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.

•       •       •

9451 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2012 at 9:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML Show posts from ignored users
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

*wanders off to look at taxes on groceries and gas in Tennessee*

Hasn't saved me anything on that yet.

thenewmissus: OgreMagi: Silverstaff: Facts have a well documented Liberal bias.

Facts have NO FARKING BIAS. Anyone who thinks facts have a bias doesn't understand the definition of the word "fact". Facts are neutral.

THIS

The joke, you have missed it.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" was a joke originally done by Steven Colbert. It's often paraphrased to draw emphasis to how modern Republicans/Conservatives ignore facts and reality if it conflicts with their ideology (which is frequent).

Climatology stats say conclusively that global warming is occurring? Obvious liberal bias in that reality.

US Constitution, Treaty of Tripoli and quotes from the Founding Fathers all say the US wasn't founded to be a Christian Theocracy? Obvious liberal bias from those facts.

All legitimate academic biology research supports in evolution over creationism or "intelligent design"? Obvious liberal bias in those facts too.

Progressives, a.k.a. liberals use facts to support decision making.
Conservatives use dogma to support decision making, without regard to the facts.

FlashHarry: Krikkitbot: netizencain: In part, the tax decline was due to the dramatic decrease in average income that year.

This has nothing to do with Obama.

I was coming in to quote this from the FA.

Hey, you are paying less in taxes because you made less money this year, ain't Obama awesome?!

\That's called spin.

also FTA: But, the low rates also reflect measures the Obama administration took to mediate the impact of the recession, including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and other cuts bundled in the stimulus package. The lowest fifth of earners saw the most dramatic decrease, paying an average tax rate of 1 percent compared to 5.1 percent in 2007.

either way it flies in the face of the teabaggers' "taxed enough already" bullshiat.

Really? The work force participation rate is the lowest it's been in 30 years too and you people are going to try and spin this into more Obama worship? Look, I'm third party so I'm perfectly willing to admit that Obama inherited this crisis but for the same reason I'll tell you that his efforts to fix the economy have been a complete failure.

I don't know if Romney will fix anything but I do know Obama won't. He's had his chance and failed.

I'm not voting for either one of them either way.

Wyalt Derp: Nil Tu Aris: So we agree that lower taxes is generally a good thing then, right?

They're a good thing for economic growth, if you give them to people who will spend the extra money rather than hoard it.

But people who "hoard it" are usually looking for the best opportunity to invest it. Promising to tax them if they do so discourages investment. That's why we have a lot of cash sitting on the sidelines. We need a boost in consumer AND investor confidence. Taxing and spending like there's no tomorrow is not a good recipe to instill that confidence or for growth. Frankly, I don't care if Obama is the one who gets it right or if it takes a new administration but we need a turnaround in policy before we can get this economy back on track.

thenewmissus: Thunderpipes: kronicfeld: As the article makes clear, this is primarily due to the recession and declining incomes, not any specific policy of Obama's - and particularly not in 2009. But it gives lie to the line we've been hearing for over three years, specifically, that your taxes have gone up under Obama, that he's passed the largest tax hikes in history, etc.

If you work, and your income remains steady, it is true. Remember, Obamacare and the laws it puts in place will increase all kinds of taxes and introduce tons more. Why do you think he made sure it does not take effect until well after the election?

Making everyone poor then saying you lowered their taxes is pretty goddamn dumb. But, liberals fall for it.

Uh...no. But nice try.

3/10

Come on. You can do better than that.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

Economy is doing terribad, and it is only getting worse. Raising taxes on the evil rich, 53% of those being business owners, is not going to help the economy at all.

Just once, I would like a Democrat to actually reduce spending. We can't fix our issues with revenue. We need to drastically cut spending. Obama is not "saving" money when we will get 10 trillion in debt added during his tenure. Promising poor, dumb people free stuff gets Democrats votes. Just hurts the country.

Ofcourse, when 50% pay nothing it tends to skew the average... wait till the Obamacare taxes kick in

Deacon Blue: Krikkitbot: netizencain: In part, the tax decline was due to the dramatic decrease in average income that year.

This has nothing to do with Obama.

I was coming in to quote this from the FA.

Hey, you are paying less in taxes because you made less money this year, ain't Obama awesome?!

\That's called spin.

How did you make your slashie go the other way like that? / / / I can 't do it. //// // ? !%&^&*((^ How HOw!!????

Easy peasy, I turned my keyboard around.

| this is what happens when I have my keyboard at a 45 degree angle
|| it makes typing harder though
||| not as hard as when it's all the way around, though

GeneralJim: KimNorth: How did you post in green print??
By inserting the HTML code into the message. See how HERE. Get a chart of available colors HERE.

