I've heard that blogging is dying, that it's no longer read and that it makes no difference. I think I've made a difference in some ways, which implies my words are read (ta, readers!) and that there's life in the old gal yet! (No not me! Blogging... :-D )

I've "met" some cool folk, and some not so cool folk. I've regaled, and been regaled. I seem to have been involved in more than a few blogwars; early on I learned not to poke someone with a linguistic stick just "because" (truth be told, they made me cross about something; it's so important I can't even remember their name or what the problem was!) Now I only poke folk I think deserve it. (What? Me play the innocent lost lamb? Gerroffyerbike! As they say back in Yorkshire. :-) )

CaroLINES was once featured on T-Central - but it happened that day I noticed I was between Hateful Anne and Jamie who was, if memory serves, describing a particular moment of bitchiness with a lot of pride. I did not want to be associated with either - and so requested removal. My readership numbers immediately plummeted!

What I write about hasn't changed; the topics have changed but as my friend Karen once noted, this is a single topic blog: me. :-D (Narcissistic? Moi? I guess... ;-) ) I do remember some of the projects I wrote of;  some had to be abandoned because we ran out of money. Another I lost interest in. I think there were a couple like that? Another was wildly ambitious and ... I lost interest in pursuing it. I write about politics and transgender issues and people. And motorcycling. I love motorcycles! And I write about cats. And books. And life in rural New Jersey (not much happens). But mostly I write about ideas. I love ideas. I love poking holes in them. :-D

All in all, I've had a lot of fun with my blog. Unlike some, I don't give up when the going gets critical or nasty; that just spurs me on. I love a good debate; unfortunately there aren't too many people who can hold one. I spent a lot of time on something called the Corn awhile back; it was a very good debating society - no one was nasty (well, mostly) but you had better come awake and, on occasion, in your armored knickers. Your ideas were scrutinized and, invariably, found wanting. Well, mine were. ;-) I love the Ladies of the Corn! (Sounds like a horror movie... Sorry, Ladies! :-D ) Out in the blogosphere, I came across some of that, but not much. People seem to think that because you criticize their idea, you are personally launching into close-quarter battle armed only with the witless warrior manual. I might be witless but I do seem to be holding a dictionary, instead. ;-)

So, six years blogging. I think it's time to turn to it up a notch! :-D

Carolyn Ann

Perry's (& Cain's) Flat Tax...

In a short break, I listened to Rick Perry extol militarism, patriotism and flat taxes (in that order) . He was on CNN. Anyway, I quickly got fed up of the cowboy machismo and decided to see if his flat tax claims were real. :-)

The "tl;dr"? Nope.

Here's what I did...

I took the percentages, dollar amounts and tax rates from Wikipedia. And then I assumed that 350,000,000 people paid taxes (I'll do a more realistic 200,000,000 if you want). Taking the rounded bottom of each tax bracket, I did the arithmetic (it didn't need math) and the results are below. (By rounded bottom, I mean if a tax bracket covers $83,601 to $174,400, I did the calculation on $83,600.) Except for the bottom earnings: those I taxed at the highest number, $8,500. Although we keep hearing about the 47% that doesn't pay any taxes, I stuck with the percentages provided by Wikipedia; this meant that there only 1% of the population was in the lowest bracket. The idea isn't to be real-world accurate, but to see what affect the proposal have. Essentially I'm arguing that 2+2 equals 4 no matter what. :-) Anyway, if you don't pay taxes now (under progressive taxation), and will under Rick Perry's flat 20%, you're worse off. Herman Cain had to backtrack on this and I suspect that if I read Rickety Rick's, he'd have something like that in there as well.

Added: I should add that I didn't do the whole "progressive" thing; I assumed that if our income was "X", you paid that rate. In reality, you don't - you pay the rates for the lower tax brackets for that portion of your income. Sorry; I totally forgot about that detail! (On the other hand, the arithmetic was easier.)

So, here's the "idealized" world of taxation as it stands now:

	Population	Lowest possible earnings	Progressive Taxation
Top	350,000,000		Tax Rate	Individual	Collective
1%	3,500,000	$380,000	35%	$133,000	$465,500,000,000
5%	17,500,000	$174,500	33%	$57,585	$1,007,737,500,000
10%	35,000,000	$83,600	28%	$23,408	$819,280,000,000
25%	87,500,000	$34,500	25%	$8,625	$754,687,500,000
50%	175,000,000	$8,500	15%	$1,275	$223,125,000,000
Bottom 1%	31,500,000	$8,500	10%	$850	$26,775,000,000
Collected					$3,297,105,000,000

Here's with Rick Perry's 20% and Herman Cain's 9%:

	Population	Lowest possible earnings	20% Flat Tax		9% Flat Tax
Top	350,000,000		Individual	Collective
1%	3,500,000	$380,000	$76,000	$266,000,000,000	$34,200	$119,700,000,000
5%	17,500,000	$174,500	$34,900	$610,750,000,000	$15,705	$274,837,500,000
10%	35,000,000	$83,600	$16,720	$585,200,000,000	$7,524	$263,340,000,000
25%	87,500,000	$34,500	$6,900	$603,750,000,000	$3,105	$271,687,500,000
50%	175,000,000	$8,500	$1,700	$297,500,000,000	$765	$133,875,000,000
Bottom 1%	31,500,000	$8,500	$1,700	$53,550,000,000	$0	$0
Collected				$2,416,750,000,000		$1,063,440,000,000

Here are the individual differences:

Differences	Lowest possible income	Nominal Progessive Tax	20%	Difference	9%	Difference
1%	$380,000	$133,000	$76,000	-$57,000	$34,200	-$98,800
5%	$174,500	$57,585	$34,900	-$22,685	$15,705	-$41,880
10%	$83,600	$23,408	$16,720	-$6,688	$7,524	-$15,884
25%	$34,500	$8,625	$6,900	-$1,725	$3,105	-$5,520
50%	$8,500	$1,275	$1,700	$425	$765	-$510
Bottom 1%	$8,500	$850	$1,700	$850	$0	-$850

As you can see, if you're in the top bracket, you can expect an additional $57,000 in your paycheck under Rick Perry and almost $100,000 additional with Herman Cain. If you're in the lowest bracket, you can expect to benefit to the tune of $850. Per year. That's an additional $70 a month. 

And how it affects the bottom line; that is, how much tax the government can expect to collect:

Totals	Progressive	20% Tax Rate	Difference	9% Flat Rate	Difference
1%	$465,500,000,000	$266,000,000,000	-$199,500,000,000	$119,700,000,000	-$345,800,000,000
5%	$1,007,737,500,000	$610,750,000,000	-$396,987,500,000	$274,837,500,000	-$732,900,000,000
10%	$819,280,000,000	$585,200,000,000	-$234,080,000,000	$263,340,000,000	-$555,940,000,000
25%	$754,687,500,000	$603,750,000,000	-$150,937,500,000	$271,687,500,000	-$483,000,000,000
50%	$223,125,000,000	$297,500,000,000	$74,375,000,000	$133,875,000,000	-$89,250,000,000
Bottom 1%	$26,775,000,000	$53,550,000,000	$26,775,000,000	$0	-$26,775,000,000
Collected	$3,297,105,000,000	$2,416,750,000,000	-$880,355,000,000	$1,063,440,000,000	-$2,233,665,000,000

So Rick Perry has vowed to balance the budget by 2020; considering that he'll be collection almost $900 billion less per year, that means only one thing: massive spending cuts. Guess who relies on the government the most? Yup, that's right: the poor and the elderly.

I can't remember if Mr Cain proposed balancing the budget, but he's looking to collect $2 trillion less per year. I don't think a sales tax is going to cover that short fall. (Not even a punitive one like Sweden's 25% VAT rate.) 

Interestingly, under Rick Perry, the working class (defined as income less than $34,000) end up paying more. Mostly because they go from a 10% and a 15% nominal tax rate to a 20% tax rate. Everyone else ends up paying less. 

The wealthy, defined as those making over $250,000, will pay less taxes; proportionally, they will pay substantially less to those making even $175,000 - which is a decent salary, even now! So it's true that Rick Perry is "balancing" the budget on the backs of the poor. Except he's not actually balancing anything; all he's doing is shifting a burden from society to those who need the help. 

Nice going, Rick.

Carolyn Ann