If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Senate expected to kill Bush's Economic Stimulus Bill. Richest 1% pissed.   (msnbc.com) divider line 150
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

1637 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2002 at 6:58 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-02-06 08:10:05 AM
Today will go down as the world's most flamingest day ever on Drew Curtis' FARK.Com...which thread will our regular rag-tag group of "USA=sux0r" begin with? Only time will tell!
 
2002-02-06 08:13:23 AM
Fark should be renamed to www.trollplanet.com
 
2002-02-06 08:14:15 AM
Of course, if this were a Clinton budget he'd be spreading the wealth to the 3% richest Americans.
 
2002-02-06 08:15:06 AM
Well, I guess we can just repeal big companies' taxes for the next 4 years. Cause, why should they have to pay taxes? They help create American jobs.

/sarcasm
 
2002-02-06 08:26:10 AM
The Democrats are desperately hoping that the economy stays torpid long enough for them to make some gains in November.
 
2002-02-06 08:27:12 AM
Enron didn't pay taxes for 6 years.

Bush tried to "Enronize" the economy, but Tommy D stopped him.
 
2002-02-06 08:44:25 AM
Weak minded fools. I am no where close to being the rich 1%, but Bush's plan sure would have helped me. Just like it would have helped everyone. Democrats want economy to suck.
 
2002-02-06 08:44:35 AM
Great to see that thanks to the Demofags, nothing will be getting done in Washington for a while now. Its also great to see that the richest 1% of our country pay about 50% of the taxes collected.

procedure sarcasm (my neverending conservative witt : funny shiat)
begin
we should give tax breaks to the poor, unskilled and uneducated in this country. Forget about the educated and skilled workers who are actually in need of help after losing their jobs. what do they need more money for? lets give more welfare to people who do absolutely nothing but milk off of the labors of others.
end sarcasm;

farking dumbass liberals. (drink 1 sip)
 
2002-02-06 08:46:19 AM
I am making a huge supply of popcorn to get me through today's flamewars. Actually, I'll just get the corn and let the threads heat it up.

*crunch crunch*
 
2002-02-06 08:52:07 AM
Uh actually, the poorest x% will also be pissed - part of the plan was a tax rebate for lower income persons of up to $600 per family. Also, there was a proposed tax credit of up to $3,000 for poor families with dependents for the sole purpose of making health insurance more accessible. Also gone is the prospect of the reimbursement of teachers for $400 worth of out of pocket expenses (by way of a deduction.)

Nice work, Daschle and company.
 
2002-02-06 08:52:24 AM
What a nice morning it is on FARK: Drew Curtis's FARK.com!

we should give tax breaks to the poor, unskilled and uneducated in this country. Forget about the educated and skilled workers who are actually in need of help after losing their jobs. what do they need more money for? lets give more welfare to people who do absolutely nothing but milk off of the labors of others.

OR we could help out the middle class.
 
2002-02-06 08:57:16 AM
yea, Freddie. what will help out the middle class more? a tax breaks and more government spending for the poor who do nothing except stimulate the local Wal-Mart's economy. Or tax breaks for the rich who own companies that employ middle class workers, spend money on companies that employ middle class workers. Those companies, now with more money, spend their money on companies that employ middle class workers... and it goes down to actually creating more jobs for the poor and uneducated at the Wal-Mart.
 
2002-02-06 09:03:06 AM
OR we could help out the middle class.


Or each person can drop the WE approach and help ourselves and the persons and causes each person cares about/for. Cut goverment programs to an absolute minimum which will facilitate lowered (flat) taxes which in turn allows for more discretionary income for individuals which may be used by individuals to donate generously, as they wish, to programs they believe in or have an interest in.

Of course the have-nots would be up in arms because that would mean they would have to support themselves to some extent, and WE can't have that, now can WE?
 
2002-02-06 09:05:13 AM
Yeah, I have a sweet idea. Let's give $89 billion in stimulus in 2002 (divided by 250 million = $356!) $73 billion in 2003, get back to the great days of deficits, even though Greenspan says were coming out of the recession and the stimulus isn't necessary. Smart move! Extending unemployment, making sure health insurance is accessible for low-income families - these are good ideas. The $600 rebate checks are expensive and stupid.
 
2002-02-06 09:05:51 AM
So sad, so sad, Bush can't pay his rich buddies back....

The American economy is driven by consumers, i.e. people who buy shiat and lots of it.
 