Now ask yourself, "Why would anyone want to post in another color other than to be an attention whore?"

TenJed_77: NewportBarGuy: cretinbob: //never mind the Bush policies that drove down average income, right?

Actually, it was Business School policies that drove down average income. They basically, over 30 years, eliminated pensions, moved most of the payroll to the executive side, and fired as many people as technology would allow.

What they've created is very profitable companies with as few workers as possible paid as little as possible we as few benefits as possible.

Unfortunately, given that we are a consumer-driven economy, this does not seem to be an economically viable situation.

Nice to see someone else has the same take on the situation as I do. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think this all started with that prick Reagan. Everything became schmooze and image.

Globalization and immigration led to the decline in wages of the working class.

Businesses ALWAYS sought to be as efficient as possible, weighing the benefit of reduced expenses with changes in quality to maximize profit. And rightly so. Nothing changed in the 1980s in this regard.

What did change is that globalization, and to a lesser extent increased immigration, provided businesses with greater opportunities to reduce costs.

dickfreckle: I also had a revelation about my parents, which became blatantly clear once Obama was elected but had brewing for years while FOX barked from a giant television in the living room.

This exact same thing happened to me. When I was growing up, I gained my open-mindedness and compassion from my parents, especially my Dad. In the last half-dozen years it's changed dramatically. Rush is always on the radio. Atlas Shrugged on the coffee table along w/ Palin, and other conservative authors. A teabag hangs from his rearview mirror, and he made his own sign for conservative rallies that says, "We Can't Afford Free Healthcare."

He used to listen to Bob and Tom, Prairie Home Companion, and Car Talk. He used to second-guess the news and helped show me how the media will twist stories, both MSNBC and FOX.

Obama could single-handedly cure every sickness on earth and he'd be pissed because doctors lost their jobs.

And where's my Mom? Right beside him at protests. I just don't get it.

Nil Tu Aris: Taxing and spending like there's no tomorrow is not a good recipe to instill that confidence or for growth.

You say that as though it's a thing that's actually happening in real life, instead of a silly catchphrase. In reality, taxes and spending have both been cut under this administration, so a "turnaround in policy" would see both go back up again.

NewportBarGuy: cretinbob: //never mind the Bush policies that drove down average income, right?

Actually, it was Business School policies that drove down average income. They basically, over 30 years, eliminated pensions, moved most of the payroll to the executive side, and fired as many people as technology would allow.

What they've created is very profitable companies with as few workers as possible paid as little as possible we as few benefits as possible.

Unfortunately, given that we are a consumer-driven economy, this does not seem to be an economically viable situation.

knows how you feel

cc_rider: You could block that person, OR you could debunk to them that pile of bullshiat with help from the National Archives website which has indexes of all Executive orders from 1937 to the present.

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

Will do.

Wyalt Derp: Nil Tu Aris: Taxing and spending like there's no tomorrow is not a good recipe to instill that confidence or for growth.

You say that as though it's a thing that's actually happening in real life, instead of a silly catchphrase. In reality, taxes and spending have both been cut under this administration, so a "turnaround in policy" would see both go back up again.

I'm glad we're in agreement that cutting taxes and cutting spending are good things to help the economy. Now, about that your suggestion to the effect that taxes are going down and spending is not going up.... I would think some facts would be in order to support that conclusion.

Apparently a lot of people are idiots. Tea Party and Occupy are two different things. Occupy was about taxes and such. The Tea Party is about REFORMING GOVERNMENT, a.k.a. voting everyone out and starting over.

Nil Tu Aris: I'm glad we're in agreement that cutting taxes and cutting spending are good things to help the economy. Now, about that your suggestion to the effect that taxes are going down and spending is not going up.... I would think some facts would be in order to support that conclusion.

Spending: Let me google that for you: So, using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

By the way, I don't think we agreed any such thing. I'm extremely uninterested in bad-faith arguing. Good day, sir.

