Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Yahoo)   Jon Stewart makes $15 million a year. This means Romney is automatically President and nobody has to listen to the liberal media lecture us on income inequality ever again   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Jon Stewart, income inequality, liberal media, romney, ordinary income, tax code, hypocrisy, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

20239 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2012 at 12:45 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



564 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-01-26 04:12:47 PM  

trappedspirit: CPennypacker: trappedspirit: pwhp_67: trappedspirit: That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me


Yep. Like when money collected from ALL working Americans is used to build highways. Even if you don't use them or don't even have a car!


PURE COMMUNIST EVIL

I think you missed the point. If the money collected were based on the cost of the services then there should be a cap on how much a single citizen should have to pay. So that the more you make, the lower the effective tax rate. Warren Buffet didn't pay less taxes than his secretary. He paid taxes at a smaller rate. He still payed more than that secretary makes in a year in taxes. But this upsets people for some reason. How much should the government be allowed to raise your "tax bill" just because you make more?

The things your taxes pay for are used disproportionately by the wealthy, which bolsters their wealth. Economic incentives aside, this is why they pay higher taxes.

Huh? They use more of the military, high way system, or public education than me? Tell me how "they" do this?


I'll tell you how

When you have lots of property, you have a higher interst in protection for that property. The military protects America, and they own much more of it

If you got rich selling goods, you shipped those goods on the highway system. If you got rich investing, the companies you invested in shipped those goods on the highway system. Or the rail system. Infrastructure is used to get supplies to factories and finished goods to market. It gets your workers to their jobs. It gets your future workers to school.

Rich people benefit from education because educated workers contribute to their bottom lines.

So yes, the more money you have, th emore you benefit from the things taxes pay for. You should pay more.
 
2012-01-26 04:16:28 PM  

Brunette Farkette: Not necessarily related to the article, but my stance on the fact that while the rich could pay more, some people aren't paying AT ALL!


www.boingboing.net
 
2012-01-26 04:17:32 PM  
Jon Stewart is basically a comedian. Suggesting that he "disclose" in any context is laughable. Maybe it's a joke? ;)
 
2012-01-26 04:17:56 PM  

Thorndyke Barnhard: What line? The one the President drew when he said he didn't want taxes raised for anyone making less than that and then there were nuances regarding the degree of tax changes proposed for the different brackets after? Or the "1%" line which I think actually starts after 350000, not 200000?


That is the threshold that is continuously referred to when talking about raising taxes on millionaires. Way before "1%" became common parlance, we'd talk about the idle rich not paying their share. Any reasonable person can get behind that. Then we make that "pay more taxes" line WAY below the idle, investments-as-income class.

This is the post I was responding to (bold obviously mine):

"If he pays a fair tax rate, who cares how much Jon Stewart makes? Americans don't hate people for being rich. They hate rich people, who don't pay the same tax rates as people who actually work for a living, then go crying to the government for more tax breaks and bailouts."

I agree with the sentiment. Wealthier people should not be paying a smaller % of their income than poorer people in a progressive tax system. However, when we pick the 200/250k level as the line of where people should start paying MORE in taxes, you are raising taxes on people who already bear the brunt of the parabolic effective tax rate system.

long story short, tax cap gains as ordinary income and raise that threshold.
 
2012-01-26 04:18:16 PM  

MisterMook: Investment is its own reward, it's the reward of earning money even though all you're doing is sitting on your ass letting other people earn money for you.


Awesome. So if I buy a house for 100,000 in 1990, and sell it in 2010 for 200,000, I should pay 30% of the $100k gain? Now I have 15% less than enough to buy a comparable house. That's the price I pay for sitting on my ass letting other people earn money for me.
 
2012-01-26 04:20:10 PM  

Jon Stewart is not a politician.

