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.

(FactCheck)   The last time US taxes were lower than today post-it notes didn't exist, Three Mile Island was working perfectly and there was a peanut farmer in the White House   (factcheck.org) divider line 147
    More: Ironic, Three Mile Island, White House, excise taxes, income taxes, tax rates, corporate income tax, median household income  
•       •       •

1280 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jul 2012 at 10:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-07-12 09:22:26 AM
And we are blaming Bush again !!!
 
2012-07-12 10:21:53 AM

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!


Yeah, but but but 47% of the country pays NO taxes (omission of other adjectives intended) and the wealthy pay too much!
 
2012-07-12 10:23:13 AM
Jimmy Carter ran a small business where he grew peanuts and sold them for a profit. What a maroon!

/strangest criticism
 
2012-07-12 10:23:16 AM
You mean to tell me that the Democrats caved to Republican's "GOVERNMENT BAD CUT ALL TAXES" then get blamed when the shiat doesn't work?
 
2012-07-12 10:23:24 AM
We should just get rid of taxes.

For freedom.
 
2012-07-12 10:24:08 AM
Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!


People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.
 
2012-07-12 10:24:28 AM
So what you're saying is...Obama doesn't care about people with peanut allergies?
 
2012-07-12 10:24:36 AM
TAXED TOO MUCH ALREADY!!!

factcheck.org
 
2012-07-12 10:25:02 AM

quatchi: People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.


Also, once the Republicans stop running on his policies.
 
2012-07-12 10:26:25 AM

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!


Do you plan to stop blaming Hitler for the Holocaust?
 
2012-07-12 10:27:37 AM

hugram: chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

Do you plan to stop blaming Hitler for the Holocaust?


Overzealous staffer.
 
2012-07-12 10:27:43 AM

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!



Let's agree not to mention any facts from other presidencies. Obama has the lowest unemployment numbers EVER!
 
2012-07-12 10:32:50 AM

quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.


So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.
 
2012-07-12 10:33:32 AM
I'm pretty sure Three Mile Island is working perfectly now.
 
2012-07-12 10:34:48 AM

theknuckler_33: I'm pretty sure Three Mile Island is working perfectly now.


Oops. Nix that.

TMI's Unit 2 reactor has been shut down since the partial meltdown in 1979
 
2012-07-12 10:35:14 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.


Well then, good news! We can easily devise a plan that lets the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, while keeping them for everyone else!

Oh wait; that's what Obama's plan does.
 
2012-07-12 10:36:53 AM
IN BEFORE ENVIRODUDE SHOWS UP TO shiat EVERYWHERE.
 
2012-07-12 10:37:33 AM
In my home town, one of the TEA party types ended up as county executive, and tried to float the idea of selling off major parts of town---like the garbage dump---because of the usual TEA party line about how everything is too big and too complicated and too expensive and too waah.

When this was reported in the newspaper, the comment board was flooded with fellow TEA partiers, who said we can't have these things anymore because we can't pay for it all, and society has to learn to live with fewer trappings of civilization. No work about how all previous generations of Americans somehow managed.

This will not be the generation that brings us back to the moon. I find it odd that they dress up in revolutionary garb, when they seem to be the least interested in having a country or otherwise living up to the responsibilities of American citizenship.
 
2012-07-12 10:38:13 AM
Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.
 
2012-07-12 10:40:44 AM

Xcott: In my home town, one of the TEA party types ended up as county executive, and tried to float the idea of selling off major parts of town---like the garbage dump---because of the usual TEA party line about how everything is too big and too complicated and too expensive and too waah.

When this was reported in the newspaper, the comment board was flooded with fellow TEA partiers, who said we can't have these things anymore because we can't pay for it all, and society has to learn to live with fewer trappings of civilization. No work about how all previous generations of Americans somehow managed.

This will not be the generation that brings us back to the moon. I find it odd that they dress up in revolutionary garb, when they seem to be the least interested in having a country or otherwise living up to the responsibilities of American citizenship.


I'm curious what the Tea Partiers think happens to their garbage if and when they sell off the town dump.
 
2012-07-12 10:41:10 AM
"Today" apparently means December 31, 2009
 
2012-07-12 10:41:32 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


The same could be said for you my friend.
 
2012-07-12 10:41:41 AM

skullkrusher: "Today" apparently means December 31, 2009


That was one hell of a party.
 
2012-07-12 10:42:30 AM

qorkfiend: quatchi: People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

Also, once the Republicans stop running on his policies.


You mean like Mittens who's entire financial team consists of BushCo retreads?

Good point.
 
2012-07-12 10:42:41 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


By "freeze spending," do you mean pay everyone zero dollars for three years?

Maybe the private sector can pitch in by doing the same with all of their employees too. Then the economy will be in great shape.
 
2012-07-12 10:43:14 AM

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: "Today" apparently means December 31, 2009

That was one hell of a party.


Which increases are in effect now vice 2009?
 
2012-07-12 10:43:17 AM

qorkfiend: Xcott: In my home town, one of the TEA party types ended up as county executive, and tried to float the idea of selling off major parts of town---like the garbage dump---because of the usual TEA party line about how everything is too big and too complicated and too expensive and too waah.

When this was reported in the newspaper, the comment board was flooded with fellow TEA partiers, who said we can't have these things anymore because we can't pay for it all, and society has to learn to live with fewer trappings of civilization. No work about how all previous generations of Americans somehow managed.

This will not be the generation that brings us back to the moon. I find it odd that they dress up in revolutionary garb, when they seem to be the least interested in having a country or otherwise living up to the responsibilities of American citizenship.

I'm curious what the Tea Partiers think happens to their garbage if and when they sell off the town dump.


The invisable hand of the free market will get rid of it. DUH!
 
2012-07-12 10:43:27 AM

quatchi: qorkfiend: quatchi: People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

Also, once the Republicans stop running on his policies.

You mean like Mittens who's entire financial team consists of BushCo retreads?

Good point.


Also Mitt's entire foreign policy team. Those are two areas where we should definitely revisit the early 2000s.
 
2012-07-12 10:43:44 AM

lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.


So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?
 
2012-07-12 10:45:48 AM
Well good news, there is a process in which you can raise taxes back to what they were 12 years ago. Dont do nutt'n. Absolutly nutt'n.
 
2012-07-12 10:46:24 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


mmhmmm.
 
2012-07-12 10:46:42 AM
Is today the day we trust FactCheck?
 
2012-07-12 10:47:56 AM

meat0918: Is today the day we trust FactCheck?


I don't know are you a lib or a con?
 
2012-07-12 10:48:46 AM

meat0918: Is today the day we trust FactCheck?


FactCheck != PolitiFact
 
2012-07-12 10:49:44 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".


Now you're getting it.

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.

Letting the tax cuts on the richest expire and letting the tax cuts on the MC be extended *is* still a giveaway to the rich and that's where I'd prefer to see it go but if it takes getting rid of all of them to get rid of the absolutely indefensible Bush tax cuts for the wealthy then yeah, I'm cool.

Did you ever manage to come up an argument in favor of increased wealth inequality like I asked you yesterday?

Didn't see it if you did.
 
2012-07-12 10:49:55 AM

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.

Well then, good news! We can easily devise a plan that lets the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, while keeping them for everyone else!

Oh wait; that's what Obama's plan does.


Or we could just let them all expire! We still stick it to the rich, because after all the original tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy (at least that's what liberals said and still say, and they're really smart and don't lie or exaggerate, so you know it's true) plus we'd raise $4t in revenue over the next 10 years as opposed to the $700b we would if only allowing cuts for incomes greater than $250k to expire.
 
2012-07-12 10:50:41 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


Soooooo, you're a liberal?
 
2012-07-12 10:52:06 AM

quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.


I take it you didn't see this chart in the article.

factcheck.org
 
2012-07-12 10:53:08 AM
thinkprogress.org
 
2012-07-12 10:53:56 AM

Xcott: lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.

By "freeze spending," do you mean pay everyone zero dollars for three years?

Maybe the private sector can pitch in by doing the same with all of their employees too. Then the economy will be in great shape.


No, I mean keep spending at the same levels with no increases.
 
2012-07-12 10:54:44 AM

Xcott: lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.

By "freeze spending," do you mean pay everyone zero dollars for three years?

Maybe the private sector can pitch in by doing the same with all of their employees too. Then the economy will be in great shape.


No, he means "freeze spending at current levels" for 3 years. Which is an awesome idea, because inflation never turns a dollar into 95 cents after 3 years.

We could also try various ways of bumping tax receipts back up to the historical average of 19% of GDP, instead of keeping them around 14% (where they've been since 2006). Perhaps letting recent rate cuts affecting the most affluent earners expire would be some small measure to increase revenue received by the Feds while not appreciably affecting consumers' ability to spend.

But that sounds like Naziism, which makes our Founding Father Ayn Rand cry Galtian tears while spinning in his grave.
 
2012-07-12 10:55:06 AM

Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?


Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.
 
2012-07-12 10:57:47 AM
Considering SS, property, HC (it's a tax ya know) and state taxes we most assuredly are taxed enough already.
 
2012-07-12 10:58:24 AM

lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.


lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.


Some also pointed out that you don't understand inflation and the fact that $1 will not equal $1 in 2015.

And you think I don't understand basic economics? Talk about the pot calling the kettle Blargh...
 
2012-07-12 11:00:36 AM

Vegetable Medley: qorkfiend: skullkrusher: "Today" apparently means December 31, 2009

That was one hell of a party.

Which increases are in effect now vice 2009?


there don't have to have been any direct increases to make the effective rate higher today than it was at the end of 2009. First of all, that includes the credits and rebates from the stimulus which are no longer available. The chart also ends when we were still very much feeling the effects of the financial collapse and 2009 represented the height of that impact in terms of employment.
 
2012-07-12 11:01:54 AM

qorkfiend: I'm curious what the Tea Partiers think happens to their garbage if and when they sell off the town dump.


I know one that sees no problem with simply dumping his trash in the woods in back of his house. That includes used oil, batteries, and coolant from the car. It includes all kinds of plastics and polymers. He thinks that trash collection is a waste of taxpayer money. I asked him where city dwellers should put their trash, since most of them own a negligible amount of land at best. He said they should find a landowner that will allow them to dump it, of course a fee would be involved, to be determined by the free market. I asked what about those that don't have a truck that can haul it, or simply don't want to turn their vehicle into a garbage truck. He said that someone would start a business where you pay them to take it away, and they in turn pay someone to dump it on their land. I asked what about the people that can't afford the rate that is determined by free market. He said that they can figure it out for themselves. I asked him if he didn't realize that leaving rotting trash and hazardous chemicals all over, and burning plastics and used tires in the middle of a city, and other things that will surely happen, have negative externalities. He asked me what that meant.