I basically came here to call this BS. My effective tax rate was between 6.8% and 7.58% during the Bush years. In fact, 2007 I paid 6.8%. I have seen a steady rise in my effective rate since Obama took power and last year paid an effective rate of 12.65% (the highest I have ever paid). (FYI, my AGI is WELL BELOW $250k). JMan245: Apparently a lot of people are idiots. Tea Party and Occupy are two different things. Occupy was about taxes and such. The Tea Party is about REFORMING GOVERNMENT, a.k.a. voting everyone out and starting over. Like the man said upthread, the Taxed Enough Already party totally isn't about taxes. I think this whole thread is the largest amount of stupid that I have ever seen. dragonchild: whidbey: We get it. He's balck. Balck? It's the vodak Thunderpipes: Just once, I would like a Democrat to actually reduce spending. We can't fix our issues with revenue. We need to drastically cut spending. Obama is not "saving" money when we will get 10 trillion in debt added during his tenure. Promising poor, dumb people free stuff gets Democrats votes. Just hurts the country. Yeah, he's a big spender. And that Clinton guy, what a spendaholic he was. Shut up, you farking ass. FlashHarry: hey, look - more facts that completely refute what republicans claim! Utterly false. The effective income tax rate was lower because not having a job = 0% effective income tax rate. The tax rate went up, the number of people with jobs went down. Apparently the people running the Slate are the same people who don't know what a profit margin is. If I hear "record profits" one more time... /for those too stupid to know already, with inflation being a constant and real thing means you'll always have record profit and record sales, because money is worth less what it used to be GAT_00: Where is your Tea Party now? Hiding in their corner with their fingers shoved in their ears screaming for Fox to come save them from the evil facts. Just like how Al Gore's chart "proved" global warming, but everyone who actual knew how to read charts knew he was reading it wrong? Taxes were lower because an extra 4% of the country wasn't working. Durrrr. kronicfeld: As the article makes clear, this is primarily due to the recession and declining incomes, not any specific policy of Obama's - and particularly not in 2009. But it gives lie to the line we've been hearing for over three years, specifically, that your taxes have gone up under Obama, that he's passed the largest tax hikes in history, etc. Oh, was Obamacare in effect in 2009? /lulz netizencain: GAT_00: netizencain: 2006 High gas prices? You hate Bush? It's Bush's fault 2011 High gas prices? You love Obama? The President doesn't control that. It worries me that you actually might have that simplistic view of the world. I didn't say that's how I view the world. Its how many people view things. My taxes are lower, it must be Obama. I don't have a job, it must be Obama. People like simple justifications AI pretty graphs with no context. It make it easier for them. Your taxes are lower because you don't have a job. Obama takes credit for giving you a tax cut! Xyling: Average tax rate? When incomes go down, you drop into a lower bracket. Of course the tax rates on average will be lower. Those unemployed people are even luckier, their tax rate is 0%! Took this far to find an intelligent poster. Sad. untaken_name: I'm not attempting to hide anything. You're the moron who's implying that because the wealthy own more now than they ever have, that's why they pay a larger portion of taxes. But the truth is that the top 10% of taxpayers has ALWAYS paid a larger portion of taxes. From the time the income tax was instituted, the top 10% of taxpayers has invariably paid the largest portion of taxes. This was true even when the tax was only levied on the top 1% of income earners. So how is the fact that they pay a larger portion of taxes at all germane to the fact that they control more now than they ever have? They have always paid a larger portion of taxes. Yes, the ultra-rich are using the ignorance of the masses to effect a massive wealth transfer the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1930s. But that has nothing at all to do with the portion of taxes they pay, and everything to do with the usurious practices of our banks, other financial institutions, and governments. You ramble a hell of a lot. The wealthy few have always controlled the majority of the wealth, so of course they are always going to pay a majority of taxes, even when their taxes are at the lowest point during this era. Who do you think pushes banks and other financial institutions to be unscrupulous? THE WEALTHY Go back to the gym in 26 minutes, they won't sleep with you Debeo Summa Credo: Businesses ALWAYS sought to be as efficient as possible, weighing the benefit of reduced expenses with changes in quality to maximize profit. And rightly so. Nothing changed in the 1980s in this regard. False Businesses were granted corporate charters and requested renewals based on the work they were doing to benefit the communities they served in. This changed in the modern era, where people were brainwashed into viewing corporations as a way to enrich their pocket books at the expense of society. Debeo Summa Credo: What did change is that globalization, and to a lesser extent increased immigration, provided businesses with greater opportunities to reduce costs. That is true, corporations were given the option of wage slavery with citizens too poor to have any other choices in 3rd world shiat holes Bullseyed: Your taxes are lower because you don't have a job. Obama takes credit for giving you a tax cut! Bullseyed: Xyling: Average tax rate? When incomes go down, you drop into a lower bracket. Of course the tax rates on average will be lower. Those unemployed people are even luckier, their tax rate is 0%! Took this far to find an intelligent poster. Sad. Bullseyed: Taxes were lower because an extra 4% of the country wasn't working. Durrrr. But, the low rates also reflect measures the Obama administration took to mediate the impact of the recession, including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and other cuts bundled in the stimulus package. I'm not voting for Obama for this reason. We have mountains of debt. We are losing public services left and right. Yet, raising taxes is off the table. It's stupid. And, Obama has failed every chance he's had to raise more money. browntimmy: Actually you shouldn't be wasting your time watching any of the 24 hour news networks. Unless you're an idiot who thinks watching shows that are 90% commentary by someone with below average to average intelligence counts as news. Good call. BUT, the point was how to avoid a bias if you WERE glued into that. Keeping one's intelligence as high as it once was is a whole separate issue. I like various science documentaries, when the stations involved aren't running those asinine reality shows. What are there, five or six reality shows about various pawn shops? Holy crap! Maybe grandma was right: TV WILL suck out your brains... The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm not voting for Obama for this reason. We have mountains of debt. We are losing public services left and right. Yet, raising taxes is off the table. It's stupid. And, Obama has failed every chance he's had to raise more money. It's off the table because Republicans will do everything to stop it from happening. They forced Democrats to accept the lower tax rate for a year to get their unemployment extension passed. Right now, Obama is campaigning on it, and he hopes people wake up and vote more Republicans out of office. This is a stupid thing to get mad at Obama about. GeneralJim: I like various science documentaries What happens when they start talking about global warming? Do they suck your brains out? The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm not voting for Obama for this reason. We have mountains of debt. We are losing public services left and right. Yet, raising taxes is off the table. It's stupid. And, Obama has failed every chance he's had to raise more money. ...and Romney is the better choice? MrHappyRotter: This is absolutely untrue. There was one year when Bush was in office that I owed taxes at the end of the year. But since Obama's been in office, I've had to pay extra on my taxes EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So you are a bad planner, or you need a better tax adviser. Not anyone's problem but yours. \as repuglicans like to remind us \maybe willard romney can help \he has friends \in the caymans \and switzerland \and bermuda machone: I basically came here to call this BS. My effective tax rate was between 6.8% and 7.58% during the Bush years. In fact, 2007 I paid 6.8%. I have seen a steady rise in my effective rate since Obama took power and last year paid an effective rate of 12.65% (the highest I have ever paid). (FYI, my AGI is WELL BELOW$250k).

