That alternative would be acceptable to me, providing it is videotaped and broadcast.

doglover: Adam Carolla is totally a "Fark you, I earned this now keep away type." of 0 to millionaire. He biatches constantly about shiat like how he pays more money in taxes and that's his fair share. Never mind that he was stuck unable to pay them for years until he made it big in comedy.

Ah, Adam Carolla, one of the most famous and well paid of Hollywood actors. I look forward to his three summer blockbusters coming out.

posthocergoetc: Sooo. . .it's been awhile since I've visited the politics tab and erm. . .I was just wondering - what's this f*ckery?

Who created this winterwhile alt? Surely to God there isn't actually a troll THIS stupid.

Which one a you is yankin' ma chain?

/Oh, and to return to the main topic, I enjoyed the Green Mile.

Winterwhile posts derp
Raped chicken cries in shower
Retard, forever

Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Lernaeus: Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Translation: got mine, screw you all!

Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

Corporate Self: Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

That's the goal of today's GOP.

1. Eliminate the middle class.
2. Establish an elite ruling class with hereditary succession over a poor majority.
3. Profit.

The worst part? The poor that actually support them... The poor that vote against their own interests due to some perceived principle that the top 1% have convinced them is true. They would bankrupt this country before making the rich pay their debts. I hold nothing but contempt for them.

Corporate Self: Lernaeus: Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Translation: got mine, screw you all!

Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

Screw you ... I'm living week to week on 2/3rds what teachers make and paying f*cking 30%+ every check and sending a check to Uncle Sam an extra $1000 a year for the privilege of being f*cked with broomstick.

Lernaeus: Corporate Self: Lernaeus: Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Translation: got mine, screw you all!

Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

Screw you ... I'm living week to week on 2/3rds what teachers make and paying f*cking 30%+ every check and sending a check to Uncle Sam an extra $1000 a year for the privilege of being f*cked with broomstick.

So less taxes for the rich solves your problem how exactly?

Lernaeus: Corporate Self: Lernaeus: Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Translation: got mine, screw you all!

Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

Screw you ... I'm living week to week on 2/3rds what teachers make and paying f*cking 30%+ every check and sending a check to Uncle Sam an extra $1000 a year for the privilege of being f*cked with broomstick.

So because the US government isn't totally free of corruption, and because you're taxed at double the rate of the wealthy . . . you think the wealthy shouldn't pay more?

historycat: Lernaeus: Corporate Self: Lernaeus: Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Translation: got mine, screw you all!

Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

Screw you ... I'm living week to week on 2/3rds what teachers make and paying f*cking 30%+ every check and sending a check to Uncle Sam an extra $1000 a year for the privilege of being f*cked with broomstick.

So because the US government isn't totally free of corruption, and because you're taxed at double the rate of the wealthy . . . you think the wealthy shouldn't pay more?

I think he just explained why teachers get paid more than he does.

Jesterling: shamanwest: They're all excellent, except for Wizard and Glass.

I must have done something wrong when I read that one, I loved that damn book. Didn't think I would either once I realized it was going to be one of those flashbacky love stories...

shiat I liked the whole series now that I think about it. Even the end (the real end end).

I mostly find it odd how many people hate Wizards and Glass but really like the books that came out afterward. I like the last book, but I find it hard to believe the series was supposed to get as meta as it did after book 4. It's very obvious that the last 3 books were written completely separately form the first 4.

Lernaeus: Screw you ... I'm living week to week on 2/3rds what teachers make and paying f*cking 30%+ every check and sending a check to Uncle Sam an extra $1000 a year for the privilege of being f*cked with broomstick.

You pay 30% of your paycheck in federal income taxes, making 2/3rds of what teachers make thus living week to week?

KiplingKat872: Lernaeus: Corporate Self: Lernaeus: Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Translation: got mine, screw you all!

Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

Screw you ... I'm living week to week on 2/3rds what teachers make and paying f*cking 30%+ every check and sending a check to Uncle Sam an extra $1000 a year for the privilege of being f*cked with broomstick.

So less taxes for the rich solves your problem how exactly?

It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

The message should be, "stop wasting money, and lower everyone's taxes."

My first problem with this "fair share" is that nobody can agree on what "fair" is. Without that, nothing is ever going to be settled no matter how much I pay.

What % of income is fair? And if I pay that will you get off my back?

Stephen King on rich people: "The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing "Disco Inferno" than pay one more cent in taxes"

FTFY Stephen

Lernaeus: It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

The message should be, "stop wasting money, and lower everyone's taxes."

Congratulations, that made zero sense whatsoever since "taxing us more" means closing many of those loopholes so that the government is placing more burden on the people who can afford it (example: The Koch Brothers) and less of a burden on people who can't (example: You).

Seriously I don't know what neoconservative shill told you that piece of crap logic, but it isn't even rational.

8 pages, and no liberals head has exploded that he complimented the Koch brothers in the same sentence as Buffett?

"It's true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs"

Lernaeus: It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

Especially since we have a progressive tax system that taxes by income bracket. Raising taxes on the brackets above you is not going to raise your taxes.

Your reasoning make no farking sense.

Lernaeus: King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

1. define "fleecing".

2. problems potentially solved by more taxes on the wealthy:
a. failing infrastructure
b. failing schools
c. some unemployment
d. failed regulation of corporations
e. failing social security
f. failing health care
g. some childhood poverty
h. Your inability to secure more profitable work

problems solved by less taxes on the wealthy
a. Muffy doesn't have to share my yacht anymore.

Your argument about corruption is lacking for 2 reasons

1. I think you see any government employee (who provides you with services) as corruption
2. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

/you're still making more intelligent arguments than winterwhile.

KiplingKat872: Lernaeus: It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

Especially since we have a progressive tax system that taxes by income bracket. Raising taxes on the brackets above you is not going to raise your taxes.

Your reasoning make no farking sense.

Actually it does, if you consider the place they are looking at raising taxes is capital gains. If you make more than $35k a year, your capital gains is taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates.

historycat: Lernaeus: King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

1. define "fleecing".

2. problems potentially solved by more taxes on the wealthy:
a. failing infrastructure
b. failing schools
c. some unemployment
d. failed regulation of corporations
e. failing social security
f. failing health care
g. some childhood poverty
h. Your inability to secure more profitable work

problems solved by less taxes on the wealthy
a. Muffy doesn't have to share my yacht anymore.

Your argument about corruption is lacking for 2 reasons

1. I think you see any government employee (who provides you with services) as corruption
2. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

/you're still making more intelligent arguments than winterwhile.

Really, thinking the solution to the problem is to make somebody else pay for it while mocking them seems kind of like fleecing to me...

Our budget is twice what it was in 2000 when are budget was basically balanced. Now just 12 years later we have a $1.1 trillion dollar deficit. Maybe the money we are taking in isn't what is at issue.

ManRay: My first problem with this "fair share" is that nobody can agree on what "fair" is. Without that, nothing is ever going to be settled no matter how much I pay.

What % of income is fair? And if I pay that will you get off my back?

Yeah, but the only way to eliminate that problem would be to eliminate all compulsory taxation - and that might lead to a few problems raising revenue.
That's why we have a democracy - so we can work out things like this, where there is no absolute abstract "right" or "wrong".
But, yeah - you are right - NOTHING can ever be completely "fair" - life isn't like that.

EWreckedSean: KiplingKat872: Lernaeus: It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

Especially since we have a progressive tax system that taxes by income bracket. Raising taxes on the brackets above you is not going to raise your taxes.

Your reasoning make no farking sense.

Actually it does, if you consider the place they are looking at raising taxes is capital gains. If you make more than $35k a year, your capital gains is taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates.

Being correct doesn't somehow negate the fact that you're being obtuse (probably intentionally obtuse, but obtuse nonetheless).

jso2897: Yeah, but the only way to eliminate that problem would be to eliminate all compulsory taxation - and that might lead to a few problems raising revenue.