 
2012-01-26 04:22:58 PM  
I'm a poor Republican. I was a big liberal for a long time (worked in low income medical field) and got tired of watching people just sit on their butts and expect things to be handed to them. And eventually, they got everything- food stamps, medicaid- you name it. All while I worked my butt off. I stopped believing in helping everyone then. I got tired of these social programs that readily hand out free food, phones, health care to immigrants and chronic breeders, but my little sister who readily works while living with serious health issues cannot qualify for these things because she was born in America and hasn't popped out 14 kids.
 
2012-01-26 04:23:07 PM  

royone: MisterMook: Investment is its own reward, it's the reward of earning money even though all you're doing is sitting on your ass letting other people earn money for you.

Awesome. So if I buy a house for 100,000 in 1990, and sell it in 2010 for 200,000, I should pay 30% of the $100k gain? Now I have 15% less than enough to buy a comparable house. That's the price I pay for sitting on my ass letting other people earn money for me.


No, now you have $70,000 more than you did when you bought the house
 
2012-01-26 04:23:12 PM  

CPennypacker: When you have lots of property, you have a higher interst in protection for that property. The military protects America, and they own much more of it


That makes sense. But even if we all paid the same rate, the rich would pay much more in taxes than others. So your argument supports flattening the tax structure. That may not be what you intended.
 
2012-01-26 04:23:36 PM  

royone: MisterMook: Investment is its own reward, it's the reward of earning money even though all you're doing is sitting on your ass letting other people earn money for you.

Awesome. So if I buy a house for 100,000 in 1990, and sell it in 2010 for 200,000, I should pay 30% of the $100k gain? Now I have 15% less than enough to buy a comparable house. That's the price I pay for sitting on my ass letting other people earn money for me.


You don't do that unless you keep the gain as profit. If you re-invest all $200K in a new house, you do not pay any capital gains.
 
2012-01-26 04:24:33 PM  

CPennypacker: royone: MisterMook: Investment is its own reward, it's the reward of earning money even though all you're doing is sitting on your ass letting other people earn money for you.

Awesome. So if I buy a house for 100,000 in 1990, and sell it in 2010 for 200,000, I should pay 30% of the $100k gain? Now I have 15% less than enough to buy a comparable house. That's the price I pay for sitting on my ass letting other people earn money for me.

No, now you have $70,000 more than you did when you bought the house


Which is great, except I used to have a $200,000 house, and now I don't. And I can't get one.
 
2012-01-26 04:25:20 PM  

royone: CPennypacker: When you have lots of property, you have a higher interst in protection for that property. The military protects America, and they own much more of it

That makes sense. But even if we all paid the same rate, the rich would pay much more in taxes than others. So your argument supports flattening the tax structure. That may not be what you intended.


No it doesn't, because the more money you make the more your MPC drops. This is how wealth is generated. The rich own a much higher proportion of the country relative to their incomes than the poor because the poor spend all of their money on refrigerators.
 
2012-01-26 04:26:11 PM  

royone: That was a supporting argument for the issue, which was the assumption in "Does ANYONE think it's fair that ultra-rich people like Romney and Buffett pay less of their income in taxes than normal middle class people?"

The fact is that "normal middle class people" do not pay more of their income in taxes than the ultra-rich.


Ok we're playing semantics now. How would you define "normal middle class people"? Granted, I was using the term loosely, but I had no idea I'd encounter a pawn of the ultra-wealthy.

I challenge everyone to check their federal tax returns, calculate their effective tax rate, and compare that number to Romney's effective tax rate. I bet many Farkers have paid a higher tax rate than Romney and Buffett.

/I know I have
 
2012-01-26 04:26:33 PM  

royone: MisterMook: Investment is its own reward, it's the reward of earning money even though all you're doing is sitting on your ass letting other people earn money for you.

Awesome. So if I buy a house for 100,000 in 1990, and sell it in 2010 for 200,000, I should pay 30% of the $100k gain? Now I have 15% 17.65% less than enough to buy a comparable house. That's the price I pay for sitting on my ass letting other people earn money for me.


not to nitpick ;)
 
2012-01-26 04:26:42 PM  

royone: CPennypacker: royone: MisterMook: Investment is its own reward, it's the reward of earning money even though all you're doing is sitting on your ass letting other people earn money for you.