And how much did your income go up during that time?

intelligent comment below:
GeneralJim: I like various science documentaries

What happens when they start talking about global warming? Do they suck your brains out?

I'm pretty sure that's not possible, although TeleTubbies makes a good effort. Most of them are interesting, and it's pretty clear that they have an agenda, and know that the show is dishonest. But, some of them are EXCELLENT.

dickfreckle:
FOX is demonstrably, vehemently biased. Farking Helen Keller would see it after 90 seconds of random viewing. CNN is demonstrably vapid and worthless, but not liberal..

Well, you're a leftist know-nothing, so your being wrong on this is not surprising. Peer-reviewed research says you're wrong. Specifically:
The research concluded that of the major 20 news outlets studied "18 scored left of the average U.S. voter, with CBS Evening News, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal, while only the Fox News "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

The study is referenced in the Wikipedia entry Media bias in the United States. You might try reading it to get your tiny mind out of it's itty-bitty rut. Or, read the QUOTED PAPER ITSELF.

fragMasterFlash:
GeneralJim: THIS is where our economic troubles need to be corrected -- in the spending end of things.

Good thing we aren't spending a metric asstonne of money on prisons for drug offenders and funding two wars in the middle east. Oh wait...

Exactly. I DID mention the bloated military and its adventurism in my post... But, in this one, I did not mention jails, so...

Remove all laws for victimless crimes. Legalize all drugs, and tax them based upon their damage to society. (Marijuana would probably be tax-free.) Have the government produce ACCURATE descriptions of the drugs and their effects.

Let all people jailed for drug use offenses out, period. Re-evaluate those in jail for drug sales or production. Those who acted sociopathically (with no concern for others) should be kept in jail, all others released.

NewportBarGuy:
GeneralJim: THIS is where our economic troubles need to be corrected -- in the spending end of things.

Please, for the love of Christ, don't ever speak of economic matters from this day forward. Take up macramé or something. You have no f*cking idea what you are talking about and should really move on to a subject you can grasp. Try sports! You call call into sports radio and scream about how some team sucks. You'll love it.

Thanks for your understanding. I'm not calling you stupid, you just choose to talk about a subject you have no idea about. It happens all the time. You'll get over it.

As if you had room to talk. So, you can look at this, and say "Meh, no problem. Spending graphs ALWAYS go asymptotic after a while..."

Clearly, we're not spending too much...

Mr.Man:
Corporate welfare,farm subsidies Jim.These are the real problems,not helping the poor live.