I'm not saying eliminate it outright, but lets settle on a hard number and stick with it. It's useless to "debate" something that has not been defined (I believe on purpose) like "fair share". The way is now as soon as you say "Ok, I'll kick in the little bit more the President wants", the goal posts get moved and we start all over.

Chameleon: gimmegimme: wedding vegetables: Chameleon: bextraordinary: If a Farkette was looking for a new book to read and wanted to get into Stephen King's stuff, where would you Farkers recommend she begin? Any books to definitely avoid?

My favorite King book was Rose Madder but I think I'm the only person in the world who thinks so.


I actually liked Rose Madder too. a friend of mine did a paper on it for a mythology class.

I liked Rose Madder, too!

Are the two of you female, by any chance? I have a theory that Rose Madder is particularly attractive to women because most of us love the idea of there being a version of us with powers of a mad goddess...

I'm a chick. I think witnessing domestic violence while growing up was what originally drew me to it. and the ending is quite satisfactory, which is why I've read it several times.

Jackson Herring: what is this even supposed to mean

you realize there is already like a system of progressive income taxation in place right


There is, and there are a whole lot of people that think it is not getting the results they want.

When I say hard number, I mean "What percentage of your income do you owe to society?". If I am not paying my fair share, what is my fair share?

What is too little? What is too much? Is an effective tax rate of 30% too high? Tell me, and then we can debate the merits.

randomjsa: Feel free to donate.

Nice parroting of talking points. Too bad you didn't read the farking article.

In February, while discussing New Jersey's newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett's observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn't fair. "He should just write a check and shut up," Christie responded, with his typical verve. "I'm tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he's got the ability to write a check-go ahead and write it."

Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, "How come I'm not paying 50?"

...

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough shiat for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing "Disco Inferno" than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It's true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters can't do is assume responsibility-America's national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can't fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, "OK, I'll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS." That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

HURRR JUST PAY MORE IF YOU WANT DURRR

EWreckedSean: KiplingKat872: Lernaeus: It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

Especially since we have a progressive tax system that taxes by income bracket. Raising taxes on the brackets above you is not going to raise your taxes.

Your reasoning make no farking sense.

Actually it does, if you consider the place they are looking at raising taxes is capital gains. If you make more than $35k a year, your capital gains is taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates.

Your capital gains are, but how many people who make 35K a year are playing the stock market or trading in real estate?

ManRay: Jackson Herring: what is this even supposed to mean

you realize there is already like a system of progressive income taxation in place right


There is, and there are a whole lot of people that think it is not getting the results they want.

When I say hard number, I mean "What percentage of your income do you owe to society?". If I am not paying my fair share, what is my fair share?

What is too little? What is too much? Is an effective tax rate of 30% too high? Tell me, and then we can debate the merits.

When the average middle-class tax rate is higher that Romney's something is definitely wrong.

sweetmelissa31: ManRay: but lets settle on a hard number and stick with it.

Okay: 69.

How you doing? *wink*

gimmegimme:
And advertising.

[www.mediabistro.com image 456x317]


AWESOME!
That child had a pre-existing condition and both her parents worked as contractors out-sourced by Gov. with a very expensive private plan that did not cover the girls ailment.

Now under HCR, she can get the medical services she needs, and her parent is there to comfort her in their time of need. A success story of epic proportions!

sweetmelissa31: ManRay: but lets settle on a hard number and stick with it.

Okay: 69.


Lets work on getting that into the national debate then.

Giggity.

Fart_Machine: When the average middle-class tax rate is higher that Romney's something is definitely wrong.

Romney's income tax rate is higher than middle class America's. His capital gains rate is going to be higher or the same starting in 2013. Is that not fair?

KiplingKat872: EWreckedSean: KiplingKat872: Lernaeus: It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

Especially since we have a progressive tax system that taxes by income bracket. Raising taxes on the brackets above you is not going to raise your taxes.

Your reasoning make no farking sense.

Actually it does, if you consider the place they are looking at raising taxes is capital gains. If you make more than $35k a year, your capital gains is taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates.

Your capital gains are, but how many people who make 35K a year are playing the stock market or trading in real estate?

Surprisingly I'd say more than you think. 54% of Americans own stock. That number jumps to almost 90% once you cross the $75k a year mark.

EWreckedSean: KiplingKat872: EWreckedSean: KiplingKat872: Lernaeus: It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

Especially since we have a progressive tax system that taxes by income bracket. Raising taxes on the brackets above you is not going to raise your taxes.

Your reasoning make no farking sense.

Actually it does, if you consider the place they are looking at raising taxes is capital gains. If you make more than $35k a year, your capital gains is taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates.

Your capital gains are, but how many people who make 35K a year are playing the stock market or trading in real estate?

Surprisingly I'd say more than you think. 54% of Americans own stock. That number jumps to almost 90% once you cross the $75k a year mark.

Really? And how how many people do you know that make 35K a year that make a enough of money from stocks to the point that taxing it would be an onerous burden?

I don't even know anyone that makes 75k a year.

bextraordinary: If a Farkette was looking for a new book to read and wanted to get into Stephen King's stuff, where would you Farkers recommend she begin? Any books to definitely avoid?

i only browsed down about 10 posts and saw nobody recommended the Dark Tower series. there was even a thread about on ye ol fark 3-4 days ago.

hopefully in 404 comments, someone has pointed out this horrible oversight. but just in case, there you go.

Dark Tower

/curious if you'll like the ending

Lernaeus: KiplingKat872: Lernaeus: Corporate Self: Lernaeus: Stephen King's viewpoint is about as realistic as his books.

I mean, he's making the old "civic duty" argument? Does he really believe that our government is filled with righteous paragons of civic virtue that act only for the greater glory of the common good, and thus should take as much money from Americans as is necessary to pay for all these programs, wars, and infrastructure that are all totally necessary, justified, and managed with supercomputer-esque efficiency?

Riiiiiight ... and my car, in league with a telekinetic teenage girl and zombie pets, is trying to kill me.

Translation: got mine, screw you all!

Take what you have and run tiger, because someone needs to pay or America becomes a place lacking clean water and passable roads.

Screw you ... I'm living week to week on 2/3rds what teachers make and paying f*cking 30%+ every check and sending a check to Uncle Sam an extra $1000 a year for the privilege of being f*cked with broomstick.

So less taxes for the rich solves your problem how exactly?

It's not about the rate that the rich pay - its the idea that what they're paying for is clean and noble, when it's massively dirty and corrupt.

King doesn't recognize that fleecing the rich won't solve any problems long term. Nor will it solve any problems short term. It will, though, encourage an already corrupt government to tax everyone else more.

People like me don't have tax loopholes or deductions (outside of the standard $5,000 deduction that doesn't mean sh*t), so more and more of my income is threatened every time one of these dumbass rich people comes out and says "tax us more!" For every one of these noble altruists there are a thousand rich people who, once they're taxed enough, will find new and creative ways to hide their wealth, shifting the burden onto the rest of us - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher food, gas, housing, and utility costs.

Th ...

Ok, but both of our political parties are beholden to special interests so I doubt the corruption is going away anytime soon.

What do we do? Tear it all down and start over?

Corporate Self: Ok, but both of our political parties are beholden to special interests so I doubt the corruption is going away anytime soon.

What do we do? Tear it all down and start over?

I don't think the structure of our government needs to be torn down to the ground, but I think that the governments at the federal and state levels need serious overhauls, lobbying with money needs to be outlawed, and that the political party system needs to be abolished.

ManRay: Romney's income tax rate is higher than middle class America's. His capital gains rate is going to be higher or the same starting in 2013. Is that not fair?

Given that he gives away his taxable income (his speaking fees) and gets a tax break on that, and only pays the 15% capital grains on the bulk of his income, I would say no.