Awesome. So if I buy a house for 100,000 in 1990, and sell it in 2010 for 200,000, I should pay 30% of the $100k gain? Now I have 15% less than enough to buy a comparable house. That's the price I pay for sitting on my ass letting other people earn money for me.

No, now you have $70,000 more than you did when you bought the house

Which is great, except I used to have a $200,000 house, and now I don't. And I can't get one.


Yes you can, because if you buy another house as your primary residence you don't pay tax on the gains.
 
2012-01-26 04:27:10 PM  

machoprogrammer: CorporatePerson: Your description of the Daily Show is a dead giveaway you don't understand the first thing about humor.

But hurrah for you. You're such a free-thinking individual.

So someone playing stupid clips and making an obvious face and then describing the joke is hilarious to you? Seriously?


Professionals make comedy look easy. There's a reason TDS has won the Emmy for best comedy show 9 years in a row.

Here's an experiment you can do at home. Set up a webcam and make funny faces while playing cable news clips and see if anybody thinks it's funny.
 
2012-01-26 04:27:18 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: You don't do that unless you keep the gain as profit. If you re-invest all $200K in a new house, you do not pay any capital gains.


Well, yeah, that's how it is now, under the totally unfair tax system. But under the fair system, income is income and it all gets taxed the same. No special rules. Right?

Or is it just some special rules for us, but not for those guys?
 
2012-01-26 04:28:29 PM  

CPennypacker: I'll tell you how

When you have lots of property, you have a higher interst in protection for that property. The military protects America, and they own much more of it

If you got rich selling goods, you shipped those goods on the highway system. If you got rich investing, the companies you invested in shipped those goods on the highway system. Or the rail system. Infrastructure is used to get supplies to factories and finished goods to market. It gets your workers to their jobs. It gets your future workers to school.

Rich people benefit from education because educated workers contribute to their bottom lines.

So yes, the more money you have, th emore you benefit from the things taxes pay for. You should pay more.


When you have more property, you pay more property taxes.
If you shipped goods on the highway system, you paid fleet taxes.

Any more fallacious anti-rich arguments you want to flop on the table?
 
2012-01-26 04:29:12 PM  

skullkrusher: long story short, tax cap gains as ordinary income and raise that threshold.


Better yet, tax cap gains as windfall income, at a higher rate than earned income. Let's encourage citizens to amass wealth through what they do, instead of through what they have been rich, smart, or lucky enough to have owned.

True, our financial system could take a fatal shock if we adopted that practice immediately, so I'll favor a policy that at least moves slightly in that direction for now.
 
2012-01-26 04:29:14 PM  

nevirus: Ok we're playing semantics now. How would you define "normal middle class people"?


No, no...you go ahead and define it. I'll wait. Then we'll run the numbers. Since you seem to think there is some reasonable value you can pick that will make your claim true, you go ahead and pick it.
 
2012-01-26 04:31:06 PM  

poot_rootbeer: skullkrusher: long story short, tax cap gains as ordinary income and raise that threshold.

Better yet, tax cap gains as windfall income, at a higher rate than earned income. Let's encourage citizens to amass wealth through what they do, instead of through what they have been rich, smart, or lucky enough to have owned.

True, our financial system could take a fatal shock if we adopted that practice immediately, so I'll favor a policy that at least moves slightly in that direction for now.


I'd be far happier to call it a day taxing it as ordinary with some exceptions.
 
2012-01-26 04:31:16 PM  
I'm sure it's already been pointed out, but it's worth repeating the differences between Romney and Stewart:

* Romney's running for public office, his finances are considerably more relevant to his public statements about the economy than TV host Stewart's are, because no matter what Stewart thinks about the economy, he has no power to do anything about it, he can't help give his biases the force of law. All he can do is yap about them on TV for 22 minutes 4 days a week.
* Jon Stewart doesn't represent a group of people that is constantly biatching about how worthless government and government employees are.
* Stewart doesn't tell the rest of us that rich people pay too much in taxes.
* Romney's father was a governor and a CEO of an auto manufacturer. Stewart's father was a physics professor.

This really isn't that hard. But still too hard for the average Republican voter to understand, I guess.

I don't really give a fark how much money someone has, as long he/she doesn't go around douchelording over the rest of us and yapping about how poor people don't pay enough in taxes and how rich people are rich because they work hard, implying that anybody who isn't rich is a lazy asshole who deserves to be poor.
 
2012-01-26 04:31:24 PM  

skullkrusher: Now I have 15% 17.65% less than enough to buy a comparable house.


Enough to buy a comparable house = $200k
15% less = $30k

I need 17.65% more than what I have.

/oo! a nit!
//*pick*
 
2012-01-26 04:33:50 PM  

Joe Blowme: GWLush: This stupid article misses the point. Jon Stewart wasn't criticizing Romney for being rich. He was criticizing him for fighting to keep the tax rate low on people like him. Jon Stewarts wealth has nothing to do with the argument. That is like saying because I am white I can't criticize other whites for being racist.

No one is stoping him or Buffet from paying more if they truly feel they dont pay enough. Its like being a smoker and biatching about how people like you should quit smoking but refusing to until the gov makes everyone else quit too.

You think Stewart has no investments which he is paying capital gains taxes on?



Well, since we can't prove that he doesn't, we must assume that he has a significant amount of investment income because . . . Well, because!

/The point Stewart and Buffet are making is that everyone in their income bracket should pay more in taxes.
//If just two people do it . . .
///In harmony . . .
 
2012-01-26 04:35:24 PM  

royone: skullkrusher: Now I have 15% 17.65% less than enough to buy a comparable house.

Enough to buy a comparable house = $200k
15% less = $30k

I need 17.65% more than what I have.

/oo! a nit!
//*pick*


I misread your post I guess. That 17% number is the difference between your net realized gain after taxes between the 15 and proposed 30% rates.
 
2012-01-26 04:36:48 PM  

CB29: I'm a poor Republican. I was a big liberal for a long time (worked in low income medical field) and got tired of watching people just sit on their butts and expect things to be handed to them. And eventually, they got everything- food stamps, medicaid- you name it. All while I worked my butt off. I stopped believing in helping everyone then. I got tired of these social programs that readily hand out free food, phones, health care to immigrants and chronic breeders, but my little sister who readily works while living with serious health issues cannot qualify for these things because she was born in America and hasn't popped out 14 kids.


So you're misinformed about how "awesome" it is to live on public aid.

It's isn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.

/now an active taxpayer thanks in large part to "social programs"
 
2012-01-26 04:36:59 PM  

royone: Vlad_the_Inaner: You don't do that unless you keep the gain as profit. If you re-invest all $200K in a new house, you do not pay any capital gains.

Well, yeah, that's how it is now, under the totally unfair tax system. But under the fair system, income is income and it all gets taxed the same. No special rules. Right?

Or is it just some special rules for us, but not for those guys?


Dude, sounds like you need to form a corporation in the Cayman Isles and transfer ownership of your house it it. Then you can be like 'those guys'
 
2012-01-26 04:38:02 PM  

trappedspirit: CPennypacker: I'll tell you how

When you have lots of property, you have a higher interst in protection for that property. The military protects America, and they own much more of it

If you got rich selling goods, you shipped those goods on the highway system. If you got rich investing, the companies you invested in shipped those goods on the highway system. Or the rail system. Infrastructure is used to get supplies to factories and finished goods to market. It gets your workers to their jobs. It gets your future workers to school.

Rich people benefit from education because educated workers contribute to their bottom lines.

So yes, the more money you have, th emore you benefit from the things taxes pay for. You should pay more.

When you have more property, you pay more property taxes.
If you shipped goods on the highway system, you paid fleet taxes.

Any more fallacious anti-rich arguments you want to flop on the table?


Except property taxes are levied by states and localities and don't pay for the military.
I'm not going to speak to the portion of infrastructure the HHVU tax supports, but considering our infrastructure is crumbling, I doubt that its very big.
 
2012-01-26 04:40:12 PM  

MaliFinn: Jon Stewart is not a politician.


Ok, so far we have he's not a comedian, and not a politician. Whatever he is, he still manages to get rich off of stirring up a pot of stinky rich hate stew.
 
2012-01-26 04:40:55 PM  
I like Jon Stewart.

/turtles are just ok.
 
2012-01-26 04:41:41 PM  

red5ish: I remember when having hundreds of millions of dollars and not working made you one of the "idle rich". Now, apparently, it means you are "unemployed". But then again I remember when corporations were were legal entities created to separate individuals from the liabilities of their businesses - legal entities - not "people" and I also remember when money was not "free speech".

My being able to remember all this (and more) means I'm pretty old, and as a pretty old guy let me say that I've seldom seen greasy weasels larger and more creepy than Willard "Mitt" Romney. He's not the biggest, but he's a big one. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is a prize winning greasy weasel.

I also remember when the GOP wasn't run by Bible thumping racist hypocrites, but that's going back a bit, and I could be wrong about that.


Yeah, and back in your day, I bet you had top walk through 6 foot deep snowdrifts uphill and against the wind both ways, too... ;-)

Seriously though, people always talked bad about Goldwater, but I'd kill to have THAT Republican Party to deal with rather than this bunch of morons.
 
2012-01-26 04:41:42 PM  

trappedspirit: MaliFinn: Jon Stewart is not a politician.

Ok, so far we have he's not a comedian, and not a politician. Whatever he is, he still manages to get rich off of stirring up a pot of stinky rich hate stew. eviscerating hypocrites.

 
2012-01-26 04:42:59 PM  

trappedspirit: pwhp_67: trappedspirit: I think you missed the point. If the money collected were based on the cost of the services then there should be a cap on how much a single citizen should have to pay.


That would be true, and fair, if those at the top were not benefiting from having a strong middle class and a lower poverty rate.

When the middle class is farked and the poor are moments away from killing you to eat your flesh, the system isn't working...

Is this what they call delusions of grandeur?



When the French were being taxed out of existence, they didn't fix it by beheading poor people.


History, it's a biatch...
 
2012-01-26 04:43:34 PM  

trappedspirit: pwhp_67: trappedspirit: That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me


Yep. Like when money collected from ALL working Americans is used to build highways. Even if you don't use them or don't even have a car!


PURE COMMUNIST EVIL

I think you missed the point. If the money collected were based on the cost of the services then there should be a cap on how much a single citizen should have to pay. So that the more you make, the lower the effective tax rate. Warren Buffet didn't pay less taxes than his secretary. He paid taxes at a smaller rate. He still payed more than that secretary makes in a year in taxes. But this upsets people for some reason. How much should the government be allowed to raise your "tax bill" just because you make more?


Why do you have such a hard time comprehending percentages? This is really simple stuff that you learn before even reaching high school. An 8th grade drop out can figure this out.

I don't care if you make 100 trillion dollars in a year. You should not be paying a smaller percentage than someone making 100k in a year. At the very least you should be paying an equal percentage and in practice that is not currently true.

Let me say this again: The amount you are taxed is irrelevant. The percentage you are taxed is what matters. This is what people are complaining about. This is what the Republican wealthy diligently spin off to their less intelligent followers so as to attempt to confuse the issue through their brainwashed constituents trumpeting of the purposefully orchestrated misunderstanding of the topic at hand..
 
2012-01-26 04:48:02 PM  

Kazrath: You should not be paying a smaller percentage than someone making 100k in a year. At the very least you should be paying an equal percentage and in practice that is not currently true.


How about if you have 200,000,000 dependents? And you donate 80% of your income to charity? Is it still wrong for you to pay a lower effective rate than someone who makes 100k, who is single, no dependents, has a Lamborghini collection (because he used to make more money)?
 
2012-01-26 04:48:42 PM  

Kazrath: That article reinforces the idea that Republicans just don't get it.

We don't care if people make a million, 10 million, a billion, or even 10 billion dollars in a year. What we care about is a fair shake. When we have people making 10 million a year paying the tax rate of someone making 25k a year and significantly lower rate than those making 60k a year there is a major issue.

Now if the article came out and proved that JS was being taxed only 12% on all of his earnings then he would be a Hypocrite. The fact is that he is most likely being taxed around twice (or more) what Romney is being taxed.


He wouldn't be a hypocrite, unless he also lobbied and fought to keep his hypothetically low tax rate that way, like Romney.
 
2012-01-26 04:49:08 PM  

CB29: I'm a poor Republican. I was a big liberal for a long time (worked in low income medical field) and got tired of watching people just sit on their butts and expect things to be handed to them. And eventually, they got everything- food stamps, medicaid- you name it. All while I worked my butt off. I stopped believing in helping everyone then. I got tired of these social programs that readily hand out free food, phones, health care to immigrants and chronic breeders, but my little sister who readily works while living with serious health issues cannot qualify for these things because she was born in America and hasn't popped out 14 kids.


So what's with the whole non sequitir thing you have going on here? Alzheimer's kicking in, or you just trolling?
 
2012-01-26 04:49:23 PM  
Good for Jon, I am curious how much he donated to charity compared to Romney though
 
2012-01-26 04:50:51 PM  

CB29: I'm a poor Republican.


I'm a Jewish Nazi. We should start a masochists support group.
 
2012-01-26 04:51:01 PM  
forgot to add Jon Stewart knows how to play to his audience, you know kind of like most successful entertainers and politicians.
 
2012-01-26 04:52:20 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'm sure it's already been pointed out, but it's worth repeating the differences between Romney and Stewart:

* Romney's running for public office, his finances are considerably more relevant to his public statements about the economy than TV host Stewart's are, because no matter what Stewart thinks about the economy, he has no power to do anything about it, he can't help give his biases the force of law. All he can do is yap about them on TV for 22 minutes 4 days a week.
* Jon Stewart doesn't represent a group of people that is constantly biatching about how worthless government and government employees are.
* Stewart doesn't tell the rest of us that rich people pay too much in taxes.
* Romney's father was a governor and a CEO of an auto manufacturer. Stewart's father was a physics professor.

This really isn't that hard. But still too hard for the average Republican voter to understand, I guess.

I don't really give a fark how much money someone has, as long he/she doesn't go around douchelording over the rest of us and yapping about how poor people don't pay enough in taxes and how rich people are rich because they work hard, implying that anybody who isn't rich is a lazy asshole who deserves to be poor.



THIS


As an aside, where did you get your screen name?
 
2012-01-26 04:53:57 PM  

trappedspirit: They use more of the military, high way system, or public education than me?



Military - I guess you never heard of Haliburton or the billions they made on the war on terror?

Highways - I guess you think they ship their goods using teleportation?

Public Education - Without a decent school system, who is going to work for them? Where will they find good managers and supervisors?

Rich people either inherited their wealth, run giant corporations, or are investors like Romney.

If there is no middle class out there to do the work and buy the goods, there isn't an economy that will allow the wealthy to get wealthier or possibly to even stay wealthy.
 
2012-01-26 04:56:09 PM  

j__z: Good for Jon, I am curious how much he donated to charity compared to Romney though


I bet he gave less than 15% to the LDS
 
2012-01-26 04:56:21 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: So you're misinformed about how "awesome" it is to live on public aid.


OH, but it is, each family gets 3 Xbox 360's, 2 PS3's and an Alienware desktop. PER PERSON. They also get a 100 disk Blu-Ray player, a 70" LED TV, and a 7 channel surround system. You also get a custom made bed, any size you want, and maid service to come in and clean you 5,000 square foot home. Add to theat the 3 BMW's in the driveway, and Public Aid is pretty sweet. MUCH better than that guy who has a job was living, I'm sure. ;-)
 
2012-01-26 04:57:10 PM  

royone: Kazrath: You should not be paying a smaller percentage than someone making 100k in a year. At the very least you should be paying an equal percentage and in practice that is not currently true.

How about if you have 200,000,000 dependents? And you donate 80% of your income to charity? Is it still wrong for you to pay a lower effective rate than someone who makes 100k, who is single, no dependents, has a Lamborghini collection (because he used to make more money)?


never understood why you get a deduction for dependents.

Kinda never understood the whole personal deduction thing either or why being married should make a difference, or why one gets a deduction for mortgage interest. If the point is for someone to pay less tax, then revise down/up (depending how you think about it) the brackets.

If the point is to give someone extra money for having kids/dependents, then just do it and don't pretend it's part of the tax code.

How about we just get rid of deductions all together and revise the tax brackets?

/yes, I think the tax code is too complicated. I have no problem with anyone using the tax code to pay as little as they legally can. That doesn't mean I personally think the tax code is "fair"
 
2012-01-26 04:57:41 PM  

trappedspirit: MaliFinn: Jon Stewart is not a politician.

Ok, so far we have he's not a comedian, and not a politician. Whatever he is, he still manages to get rich off of stirring up a pot of stinky rich hate stew.


Around here, we call it 'telling the truth', must be a regional thing?
 
2012-01-26 04:57:57 PM  

Mikey1969: There is still alot of work involved. Sure, he isn't digging ditches, but TV and film shoots involve long, LONG days, and writing sessions are even longer. It's not 'Appear for an hour, go home and collect a paycheck'. I'm sure he works quite a full work week.


Yes, they do work some very long days, and I'm glad someone finally pointed this out. For that 30 minutes you see Stewart on your television set, I'm willing to bet he's put in a good 10 hours of work (at least) behind the camera. He produces and writes and helps to research, for one thing. There's editing to be done after the taping. Then we also have to consider whatever promotional work (like interviews, etc) he may also be doing. All of that is merely scraping the surface.

Even those who work in the entertainment industry who aren't as involved as Stewart is can tell you that it's not all sunshine and roses. Yes, there's a lot of downtime ("hurry up and wait")-- but it's downtime that you could be otherwise spending with your family or doing something fun. Sometimes you start at 3am. Sometimes you end at 3am. It's insane. And this is what you might go through AFTER you've spent a year or three living in your car and working as a waiter just for the opportunity to get lucky. Of course there are the cool/fun parts that make it worth all the work, but you will never catch me saying that these people don't do real work.
 
2012-01-26 04:59:15 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: j__z: Good for Jon, I am curious how much he donated to charity compared to Romney though

I bet he gave less than 15% to the LDS


Jon tithes to the ZOG
 
2012-01-26 05:01:54 PM  

Mikey1969: CB29: I'm a poor Republican. I was a big liberal for a long time (worked in low income medical field) and got tired of watching people just sit on their butts and expect things to be handed to them. And eventually, they got everything- food stamps, medicaid- you name it. All while I worked my butt off. I stopped believing in helping everyone then. I got tired of these social programs that readily hand out free food, phones, health care to immigrants and chronic breeders, but my little sister who readily works while living with serious health issues cannot qualify for these things because she was born in America and hasn't popped out 14 kids.

So what's with the whole non sequitir thing you have going on here? Alzheimer's kicking in, or you just trolling?



What I read is that his sister doesn't make much money, needs medical care she can't afford, and isn't getting much help from the government.

So he's decided to join the party that wants to eliminate the programs that do exist instead of joining the party that wants to expand them to people like his sister.

So he's not only a dick here on FARK but he's a dick to his family too...
 
2012-01-26 05:02:19 PM  
Also, I think he might be one of those joos.
 
Displayed 50 of 564 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report