Both corporate welfare and farm subsidies should end. But, if they were totally eliminated today, the overall picture wouldn't change much. Most of the money spent is spent on, in order, largest first: 1. Medicare/Medicaid 2. Military 3. Social Security 4. "Safety Net" programs, including Food Stamps 5. Interest on the national debt.

EVERYTHING ELSE is less than 2% of the budget. Those five are where the money is being spent. The cuts that matter are on the big ticket items.

Here's how the chartmaker divides things:

intelligent comment below:
GeneralJim: Dan Rather is the epitome of that -- standing behind a known forgery, because it made an anti-Bush point.

Dan Rather's report was 100% correct

Bush was MIA for months after he was supposed to report for duty in Arkansas.

Again, this was investigated and found to be false. That's what you get when you are fine with using forged documents to prove a point.

Now GWB (and lots of OTHER kids of powerful people) DID get a lot of excused time off. That's a separate issue. But GWB got time off, through channels, to "help his dad." Kids from rich and/or powerful families get lots of breaks others don't get. It isn't limited to GWB, or Republicans, for that matter.

But, even if GWB had been AWOL, (not MIA, dumbass) it is NOT okay to make your point with a forged document. That I have to explain this to you is indicative of the problems you have... AND it makes you a prime candidate for the DNC, so you've got THAT going for you.

intelligent comment below:
GeneralJim: THIS is where our economic troubles need to be corrected -- in the spending end of things.

I love how you factor in business bailouts, tax cuts, as part of the spending equation, but seem to completely ignore the line called revenue that keeps dropping and dropping except for some made up "projected" increase

That's right, you drooling halfwit, because revenue has NOT been brought down by changing formulae, it has been brought down by most people making less money, and therefore paying fewer taxes. Revenue is fine -- when the economy picks up, it will rise dramatically. What is outrageous is the MASSIVE increase in spending. You know, you should just STFU. You don't know a damned thing, and keep blathering about irrelevancies.

untaken_name:
intelligent comment below: MyRandomName: So the rich are paying a larger portion of taxes than recent history... tax them more!

The depression wiped out wealth for 80% of Americans. Of course the wealthy with their huge piece of the pie are going to show a bigger portion of taxes paid because of that.

If there was ever a more ironic fark handle, I've not seen it. What's bigger, 1% of 1,000,000 or 90% of 100? The answer may help you to understand why the wealthy typically do pay a larger portion of taxes.

Yep, it's ironic, all right. But, I think it means that below HIS drivel, you'll often find an intelligent comment.

eggrolls:
FDR's massive deficit spending ended the Great Depression.

It's that simple.

FDR's massive deficit spending turned a regular recession into the Great Depression. Obama is following in his footsteps.

Silverstaff:
Climatology stats say conclusively that global warming is occurring? Obvious liberal bias in that reality.

Warming is occurring. Almost none of it is due to humans. The current multi-hundred year warming is a recovery from the little ice age, and started BEFORE the industrial revolution, so cannot be caused by it.

When scientists take MEASUREMENTS of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, they find that DOUBLING the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will raise the temperatures, but only by 0.48K to 1.10K, with 95% certainty. Trying to make that look like a disaster is where the bias lies.

Silverstaff:
Progressives, a.k.a. liberals use facts to support decision making.
Conservatives use dogma to support decision making, without regard to the facts.

As you have conclusively shown here, both sides use facts to support decision making, but progressives don't care if THEIR facts have been proven to be false.

Wyalt Derp:
In reality, taxes and spending have both been cut under this administration, so a "turnaround in policy" would see both go back up again.

See how taxes have been "cut?"
One needs to be a complete tool to believe that.

Fluorescent Testicle: xen0blue: it's ignorant, stereotyping assholes like you who calls anyone who disagrees with them a racist who are the bigot

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x391]

[action.naacp.org image 550x400]

[mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com image 494x371]

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 550x400]

[farm4.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

/Disagreeing with me does not make them racist, being racist makes them racist.
//Intolerance of intolerance is not bigotry, it's sanity.

Half of those aren't even racist (unless you want them to be) and those few select ones that are don't represent the entire tea party movement. I can show you a democratic rally with black panthers protesting, or a OWS protest with communist signs, that doesn't mean everyone in OWS agrees with them or everyone in the democratic party agrees with the black panthers. You can't throw a blanked over everyone and say "they are ALL like that". That's ignorance.

thenewmissus: OgreMagi: Silverstaff: Facts have a well documented Liberal bias.

Facts have NO FARKING BIAS. Anyone who thinks facts have a bias doesn't understand the definition of the word "fact". Facts are neutral.

THIS

Um,

all facts have a sight bias: observer bias.

;)

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest