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.

Two points:

First, let's say we do exactly what you propose. Let's raise taxes on the "rich." In fact, let's double the corporate income tax rate on the 500 largest American corporations and raise the effective tax rate on the CEOs of all major corporations to 100%. fark the rich, right?

What does that get us? Doubling the corporate tax rate gives us a grand total of $319.8 billion. Taking every red cent from those evil plutocrats gives us $5.6 billion. That's means that despite taking away a huge amount of productive capital, we've only paid for less than a quarter of the $1.4 trilllion budget shortfall for 2011.

So basically, we haven't fixed any infrastructure. We haven't paid teachers any more. We haven't done anything but pay for a quarter of our current level of spending.

So either the "rich" suddenly gets defined to be the "middle class" and we soak them or we admit that the politics of envy don't help a damn thing.

If we want to fix infrastructure, why don't we stop throwing money down the "green energy" rat hole and start fixing our electrical grid?

If we want to fix schools, how about we demand teacher accountability and institute the sort of reforms that Michelle Rhee pioneered in Washington D.C. (before the greedy and corrupt teachers unions won out and had her shiatcanned.)

If we want to fix health care, why do we keep repeating the same mistakes of the past and start doing the kind of market reforms that have driven down the cost of LASIK in a time when every other medical procedure has seen its costs grow?

But that's not what the liberals want - they don't want actual reform, they want power. If problems start getting fixed without government, then we're less likely to give the corrupt special interests the power they crave. So they have to grow government more and more each year, gaining more and more power for their constituent interests in the process.

It's not about "fairness" or "social justice" or any of that other high-minded bullshiat. It's about amassing political power and concentrating it the hands of the few. That's why dictators always go after the "rich" and push for "class struggle" - because the first step towards tyranny is always to consolidate as much power in the hands of the state as possible. And even if the Democrats were as pure as the driven snow, once that power is consolidated, it's only a matter of time before its misused.

Stephen King can take a steaming shiat in a manila envelop, mail it to a publisher, and get a seven figure advance (like he's habitually done for 20 years). I don't think he has a realistic understanding of how money works for most people, rich or otherwise.

ManRay: 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?

I for one would love a 13.9 tax rate. You're being disingenuous if you believe the average middle class person pays this.

Polly Ester: Stephen King can take a steaming shiat in a manila envelop, mail it to a publisher, and get a seven figure advance (like he's habitually done for 20 years). I don't think he has a realistic understanding of how money works for most people, rich or otherwise.

Yes it has nothing to do with the fact that he continues to churn out a product that maintains high book sales. Why do you hate the market?

EWreckedSean: 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...

Vocabulary have never been your strong suit. v: Obtain a great deal of money from (someone), typically by overcharging or swindling them. If you get nothing from the government then you've been "Fleeced" otherwise you're just biatching.

Our budget is twice what it was in 2000 when are budget was basically balanced. Now just 12 years 2 wars, massive tax cuts, and a free handout to banks formerly run by Bush administration officials later we have a $1.1 trillion dollar deficit. Maybe the money we are taking in isn't what is at issue.

THIS JUST IN: EWreckedSean loves terrorists and wants America to surrender!! He's in favor of raising taxes!!

Weaver95: only with a lot less vampirism.

He is talking about vampires. Financial vampires.

Much like his books dr:tl.

Because if there's one person I want solicited for economic opinions it's a writer of horror novels. Im sure he understands and could speak at length on how capital investments grow industry or creates jobs. Maybe he can explain the difference between profit and profit margin. Truth is STEVEN, if you want to pay more in taxes GET YOUR farkING CHECKBOOK OUT AND WRITE A GOD DAMN CHECK TO THE IRS. Hell, send one to the treasury department while your at it.

Raising taxes on the "evil rich" may make you feel good, isnt going to do a damn thing to fix our problems. Have you noticed how every spending project the democrat party suggests is paid for by taxing the "rich." So ask yourself this: if the solution to every problem is "just raise taxes" how long before you, the average joe is considered rich.

FARK in FL: Much like his books dr:tl.

Aw, you just got favorited as "Moron".

WombatControl: Two points:

First, let's say we do exactly what you propose. Let's raise taxes on the "rich." In fact, let's double the corporate income tax rate on the 500 largest American corporations and raise the effective tax rate on the CEOs of all major corporations to 100%. fark the rich, right?

Wow, no one even came close to 100%

What does that get us? Doubling the corporate tax rate gives us a grand total of $319.8 billion. Taking every red cent from those evil plutocrats gives us $5.6 billion. That's means that despite taking away a huge amount of productive capital, we've only paid for less than a quarter of the $1.4 trilllion budget shortfall for 2011.

But remember kids, NPR and Planned Parenthood are too expensive, and raising taxes on the poor because they need to have "skin in the game" is going to solve all our problems. BTW top 1% is 1.6 Trillion, Link but don't let facts get in your way now.

So basically, we haven't fixed any infrastructure. We haven't paid teachers any more. We haven't done anything but pay for a quarter of our current level of spending.

So either the "rich" suddenly gets defined to be the "middle class" and we soak them or we admit that the politics of envy don't help a damn thing.

Appeal to emotion

If we want to fix infrastructure, why don't we stop throwing money down the "green energy" rat hole and start fixing our electrical grid?

Red Herring

If we want to fix schools, how about we demand teacher accountability and institute the sort of reforms that Michelle Rhee pioneered in Washington D.C. (before the greedy and corrupt teachers unions won out and had her shiatcanned.)

l'll just leave that there.

If we want to fix health care, why do we keep repeating the same mistakes of the past and start doing the kind of market reforms that have driven down the cost of LASIK in a time when every other medical procedure has seen its costs grow?

post hoc ergo propter hoc, cherry picking

But that's not what the liberals want - they don't want actual reform, they want power. If problems start getting fixed without government, then we're less likely to give the corrupt special interests the power they crave. So they have to grow government more and more each year, gaining more and more power for their constituent interests in the process.

misleading vividness, ad hominem, argument ad populum

It's not about "fairness" or "social justice" or any of that other high-minded bullshiat. It's about amassing political power and concentrating it the hands of the few. That's why dictators always go after the "rich" and push for "class struggle" - because the first step towards tyranny is always to consolidate as much power in the hands of the state as possible. And even if the Democrats were as pure as the driven snow, once that power is consolidated, it's only a matter of time before its misused.

argumentum ad consequentiam, appeal to motive, Reductio ad Hitlerum, straw man, slippery slope.

My goodness, you're like a text book of logical fallacies. I'm actually impressed.

mrshowrules:

If you'd actually read history rather than ignore it, you'd see plenty of examples. In the late 1970s, the UK was a basket case with massive labor unrest, a weak economy, and slow growth. Margaret Thatcher, following the advice of Joseph Keith, privatized industries, slashed taxes, and eliminated price controls. The result was more wealth, more growth, and more opportunities. Even though Tony Blair's Labour government eventually came into power, they never turned the clock back to the pre-Thatcher daysh - decades after she left power, her influence still matters in the UK.

Reagan's reforms brought about massive economic growth and a raised standard of living for the American people. Did Bill Clinton run on ending Reagan's reforms? Hell no - he followed in Reagan's footsteps for most of his Presidentcy. He slashed capital gains taxes, he made (often half-hearted) efforts to reform government regulations, and he signed welfare reform into law. Again, the U.S. has only now considered the idea of turning back the clock on decades of progress that were made under conservative governments.

Do you know what the most effective anti-poverty program in American history is? It isn't welfare, Head Start, or TANF. It's the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC has done more to help the poor than any other government program.

And the EITC wasn't a liberal policy - it was invented by Milton Friedman, the author if Free to Choose and probably the greatest economic mind in American history.

See, when you actually read history and try to learn about the world, your preconceptions don't always match reality.

If central planning, high taxation, and government control over the economy worked, we'd have a very different world than we do today. But those concepts don't work - which is why there is a direct correlation between economic freedom and standard of living. Even supposedly socialist countries like Sweden or Norway in fact have fewer regulatory burdens and lower corporate tax rates than the United States.

If you increase economic freedom, you get more prosperity. If you decrease economic freedom, you get less prosperity. That's the lesson of the 20th Century, and if we fail to learn it, we'll just end up repeating the mistakes of the past.

ManRay: 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.

Part of the problem is that society collects a lot of different taxes, at different levels of government, and by a variety of different methods. When you look at the challenge as being to make that entire fabric of taxation fair and equitable - well, you can see that it is a difficult problem to simplify. The advantage of living in a free, democratic society is that such a society does not require that you ever hit some perfect state of justice and equitability for all (an impossibility), but can evolve continually. I can understand the impulse to want to boil everything down to some simple, numerical formula - but it isn't always possible.

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?

'Salom's Lot is a tour de force vampire story. The novel "It" is just plain scary.
Avoid "Cell"

unlikely: historycat: My goodness, you're like a text book of logical fallacies. I'm actually impressed.

Best post all week.

You seriously made my month (litterally)! Thank you so much.

coco ebert: I like that Stephen King is calling on the rich to pay their fair share of TAXES, not just contribute money to their pet projects or charities and call it a day.

He's pretty awesome.

I hate horror as a genre with a passion, but this is a beautiful article.

mrshowrules: [www.tutor2u.net image 491x387]

The GDP growth was greater in the 15 years preceding her administration and 15 year after her administration. Also, more socialist countries show comparable growth or better from 1975-1990. I'll accept a citation showing Thatcher generating more wealth/opportunities than other European countries during the same period. Otherwise, I will have to call BS.

You might want to take a look at that graph again - because it contradicts your argument. And if you're going to argue that "more socialist" countries did better than the UK, fine, but you should support it with some evidence first.

mrshowrules: You do realize that the failure to regulate the banking industry is a failure of Conservative ideology which cause your current economic crisis. Canada's banks did fine and avoided an economic crisis because of sensible socialist/liberal regulation of the banks. The US bailed out their banks which now makes you more socialist than Canada.

No, it's not "a failure of Conservative ideology." It was a regulatory failure, yes, and Canada had more sensible regulations that helped in weather the storm better than most countries. But that's an argument for a more sensible lending system (which would not have gone over well politically with the Democratic Party in America - no Democrat would have demanded that "poor people" have to make 20% downpayments to own a home), not an ideological argument about socialism versus the free market.

I'd love it if the US followed Canada's example - like cutting nearly 10% from the national budget - and not fake cuts to the rate of growth, but actual budget slashing cuts. That's far more bold than even the much-stereotyped Paul Ryan budget.

If Obama did something that bold, he'd be reelected in a landslide. But instead he's committed this country to more and more government growth and excess.

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?

You should start with the Dark Tower Series...

But avoid the Dark Tower Series.

demaL-demaL-yeH: (you know - when you measure overall prosperity, you have to account for the fact that 10% here hold more than 90% of the wealth),

Sure. AVERAGE standard of living is a dumb way of measuring it becasue coutries that produce hyper-wealthy in large numbers would skew the average, and countries that don't would also skew the average.

Do you have any numbers on median standard of living?

The first half of The Stand is alright, you will know when you have gone 50 pages to far.

mrshowrules: So stronger regulation of the banking sector is a Conservative policy? I have to call bullshiat on that one. I can't take you seriously if you truly believe this. Don't conflate political party with ideology. Randian/free market approach to the banking sector is the direct cause of the mortgage crisis.

The privatized monoliths of market-based policing, the credit ratings agencies, are spectacular examples of proving just how naive the Greenspan/free-market dogma really is. The entities' sole purpose was to bridge the information gap, which was assured to result in some sort of "rational self-interest" on the part of market participants, but instead the CRA industry as a whole became a giant farking excuse for participants to scoff off any sort of reasonable discretion.

The problem with free market ideologues is that they never seem to want to acknowledge that greed is an incredibly pervasive force, one which is able to manifest itself in capricious and devious ways. The great irony is that many of these same ideologues are the most vocal concerning the alleged treachery coming from segments of society who take advantage of the "system."

CrackpipeCardozo: The problem with free market ideologues is that they never seem to want to acknowledge that greed is an incredibly pervasive force, one which is able to manifest itself in capricious and devious ways. The great irony is that many of these same ideologues are the most vocal concerning the alleged treachery coming from segments of society who take advantage of the "system."

Not really irony so much as liars always assume everyone else is lying. People who would and do take advantage of the system assume everyone else is as bad as they are and doing the same.

CrackpipeCardozo: mrshowrules: So stronger regulation of the banking sector is a Conservative policy? I have to call bullshiat on that one. I can't take you seriously if you truly believe this. Don't conflate political party with ideology. Randian/free market approach to the banking sector is the direct cause of the mortgage crisis.

The privatized monoliths of market-based policing, the credit ratings agencies, are spectacular examples of proving just how naive the Greenspan/free-market dogma really is. The entities' sole purpose was to bridge the information gap, which was assured to result in some sort of "rational self-interest" on the part of market participants, but instead the CRA industry as a whole became a giant farking excuse for participants to scoff off any sort of reasonable discretion.

The problem with free market ideologues is that they never seem to want to acknowledge that greed is an incredibly pervasive force, one which is able to manifest itself in capricious and devious ways. The great irony is that many of these same ideologues are the most vocal concerning the alleged treachery coming from segments of society who take advantage of the "system."

When did the free market really ever get involved with this? I mean the availability of cheap credit that drove most of this was the direct result of the Fed manipulating interest rates to keep them artificially low. And certainly the bailing out of many of these banks instead of letting them crash so they never did it again is blatantly anti-free market.

EWreckedSean: When did the free market really ever get involved with this? I mean the availability of cheap credit that drove most of this was the direct result of the Fed manipulating interest rates to keep them artificially low.

Yeah, at the behest of none other than market ideologue Greenspan: Where once more marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed buy individual applicants and to price that risk accordingly.

Looking at this historical trend of Fed interest rates during the latter half of the 90's and throughout the 00's really seems to drive home the point I was making: that self-imposed due diligence is shucked aside the instant it becomes inconvenient.

winterwhile: Tyrone Slothrop: Weaver95: Corporate Self: I doubt winterwhile is going to let a little things like facts stand in the way of his DERP.

but how can someone say Obama's at fault for starting the war in Afghanistan when that simply isn't true? Obama wasn't president in 2001, he didn't start that war.

I don't understand how someone can just ignore reality like that. I mean ok, maybe if they were legitimately mentally ill then I could see it but...c'mon.

I think you answered your own question.

Humm

Bush started a drone war

Obama sent in our troups... to be targets

its really that simple

he lost the war, as well.

Either you suffered massive brain trauma four years ago and don't remember that Bush sent troops to Afghanistan, or you're a farkwit.

winterwhile: Tyrone Slothrop: Weaver95: Corporate Self: I doubt winterwhile is going to let a little things like facts stand in the way of his DERP.

but how can someone say Obama's at fault for starting the war in Afghanistan when that simply isn't true? Obama wasn't president in 2001, he didn't start that war.

I don't understand how someone can just ignore reality like that. I mean ok, maybe if they were legitimately mentally ill then I could see it but...c'mon.

I think you answered your own question.

Humm

Bush started a drone war

Obama sent in our troups... to be targets

its really that simple

he lost the war, as well.



Telling bold faced lies to people isn't normal, but on meth (and Fark) it is right?

\hot

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?

Got into this late...

For one thing, you need to realize King's lifestyle as his bibliography progressed. His pre-90s work was heavily steeped in cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. He can still write an amazing story, but there was a subtle difference in how stories from say, The Shining era differ from Duma Key or Cell.

First off: Ignore the movies. While Frank Darabondt does a good job of interpreting King's novels as films, there's a literary prose to stories like "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" that are lost in translation. It's a story I think will be in American lit classes in another 50 years next to Steinbeck and Faulkner.

Short story anthologies are also his best stuff. His son Joe Hill apparently got this gene, too, because the quality comparison is unreal. Night Shift is full of stuff you'll recognize, because it ended up on horror shows and so forth in the 70s and 80s, as well as "Children of the Corn," which was much better as a story than a film. Skeleton Crew branched him out a bit, doing more science fiction ("The Jaunt" is just good fun) and just gross-out speculative fiction ("Survivor Type"). King leans a lot on Gothic and Lovecraftian horror at times, so you'll catch

The Shining tends to be the gold standard King novel to start with. Pure horror, really put him on the map, and it's a damn good ghost story. Pet Sematary was the one that just touches on all the horror points - gross out, possession, child death, zombies, you name it. It's the one novel that friends/family consistently state they couldn't finish because it was just too much.

The Stand is, in my opinion, for King connoisseurs, because it's a huge investment of time and he does pull a deus ex machina at the end, which I think pissed a lot of people off. As a standard post-apocalyptic novel it ranks up there at the top, especially in the expanded version which included more of the general post-plague effects. See also Robert R. McCammon's "Swan Song," which was basically a homage to The Stand but with nukes instead of biological warfare.

King doesn't IMHO do enough science fiction, and while he often feels he sucks at it, they're all good reads. The Jaunt is good as I said earlier, The Tommyknockers is a good Body Snatchers/alien invasion read, even though it's silly science overall. "The End of the Whole Mess" was originally in Omni magazine, then republished in Nightmares and Dreamscapes.

I farking hated IT. I'm sure it's just me, I never had the fear of clowns, and the whole end conflict had me in a definite WTF mood. Everyone called it his magnum opus. I called it a paperweight. As one earlier poster said, I'm reading 11/23/63 now and it's excellent.

The Bachman Books are good just to see how he was early on, writing out of the normal King-expectation medium. The "Rage" story isn't in print anymore, but for an angry young man novel it was excellent despite all the copycat shootings it was tied to.

I quit the Dark Tower series after Wizards and Glass. I know I will get back into it, but I looked at that after one point as him doing it just to shut the fans up. I mean how much of an asshole can you be to write yourself into the book? I see the entire anthology as a sort of Piers Anthony parallel universe story, so it works to a degree, but by and large I found it boring after a bit. That's just me. I tried getting into the comic book series just to get some backstory, but I found that boring, too.

I also HIGHLY recommend Danse Macabre, if you can find it, which is his treatise on what motivated him to write horror, and also comprises an autobiographical/movie review style, where he takes some of the classics and dissects them. His anecdotes throughout are also entertaining.

Best of luck to you.