2002-02-06 09:07:08 AM
Bush will have to find some other way to "Enronize" the country.

What a bee-yotch.
 
2002-02-06 09:07:27 AM
So sad, so sad, Bush can't pay his rich buddies back....


Care to explain the basis for that statement? Compare and contrast democratic operations vs. republican operations.
 
2002-02-06 09:10:24 AM
Once again the issue is not a matter of right of wrong. It's timing and politics. Greenspan, the foremost authority on the US economy, has already said the economy will recover as it has from every recession. He sited data that support that. If Bush gets his bill passed then we come out of the recession he will get credit for it even though Greenspan has stated that a stimulus package would help but is not necessary. Democrats are opposed to this for obvious reasons. They don't want Bush to get credit for fixing the economy just because of the timing of the passage of his bill. It's politics and if you think this bill is being blocked for your own good you either can't or don't want to see the truth.
 
2002-02-06 09:13:35 AM
Did I hear someone mention the flat tax?? Oh man.

Chem, I agree that companies employ middle class workers. But, don't we give these companies enough already? The special corporate tax breaks; direct government subsidies to pay for advertising, research and training costs; and incentives to pursue overseas production and sales. The government spends around $130 Billion a year on these guys. Why do I ,as a taxpayer, have to pay GE's income taxes?
 
2002-02-06 09:14:41 AM
The whole truth is that it is OUR money. It is funny that we get "rebate" checks or tax "returns" and look at it as a good thing. You should look at the amount of taxes you pay every year. You are NOT recieving money back. You are still paying your taxes, you just paid too much over the year. Try claiming 7 on your W4 for a year. When tax time comes you will see how much you pay a year in taxes. IT is way too much. The Goverment should NOT have a surplus. It does not make make money. A surplus means they taxed us all too much that year and it should not go to adding more government.
 
Mos
2002-02-06 09:15:58 AM
Of course, Capigula, you forget that if the economy fails, Bush gets blamed for it all. Of course, you can't or don't want to see the truth.
 
2002-02-06 09:17:59 AM
I agree with Capigula. Partisan politics get old very quickly. These shiatheads only care about getting re-elected so they can give themselves another pay raise.
 
Mos
2002-02-06 09:19:30 AM
Oh, and for the record: No, the tax rebate you got earlier was not a scam. Let me explain it to you:

Someone who usually receives $1,100 back for taxes overpaid over the course of a year will still get his check for $1,100. The end result of the filing process will show that he was entitled to a refund of $1,400, with $300 having already been paid to him.

Of course, you can thank SNOPES for this very special explanation.
 
Mos
2002-02-06 09:21:25 AM
Eh, I misread Capigula's post. I am sorry, Capigula. You are completely right.
 
2002-02-06 09:26:33 AM
Enronomy.
 
2002-02-06 09:29:20 AM
trickle down, baby, trickle down!
 
2002-02-06 09:32:19 AM
a single tear rolls from midgettossa's eye
Oh wait, I see people who need economic stimulus, everyday. People sleeping on February streets. I'm sorry richest 1%, you American royalty, you have given us so much: Jello Pudding, your Book Club, Ace Ventura Pet Detective part 2. You've batted .252 with 34 RBI, you've fondled young boys and played with your monkey, you've given us your crappy greatest hits box set, you've unloaded your bug-ridden software on us. And now you are left in your palacial estates situated on 30 beachfront acres. You get lost in your 22 car garage and your gold-plated home theater system gives you a headache. I'm sorry your influence is limited, I'm sorry you pay out 50% in taxes (or 10% to your accountant who takes care of everything else) and you have to live in such multi-million dollar squalor.
Actually, fark you, buddy.
 
2002-02-06 09:33:59 AM
Mos - "Of course, Capigula, you forget that if the economy fails, Bush gets blamed for it all. Of course, you can't or don't want to see the truth."

I'm well aware of that. I think virtually everyone on fark realizes that the President gets credit for the state of the economy good or bad despite the fact that he has little or no control of it. The point I was making is that position of senators on this bill is purely political and has nothing to do with fixing the economy. The economy is going to fix itself as always. All that's left is for both sides of the isle to scramble to take credit for it. By the way you're barking up the wrong tree. I am a Bush supporter, are you new or something?
 
2002-02-06 09:35:41 AM
Mos,

Then I went and got shiaty with you before I read your retraction. Sorry about that.
 
2002-02-06 09:40:58 AM
God forbid the people who actually *pay* taxes get a tax break.
 
2002-02-06 09:41:10 AM
The whole truth is that it is OUR money. It is funny that we get "rebate" checks or tax "returns" and look at it as a good thing. You should look at the amount of taxes you pay every year. You are NOT recieving money back. You are still paying your taxes, you just paid too much over the year. Try claiming 7 on your W4 for a year. When tax time comes you will see how much you pay a year in taxes. IT is way too much. The Goverment should NOT have a surplus. It does not make make money. A surplus means they taxed us all too much that year and it should not go to adding more government.

I have never heard it put better. For all the idiots out there... read this!
Democrats: oh, we have a surplus. Lets take all the extra money we are getting and spend spend spend. Lets make more government programs to use up all this extra money. Lets make the federal government an integral part of peoples lives and force some to depend on the federal government. and while we are at it, lets take all references of George Washington and Andrew Johnson out of history books because they were bad bad slave owners.

Republicans: oh, we have a surplus. Lets take the extra money and give it back to the people who gave it to us in the first place. And since we took too much from them during the Clintax years, lets cut taxes so we arent taking too much away from our citizens. Then lets cut some government programs that arent needed and use some more money to beef up our military that was practically buried under Clinton. We can even cut more federal government programs so the federal government isnt forcing citizens to become dependent. Maybe state governments should become more involved and federal government less involved. After all, dont you think people in your state know more of what is best for you than people in Washington?
 
2002-02-06 09:41:23 AM
Those poor' poor rich bastards.....I think I'll mail IBM a check today,....


Poor, poor Enron isn't getting $254 Million.

How sad......booo hooo....
 
2002-02-06 09:43:34 AM
Oh wait, I see people who need economic stimulus, everyday. People sleeping on February streets. I'm sorry richest 1%, you American royalty, you have given us so much: Jello Pudding, your Book Club, Ace Ventura Pet Detective part 2. You've batted .252 with 34 RBI, you've fondled young boys and played with your monkey, you've given us your crappy greatest hits box set, you've unloaded your bug-ridden software on us. And now you are left in your palacial estates situated on 30 beachfront acres. You get lost in your 22 car garage and your gold-plated home theater system gives you a headache. I'm sorry your influence is limited, I'm sorry you pay out 50% in taxes (or 10% to your accountant who takes care of everything else) and you have to live in such multi-million dollar squalor.
Actually, fark you, buddy.


are you a fan of the Robin Hood theory? Lets keep taxing the rich and those people living on the "February Streets"... lets just give them the money for doing absolutely nothing to help this country out.
 
2002-02-06 09:45:03 AM
use some more money to beef up our
military that was practically buried under Clinton.


That "buried" military sure got rid of the Taliban quick.

"Soft" military was just another Bush Campaign lie.
 
2002-02-06 09:48:03 AM
Its not about tax cuts to the rich. The bill was stupid as it wasn't a stimulus. Most of the tax cuts come in 2 years later, and we dont know where the economy will be then. Tax cuts as way to stimulate the economy over the short term is an asinine idea. Cap that with reduced spending. Its just dumb. You need increased spending. Even Greenspan said it was stupid.
 
2002-02-06 09:48:05 AM
Damn dickheads don't know anything about economics... Even a half tard like me knows that the richest 1% pay over 50% of federal income tax. Give them a break.
 
2002-02-06 09:49:08 AM
are you a fan of the Robin Hood theory? Lets keep taxing the rich and those people living
on the "February Streets"... lets just give them the money for doing absolutely nothing to
help this country out.


Who are you? Ronald Reagan?

12/22/88
President Reagan - whose tenure has coincided with a huge increase in the homeless population - uses his last interview with David Brinkley to again claim that many of
these unfortunates are homeless by "their own choice," as must be many of the jobless, since he again points out that the Sunday papers are full of want ads.
 
2002-02-06 09:52:57 AM
Those poor rich people... Why, they might only be able to own three houses now!

[/trolling]
 
2002-02-06 09:53:45 AM
The world will be a much better place when we all realize that, Democrat or Republican, pretty much every politician we have in Washington today is part of an elite upper class, looking to screw over the rest of us for political and financial gain.


Every time a group of people start arguing the age-old Democrat v. Republican debate, a senator or representative starts to giggle uncontrollably and doesn't know why. He then goes back to making policy with the corporate lobbyists and special interest groups.
 
2002-02-06 09:54:51 AM
There are middle class Republicans. Not all of us are rich bastards who like carting Puerto Ricans into our homes and shoot spitwads at them. It's called "I was intelligent enough to somehow make money, I am probably smart enough to spend it on my own without government guidance...oh wait, they're taxing me again at the checkout-line...AHHHHHHH!!!!"

Hehe, if you really like huge government spending, move to a Scandinavian country. Here in Norway, your taxed between 40%-70% on your income, and then get another 24% Sales Tax when you buy a package of cookies, bananas, gas, everything. Quality of life is pretty good, admittedly, but damn, it would be impossible to live here on the average American salary. Good thing they are rich from all the oil and can afford to pay their people so much.
 
2002-02-06 09:56:15 AM
I would be proud to only wear the shoes, or piss in his bedpan, of that man.
That statement from Reagan is right on. People that are unemployed by unfortunate circumstances usually dont get to the point where they are homeless. Do the uneducated and homeless deserve to milk off the rich of this country like in Robin Hood? No! There are many government programs out there already to help homeless find work, shelter, food and water. That is fine. Why should I continuously be taxed for even more programs? Steal from the rich and give to the poor. is that right?
 
2002-02-06 09:58:22 AM
Ironbar:

More people were homeless during the Clinton Administration than the Reagan Administration. And yes most homeless are on the street by their own choice. I live in NYC and see it every day. Heroin addicts, drunks and plain assholes. Sure they say they want a job but they couldn't hold one for more than a day if you handed them one. They do not have the main personal trait required to have a job. Responsibility.
 
2002-02-06 09:58:50 AM
Republicans and Democrates do not agree on which of their special interest groups to give the money to ... doo-dah doo-dah.

Yeah i know i got too many words.
 
2002-02-06 10:00:21 AM
If your so bummed about the Stimulus Bill being killed, send some money to IBM or other Multi-million dollar companies that need our money soooooo bad.


Bush gave $15 billion to the airlines and it didn't save anybody's job.
 
2002-02-06 10:03:23 AM
Ironbar:

More people were homeless during the Clinton Administration than the Reagan Administration.
And yes most homeless are on the street by their own choice. I live in NYC and see it every
day. Heroin addicts, drunks and plain assholes. Sure they say they want a job but they
couldn't hold one for more than a day if you handed them one. They do not have the main
personal trait required to have a job. Responsibility.



Another Reagan channeler.
 
2002-02-06 10:13:22 AM
If your so bummed about the Stimulus Bill being killed, send some money to IBM or other Multi-million dollar companies that need our money soooooo bad.


Bush gave $15 billion to the airlines and it didn't save anybody's job.


yes, but did you want to walk and swim to acapulco for your vacation next summer? It possibly saved an entire industry. An industry that thousands upon thousands of people worldwide depend on for both business and pleasure.

you are proving yourself to be a complete moron and have not yet said anything to prove any sort of point at all. i am concluding that you are dumb. just another liberal who doesnt really know what to believe in, but thinks it is really bad that people have to live on the streets. you dont look at the whole picture do you? moron.
 
2002-02-06 10:17:23 AM
I have an idea - why not immediately align any debate on anything on strict conservative/liberal lines and refusing to concede that anything the other side has to say is worthwhile, yet at the same time adopting wholesale and uncritically the arguments of one's own side, then maybe some forward progress could be mad.

Nah fark it - it'd never work anyway.
 
2002-02-06 10:18:22 AM
run, on, sentence,.
 
fb-
2002-02-06 10:20:11 AM
"Poor poor rich people." Look at it this way, you unemployed farkers, and I know there's lots of you, won't be getting an extension on your and your family's medical insurance. Your company won't be getting any incentives to invest in themselves, which likely would lead to you getting your laid off ass back to work. All because Daschle is ready to sacrifice your future and your economy to improve his chances in the next election.

You are truely clueless if you think this bill was just for the rich 1%.
 
2002-02-06 10:22:25 AM
you are proving yourself to be a complete moron and have not yet said anything to prove any
sort of point at all. i am concluding that you are dumb. just another liberal who doesnt
really know what to believe in, but thinks it is really bad that people have to live on the
streets. you dont look at the whole picture do you? moron.


Who cares what you think?
-pResident bunnypants.

gotta run.....toodles.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report