These people really believe that unrestricted free market will solve all the issues we face in modern society. They believe that the hand of the market is godlike, and to interfere with it in any way is socialism, which is of course evil.
 
2012-07-12 11:02:28 AM
What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."
 
2012-07-12 11:02:35 AM

quatchi: Debeo Summa Credo: So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

Now you're getting it.

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.

Letting the tax cuts on the richest expire and letting the tax cuts on the MC be extended *is* still a giveaway to the rich and that's where I'd prefer to see it go but if it takes getting rid of all of them to get rid of the absolutely indefensible Bush tax cuts for the wealthy then yeah, I'm cool.

Did you ever manage to come up an argument in favor of increased wealth inequality like I asked you yesterday?

Didn't see it if you did.


What makes you think I'm in favor of increasing wealth inequality?

And if the original bush tax cuts were indefensible giveaways to the wealthy that increased wealth inequality, then letting them
expire would be be taking those giveaways back, reducing wealth inequality.

But glad to see you're on board with letting all the tax cuts expire. I'll put you on my distribution list. Would you prefer we rip off the bandaid and let them all expire as scheduled on 1/1 of next year or should we phase them out over time. Phasing them out might be beneficial economically in the short term, but it'd require a lot of political bullshiat whereas just letting them expire would just involve Obama sitting on his hands after he's re-elected.
 
2012-07-12 11:04:15 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


The debt would not be so high if conservatives like Reagan and Bush II didn't spend like drunken sailors. Did you know that Bush didn't even conduct his wars-based-on-lies on the books?
 
2012-07-12 11:06:20 AM

Jackpot777: What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."


I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value. The one below is the one where they are engaged in a coverup to protect Mittens from prosecution.
 
2012-07-12 11:07:24 AM

Mrtraveler01: lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

Some also pointed out that you don't understand inflation and the fact that $1 will not equal $1 in 2015.

And you think I don't understand basic economics? Talk about the pot calling the kettle Blargh...


You honestly think the inflation in 3 years would make this impossible. You are just reaching now. Shows how greedy liberals are. They can't even stop INCREASES for 3 years to balance the budget. Guess y'all need the money to buy the votes of welfare queens and illiterate, criminal immigrants.
 
2012-07-12 11:08:27 AM

skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.


Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.
 
2012-07-12 11:08:32 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.

Well then, good news! We can easily devise a plan that lets the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, while keeping them for everyone else!

Oh wait; that's what Obama's plan does.

Or we could just let them all expire! We still stick it to the rich, because after all the original tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy (at least that's what liberals said and still say, and they're really smart and don't lie or exaggerate, so you know it's true) plus we'd raise $4t in revenue over the next 10 years as opposed to the $700b we would if only allowing cuts for incomes greater than $250k to expire.


Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now.
 
2012-07-12 11:10:11 AM

qorkfiend: Xcott: In my home town, one of the TEA party types ended up as county executive, and tried to float the idea of selling off major parts of town---like the garbage dump---because of the usual TEA party line about how everything is too big and too complicated and too expensive and too waah.

When this was reported in the newspaper, the comment board was flooded with fellow TEA partiers, who said we can't have these things anymore because we can't pay for it all, and society has to learn to live with fewer trappings of civilization. No work about how all previous generations of Americans somehow managed.

This will not be the generation that brings us back to the moon. I find it odd that they dress up in revolutionary garb, when they seem to be the least interested in having a country or otherwise living up to the responsibilities of American citizenship.

I'm curious what the Tea Partiers think happens to their garbage if and when they sell off the town dump.


It will play out like a Simpsons episode.
 
2012-07-12 11:10:12 AM

lordaction: Guess y'all need the money to buy the votes of welfare queens and illiterate, criminal immigrants.


Well it's either that or buy the votes of the wealthy and powerful.
 
2012-07-12 11:10:57 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.


"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.
 
2012-07-12 11:12:38 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


i301.photobucket.com

Because when I want to know what the Liberals really think, I go to a person that has no idea of how a Liberal thinks and acts like the internet equivelent of an abusive husband.

Shouldn't you be complaining about sodomy, lordaction? You do it so often.
 
2012-07-12 11:13:49 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value. The one below is the one where they are engaged in a coverup to protect Mittens from prosecution.


No, it's in the right thread.

i301.photobucket.com

Do you ever get anything right, even accidentally?
 
2012-07-12 11:14:49 AM

Cataholic: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

I take it you didn't see this chart in the article.


So they're still playing lower rates than 30 years ago. Also we all know that TEA party members are part of the 1% income bracket.
 
2012-07-12 11:16:10 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.


Teabaggers have been claiming since he was elected that Obama is the worst ever when it comes to tax rates. This is the latest available data from the CBO, and it shows they were wrong. Is there evidence that tax rates increased in 2010 or 2011?
 
2012-07-12 11:17:50 AM

qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now


Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.
 
2012-07-12 11:18:29 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.


So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.
 
2012-07-12 11:19:28 AM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value. The one below is the one where they are engaged in a coverup to protect Mittens from prosecution.

No, it's in the right thread.

[i301.photobucket.com ...


You posted a comment with a link to "No Evidence" which refers to Romney's response to the Bain accusations in a thread about tax rates when the thread right below this one is about the Bain accusations... yeah, I think I got it right.
 
2012-07-12 11:20:10 AM

qorkfiend: Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.


Oh my the group that pays the most gets the most for an relative equal % cut across board gets the most...... Rick is that you?
 
2012-07-12 11:22:30 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.

Oh my the group that pays the most gets the most for an relative equal % cut across board gets the most...... Rick is that you?


Yes. Overwhelming benefit. 1% gets 25%, 99% gets 75%. Is this really that difficult to understand?
 
2012-07-12 11:22:52 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

Teabaggers have been claiming since he was elected that Obama is the worst ever when it comes to tax rates. This is the latest available data from the CBO, and it shows they were wrong. Is there evidence that tax rates increased in 2010 or 2011?


so it is a retroactive response to teabagger claims from 2009?

It's just that the a piece titled "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" published on July 11, 2012 should contain data from 1982-2012, especially when TFA references the impacts of the recession and the stimulus tax breaks, dontcha think?
 
2012-07-12 11:24:06 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Or we could just let them all expire! We still stick it to the rich, because after all the original tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy (at least that's what liberals said and still say, and they're really smart and don't lie or exaggerate, so you know it's true) plus we'd raise $4t in revenue over the next 10 years as opposed to the $700b we would if only allowing cuts for incomes greater than $250k to expire.


And as I said yesterday, we could close the budget hole even quicker if we taxed everyone 100%, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Letting the rates expire on the lower brackets returns money to more people who can use it well (in terms of stimulative effect). Letting the rates expire for everyone, while it might help the country's bottom line, it'll hurt the bottom lines of people who are barely treading water already and really can't handle you tossing them a brick. Keeping the rates for everyone is part of what got us into the budgetary hole in the first place.

// oh, and your last comment from yesterday ignored the last point I made
// I was talking about providing a benefit to more people, not that more money comes back
// germane to this discussion, too
 
2012-07-12 11:25:03 AM

qorkfiend: Yes. Overwhelming benefit. 1% gets 25%, 99% gets 75%. Is this really that difficult to understand


When I look at the delta on the change in effective taxes I see the tax cuts to overwelmingly benefit the middleclass.
 
2012-07-12 11:26:31 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

Teabaggers have been claiming since he was elected that Obama is the worst ever when it comes to tax rates. This is the latest available data from the CBO, and it shows they were wrong. Is there evidence that tax rates increased in 2010 or 2011?

so it is a retroactive response to teabagger claims from 2009?

It's just that the a piece titled "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" published on July 11, 2012 should contain data from 1982-2012, especially when TFA references the impacts of the recession and the stimulus tax breaks, dontcha think?


Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."
 
2012-07-12 11:28:53 AM

lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

Some also pointed out that you don't understand inflation and the fact that $1 will not equal $1 in 2015.

And you think I don't understand basic economics? Talk about the pot calling the kettle Blargh...

You honestly think the inflation in 3 years would make this impossible. You are just reaching now. Shows how greedy liberals are. They can't even stop INCREASES for 3 years to balance the budget. Guess y'all need the money to buy the votes of welfare queens and illiterate, criminal immigrants.


Are you a troll? I'm confused. The first hit for a search for "three year spending free" is Obama proposing a plan to freeze spending.

www.picsthatdontsuck.com
 
2012-07-12 11:29:03 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.

Oh my the group that pays the most gets the most for an relative equal % cut across board gets the most...... Rick is that you?


Pays the most =\ greatest percentage of their income going towards taxes.
 
2012-07-12 11:30:41 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.


If we used that quasi-logic (it happened in the past, let it go) as a metric for anything, we'd never prosecute anyone for crimes.

Newsflash, poppet: every conversation, every data set, is from the past.

What: you think they're going to have full data for Fiscal Year 2012? We're still in it. You think they're going to have full date For Fiscal Year 2011? People are only getting the raw data for that now for certain things like colleges. It hasn't been collated yet. So the earliest year we have FOR collated data right now for something as large as the whole nation IS for F.Y. 2009, you dolt!

We don't have a crystal ball to see the future, or a bigger government department to disseminate the information. THAT'S HOW THE PASSAGE OF TIME WORKS IN THIS REALITY. You don't want to see it as a problem, because you know it IS a problem when you apply reality to it.

Cry moar.
 
2012-07-12 11:30:45 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yes. Overwhelming benefit. 1% gets 25%, 99% gets 75%. Is this really that difficult to understand

When I look at the delta on the change in effective taxes I see the tax cuts to overwelmingly benefit the middleclass.


That's funny. Surely it would be trivial to provide some evidence that supports this assertion?
 
2012-07-12 11:31:00 AM

Saiga410: meat0918: Is today the day we trust FactCheck?

I don't know are you a lib or a con?


I am a jelly doughnut.
 
2012-07-12 11:32:18 AM

DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."


and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now
 
2012-07-12 11:32:21 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

Teabaggers have been claiming since he was elected that Obama is the worst ever when it comes to tax rates. This is the latest available data from the CBO, and it shows they were wrong. Is there evidence that tax rates increased in 2010 or 2011?


Not unless anyone has a way to read data that hasn't been fully collected and compiled yet. Poor skullkrusher doesn't see it as a problem because it takes time for things to be done in this universe.
 
2012-07-12 11:33:10 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now


The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!
 
2012-07-12 11:34:35 AM

meat0918: Saiga410: meat0918: Is today the day we trust FactCheck?

I don't know are you a lib or a con?

I am a jelly doughnut.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-12 11:34:52 AM

Jackpot777: In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.


Actually, nowadays most of the time it's the guy whom most people would peg as innocent being the actual murderer. Probably because it was becoming so obvious that everyone knows the act.
 
2012-07-12 11:35:00 AM

Jackpot777: If we used that quasi-logic (it happened in the past, let it go) as a metric for anything, we'd never prosecute anyone for crimes.

Newsflash, poppet: every conversation, every data set, is from the past.

What: you think they're going to have full data for Fiscal Year 2012? We're still in it. You think they're going to have full date For Fiscal Year 2011? People are only getting the raw data for that now for certain things like colleges. It hasn't been collated yet. So the earliest year we have FOR collated data right now for something as large as the whole nation IS for F.Y. 2009, you dolt!

We don't have a crystal ball to see the future, or a bigger government department to disseminate the information. THAT'S HOW THE PASSAGE OF TIME WORKS IN THIS REALITY. You don't want to see it as a problem, because you know it IS a problem when you apply reality to it.

Cry moar.


The People intend to prove that Mr Jones killed Mr Smith on July 11, 2012. Here is videotape of him killing Mr Smith in 2009. Why are you looking at me funny?

It's not the use of data from the past that's the problem, dumdum. It's using that data to make a claim about the state of affairs TODAY.
 
2012-07-12 11:35:58 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now


wat?
 
2012-07-12 11:37:13 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value. The one below is the one where they are engaged in a coverup to protect Mittens from prosecution.

No, it's in the right thread.

[i301.pho ...


See the bold part. See it.

Go on. Put it together. You can do it, YOU DOLT!
 
2012-07-12 11:37:36 AM

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.

Well then, good news! We can easily devise a plan that lets the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, while keeping them for everyone else!

Oh wait; that's what Obama's plan does.

Or we could just let them all expire! We still stick it to the rich, because after all the original tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy (at least that's what liberals said and still say, and they're really smart and don't lie or exaggerate, so you know it's true) plus we'd raise $4t in revenue over the next 10 years as opposed to the $700b we would if only allowing cuts for incomes greater than $250k to expire.

Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now.


Quatchi, who is liberal, used the term "giveaway" in the original comment in our discussion.

Regardless, if they "overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy", then letting them all expire would presumably be to the overwhelming detriment of the wealthy, which I thought you would be supportive of. As I would support the same (subject to the possibile phasing out rather than all expiring at once), I thought this could be an issue upon which we could reach agreement.
 
2012-07-12 11:40:52 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


Yeah, good thing there aren't a farkload of essential services even your self-absorbed narcissistic ass depend on every day that would not be funded and thus would fail very quickly. Oh wait.
 
2012-07-12 11:41:25 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: If we used that quasi-logic (it happened in the past, let it go) as a metric for anything, we'd never prosecute anyone for crimes.

Newsflash, poppet: every conversation, every data set, is from the past.

What: you think they're going to have full data for Fiscal Year 2012? We're still in it. You think they're going to have full date For Fiscal Year 2011? People are only getting the raw data for that now for certain things like colleges. It hasn't been collated yet. So the earliest year we have FOR collated data right now for something as large as the whole nation IS for F.Y. 2009, you dolt!

We don't have a crystal ball to see the future, or a bigger government department to disseminate the information. THAT'S HOW THE PASSAGE OF TIME WORKS IN THIS REALITY. You don't want to see it as a problem, because you know it IS a problem when you apply reality to it.

Cry moar.

The People intend to prove that Mr Jones killed Mr Smith on July 11, 2012. Here is videotape of him killing Mr Smith in 2009. Why are you looking at me funny?

It's not the use of data from the past that's the problem, dumdum. It's using that data to make a claim about the state of affairs TODAY.


"and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now"

Your proofs.

static.tvfanatic.com

Present them.

Because the line that this government was Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals was used in 2009 too.

F***ing history repeating, how does it work?

Unless you want to complain more about 100% proven reality as you provide none for something you claim is "most likely higher now"? Come on, you dolt. Prove this wrong.
 
2012-07-12 11:41:43 AM
This just in: unemployed people pay less tax. Film at 11.
 
2012-07-12 11:42:36 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

wat?


I'm asking him to prove it.

PROVE THIS.
 
2012-07-12 11:43:07 AM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!


$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
- $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$143 billion more in tax breaks from the stimulus which ended in 2010 than in the current payroll tax cut. You dolt.

This is shooting fish in a barrel except fish aren't usually this stupid.
 
2012-07-12 11:43:38 AM

oren0: This just in: unemployed people pay less tax. Film at 11.


and why republicans think they should be paying more!
 
2012-07-12 11:45:09 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.

Yeah, good thing there aren't a farkload of essential services even your self-absorbed narcissistic ass depend on every day that would not be funded and thus would fail very quickly. Oh wait.


Teabaggers complain there isn't enough socialism when THEY need it... difficulty level: Wall Street Journal!
 
2012-07-12 11:46:51 AM

Jackpot777: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

wat?

I'm asking him to prove it.

PROVE THIS.


It is not difficult to prove that a statement which implies current tax rates are the lowest they've been in 30 years using data that is over 2.5 years old - data which, TFA itself admits, was skewed downward because of the recession and stimulus, is bogus.

"In 2009 effective tax rates were the lowest they had been in 30 years" - that's an accurate headline supported by the data contained in the article.

why does logic [f]right[en] you?
 
2012-07-12 11:47:48 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
- $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$143 billion more in tax breaks from the stimulus which ended in 2010 than in the current payroll tax cut. You dolt.

This is shooting fish in a barrel except fish aren't usually this stupid.


Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

I can wait.
 
2012-07-12 11:52:15 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

wat?

I'm asking him to prove it.

PROVE THIS.

It is not difficult to prove that a statement which implies current tax rates are the lowest they've been in 30 years using data that is over 2.5 years old - data which, TFA itself admits, was skewed downward because of the recession and stimulus, is bogus.

"In 2009 effective tax rates were the lowest they had been in 30 years" - that's an accurate headline supported by the data contained in the article.

why does logic [f]right[en] you?


"and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now" -- you. This thread.

Don't tell me: because you're going to fark up math?

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
PLUS $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$433 billion more in tax breaks than BEFORE THE STIMULUS.
 
2012-07-12 11:52:37 AM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
- $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$143 billion more in tax breaks from the stimulus which ended in 2010 than in the current payroll tax cut. You dolt.

This is shooting fish in a barrel except fish aren't usually this stupid.

Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

I can wait.


I love the smell of desperation in the morning. It smells like... Jackpot777's mom's basement.
 
2012-07-12 11:53:31 AM

Jackpot777: Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?


This is probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

You spent 100 dollars last week on meth. You spent 50 dollars this week on meth. How much less on meth did you spend this week?

-100 - -50 = -50
OR
100 - 50 = 50

As long as the sign remains consistent, it produces the same answer.
 
2012-07-12 11:56:41 AM

Jackpot777: "and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now" -- you. This thread.

Don't tell me: because you're going to fark up math?

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
PLUS $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$433 billion more in tax breaks than BEFORE THE STIMULUS.


why didn't you add the Bush rebate checks from 2008 and the Civil War era "40 acres and a mule" into that number as well?
 
2012-07-12 11:59:23 AM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

You spent 100 dollars last week on meth. You spent 50 dollars this week on meth. How much less on meth did you spend this week?

-100 - -50 = -50
OR
100 - 50 = 50


As long as the sign remains consistent, it produces the same answer.


We're talking about the amount since 2009, which the graph shows.

Skullcrusher asserts that's all we have data for.

He then produces the following amounts to factor into the equation.

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.


What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?
 
2012-07-12 12:00:56 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: then letting them all expire would presumably be to the overwhelming detriment of the wealthy, which I thought you would be supportive of.


If only there was some form of middle ground, instead of this false choice between "all or nothing".

In fact, we can craft a plan that preserves the benefit for the lower brackets, while lessening the benefit for the upper brackets. Why don't we do that instead? It accomplishes all of our objectives.
 
2012-07-12 12:01:06 PM
We're talking about the amount since up to 2009, which the graph shows.

ftfm
 
2012-07-12 12:01:07 PM

Jackpot777: sprawl15: Jackpot777: Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

You spent 100 dollars last week on meth. You spent 50 dollars this week on meth. How much less on meth did you spend this week?

-100 - -50 = -50
OR
100 - 50 = 50

As long as the sign remains consistent, it produces the same answer.

We're talking about the amount since 2009, which the graph shows.

Skullcrusher asserts that's all we have data for.

He then produces the following amounts to factor into the equation.

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.

What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?


and the auto-asskicking rages on...
 
2012-07-12 12:02:55 PM

skullkrusher: $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.

What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?

and the auto-asskicking rages on...


Answer the question, Mister "Nobody ever attacted the USA with planes before 9/11". Using skullkrusher's tax breaks, what is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?
 
2012-07-12 12:07:26 PM

Jackpot777: Answer the question, Mister "Nobody ever attacted the USA with planes before 9/11"


yeah, we all had a great laugh at your expense in that thread. IIRC you were having that "argument" with sprawl though. Good times, good times.

Jackpot777: Using skullkrusher's tax breaks, what is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?


well, those aren't MY tax breaks but -$288B - $145B = -$433B
 
2012-07-12 12:07:40 PM
it's so unfair to the rich

They make 75% of ALL the money, then end up paying 75% of the taxes!

The injustice!
 
2012-07-12 12:13:21 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: Answer the question, Mister "Nobody ever attacted the USA with planes before 9/11"

yeah, we all had a great laugh at your expense in that thread. IIRC you were having that "argument" with sprawl though. Good times, good times.

Jackpot777: Using skullkrusher's tax breaks, what is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?

well, those aren't MY tax breaks but -$288B - $145B = -$433B


...and have those "tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus" magically ended after one year, or do they still apply, you dolt?
 
2012-07-12 12:33:25 PM

Jackpot777: We're talking about the amount since 2009, which the graph shows.

Skullcrusher asserts that's all we have data for.

He then produces the following amounts to factor into the equation.

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.

What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?


Tax breaks and tax cuts are both motions in the same direction, and should be treated as such. They should both be treated as negative, or both be treated as positive.

He's finding the difference between the two values, which is subtraction.

It's either -$288 billion - -$145 billion or $288B - $145B. In no case would it be -$288B - $145B.
 
2012-07-12 12:43:29 PM
Something something Clue Movie 1+1+2+1+1 routine.
 
2012-07-12 12:46:23 PM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: We're talking about the amount since 2009, which the graph shows.

Skullcrusher asserts that's all we have data for.

He then produces the following amounts to factor into the equation.

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.

What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?

Tax breaks and tax cuts are both motions in the same direction, and should be treated as such. They should both be treated as negative, or both be treated as positive.

He's finding the difference between the two values, which is subtraction.

It's either -$288 billion - -$145 billion or $288B - $145B. In no case would it be -$288B - $145B.


sprawl15: Jackpot777: We're talking about the amount since 2009, which the graph shows.

Skullcrusher asserts that's all we have data for.

He then produces the following amounts to factor into the equation.

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.

What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?

Tax breaks and tax cuts are both motions in the same direction, and should be treated as such. They should both be treated as negative, or both be treated as positive.

He's finding the difference between the two values, which is subtraction.

It's either -$288 billion - -$145 billion or $288B - $145B. In no case would it be -$288B - $145B.


The part about the "tax breaks from the stimulus which ended in 2010" applied to the "$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus".

Which would be fine and dandy if the tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus DID all end in 2010.

Child tax credit is still in effect. The earned income tax credit increase wasn't repealed (in fact, was increased for tax year 2011 from its stimulus amount). There was a law for government contractors requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bill that was to take effect in 2012... that was repealed and hasn't been reinstated. There's the Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes... the change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years and we're not half-way through that yet.

These amounts are still in play.
 
2012-07-12 12:52:39 PM

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!


Why not? It's Reaganesque.

"First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend."
- Ronald Reagan, 1982 State of the Union Address

"In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."
- Ronald Reagan, 1982 State of the Union Address

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."
- Ronald Reagan, 1983 State of the Union Address
 
2012-07-12 01:10:19 PM

Jackpot777: Which would be fine and dandy if the tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus DID all end in 2010.


Which has nothing to do with your inability to do 4th grade algebra. If someone says "2+2=7 therefore Hitler was a bad dude," the latter being true does not cause the former to also be true. Skullkrusher could be totally full of shiat, and you'd still be an idiot.
 
2012-07-12 01:17:25 PM

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: then letting them all expire would presumably be to the overwhelming detriment of the wealthy, which I thought you would be supportive of.

If only there was some form of middle ground, instead of this false choice between "all or nothing".

In fact, we can craft a plan that preserves the benefit for the lower brackets, while lessening the benefit for the upper brackets. Why don't we do that instead? It accomplishes all of our objectives.


Except, you know, meaningfully reducing the deficit. Obama's plan adds $700b in revenue over the next 10 years, just letting them all expire raises almost $4trillion.
 
2012-07-12 01:20:02 PM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.


Here's some economics for you. The budget deficits didn't go up because of Obama's increase in spending, they went up because tax rates went down and we embarked on two wars that were off the books. If we simply returned to historical tax rates as a percentage of GDP the deficit would be drastically reduced. But don't take my word for it. The communist pinkos at The Economist explain it all:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/02/deficits_past_and _ future

That big Obama spending spree?

"The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 - for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely - was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/


You want to know the reason politicians can't cut spending? Its us. You see, politicians who cut spending get voted out of office. For example, if you represent an area that benefits from farm subsidies, then as a politician you damn well better support those if you want to get elected to represent that constituency. The same goes for every other region in the country, each politician supports federal spending that benefits their voters.
 
2012-07-12 01:23:32 PM

Jackpot777: Child tax credit is still in effect.


The increase in this to $1000 max has been in effect since 2003. Not applicable.

Jackpot777: The earned income tax credit increase wasn't repealed (in fact, was increased for tax year 2011 from its stimulus amount).


$4,663,000,000 stimulus bill allocation for 2009 and 2010. We'll pretend that this entire amount is the reduction in tax liability for 2012 even though this is obviously a very liberal assumption

Jackpot777: There was a law for government contractors requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bill that was to take effect in 2012... that was repealed and hasn't been reinstated.


this does not reduce tax liability. It merely reduced required withholding.

Jackpot777: There's the Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes... the change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years and we're not half-way through that yet.


I have no idea what this is or why increased taxes on banks makes your point


You are right, though. It isn't fair to call that $288B number for 2009 alone as it was spread out over several years.

This might shed more light on the subject. Note that the payroll tax cut of this year was an extension of one that existed last year

Check out the Receipts as a % of GDP columns for 2009 - 2011. The estimates for 2012 are meh whatever.
 
2012-07-12 01:29:15 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: then letting them all expire would presumably be to the overwhelming detriment of the wealthy, which I thought you would be supportive of.

If only there was some form of middle ground, instead of this false choice between "all or nothing".

In fact, we can craft a plan that preserves the benefit for the lower brackets, while lessening the benefit for the upper brackets. Why don't we do that instead? It accomplishes all of our objectives.

Except, you know, meaningfully reducing the deficit. Obama's plan adds $700b in revenue over the next 10 years, just letting them all expire raises almost $4trillion.


Deficit reduction is not my goal. Deficits don't matter, remember? But let's assume that deficit reduction is our goal, and compare revenue increases from the competing plans.

GOP plan: Extend everything, no revenue increases
Obama plan: Extend lower bracket cuts, eliminate upper bracket cuts, +$700b in revenue

You tell me - which is better for the deficit? $0 in increased revenue, or $700b in increased revenue?
 
2012-07-12 01:38:07 PM

skullkrusher: The increase in this to $1000 max has been in effect since 2003.


Fun fact! Part of the reason there is (or was) ~47% of households owing no income tax is thanks to this increase.

Entering the 2000s with one in four tax filers owing nothing, the nonpayers pool was supercharged by the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003-especially by the doubling of the child credit to $1,000. By 2004, when the credit expansion was fully phased in, the number of nonpayers increased by 10.5 million, a 32-percent jump in the space of four years. Link


So when you hear that tired line, be sure to thank Bush.
 
2012-07-12 01:41:16 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Fun fact! Part of the reason there is (or was) ~47% of households owing no income tax is thanks to this increase.


relevancy, your honor? Not to mention that that 47% number is viewed as a aberration because of the economic downturn and stimulus. And it very likely is a case of "was". Which is partially the point.
 
2012-07-12 01:56:45 PM

skullkrusher: relevancy, your honor?


It was a fun fact. Why do you hate fun?
 
2012-07-12 01:56:50 PM

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: then letting them all expire would presumably be to the overwhelming detriment of the wealthy, which I thought you would be supportive of.

If only there was some form of middle ground, instead of this false choice between "all or nothing".

In fact, we can craft a plan that preserves the benefit for the lower brackets, while lessening the benefit for the upper brackets. Why don't we do that instead? It accomplishes all of our objectives.

Except, you know, meaningfully reducing the deficit. Obama's plan adds $700b in revenue over the next 10 years, just letting them all expire raises almost $4trillion.

Deficit reduction is not my goal. Deficits don't matter, remember? But let's assume that deficit reduction is our goal, and compare revenue increases from the competing plans.

GOP plan: Extend everything, no revenue increases
Obama plan: Extend lower bracket cuts, eliminate upper bracket cuts, +$700b in revenue

You tell me - which is better for the deficit? $0 in increased revenue, or $700b in increased revenue?


Reducing the deficit isn't a goal? Why bother raising taxes at all? Lets lower them and while we're at it double spending. We'll just borrow it, because deficits don't matter!

Just kidding- only idiots or liars would say that deficits don't matter. Dick Cheney is the latter, which are you?

And on a stand alone basis, Obama's plan is better. But reducing the deficit IS a goal of mine and I'd rather raise the $4b. It would be politically impossible to somehow raise middle class taxes later if we decided to only raise taxes on the wealthy now. So it should all be raised in tandem, either now or later.
 
2012-07-12 01:58:26 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: skullkrusher: relevancy, your honor?

It was a fun fact. Why do you hate fun?


I had a forced fundectomy in college on account of being way too awesome.
 
2012-07-12 02:08:37 PM

qorkfiend: quatchi: People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

Also, once the Republicans stop running on his policies.


Also, once Obama stops running on his policies.
 
2012-07-12 02:17:20 PM

skullkrusher: Dusk-You-n-Me: skullkrusher: relevancy, your honor?

It was a fun fact. Why do you hate fun?

I had a forced fundectomy in college on account of being way too awesome.


My God, man! Drilling holes in your head is not the answer! The sense of humor must be repaired. Now put away your butcher knives and let me save this patient before it's too late.
 
2012-07-12 02:19:14 PM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: Dusk-You-n-Me: skullkrusher: relevancy, your honor?

It was a fun fact. Why do you hate fun?

I had a forced fundectomy in college on account of being way too awesome.

My God, man! Drilling holes in your head is not the answer! The sense of humor must be repaired. Now put away your butcher knives and let me save this patient before it's too late.


hehe, nerdery
 
2012-07-12 02:25:46 PM

theknuckler_33: theknuckler_33: I'm pretty sure Three Mile Island is working perfectly now.

Oops. Nix that.

TMI's Unit 2 reactor has been shut down since the partial meltdown in 1979


Uh, Unit 1 is working perfectly. Unit 2 is shut down.

Therefore, Three Mile Island is working perfectly. Half of it. So it's kind of a glass half full or half empty discussion I suppose.

/people forget there are TWO TMI reactors
//and, for that matter, there were FOUR Chernobyls
 
2012-07-12 02:38:02 PM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: Which would be fine and dandy if the tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus DID all end in 2010.

Which has nothing to do with your inability to do 4th grade algebra. If someone says "2+2=7 therefore Hitler was a bad dude," the latter being true does not cause the former to also be true. Skullkrusher could be totally full of shiat, and you'd still be an idiot.


His equation was: [the amount saved as mentioned in the stimulus] - [the payroll tax deduction this year] = [the difference from the stimulus "which ended in 2010" (his words) than in the current payroll tax cut]

There's no reason to bring "therefore, Hitler was a bad dude" into it. His equation WAS 2 + 2 = 7. He has the stimulus ending in total after the one year. It doesn't... and it's "estimated at $858 billion".

Some of the tax breaks expired. But some were extended and increased from the stimulus baseline.

So I ask you again: using criteria he wants to stick to (concrete numbers we have, the figures he provides, figures after 2009 are predictions of the future where he claims "effective tax rates are most likely higher now"), are they higher now?

Even DarwiOdrade called him out on his shiat. I love the way he bluffs when he's panicky (he won't take old information, but "current" information are just estimates and it's easy to see how inaccurate projections are), but he wants to only concentrate on what we know from 2009 and dismisses things he doesn't like with phrases like it being "a very liberal assumption".
 
2012-07-12 02:45:32 PM

Jackpot777: His equation was: [the amount saved as mentioned in the stimulus] - [the payroll tax deduction this year] = [the difference from the stimulus "which ended in 2010" (his words) than in the current payroll tax cut]

There's no reason to bring "therefore, Hitler was a bad dude" into it. His equation WAS 2 + 2 = 7.


His was 2+2=4. You're saying that it shouldn't be 2+2, but rather 2+1, therefore he's stupid for saying 2+2=4 because it's clearly 3. You're a farking moron.

What's particularly hilarious is that you think this has anything to do with what you totally failed at: understanding negative numbers.
 
2012-07-12 02:45:51 PM

Jackpot777: Even DarwiOdrade called him out on his shiat.


yeah, it truly is a rare day when DOD disagrees with something I say


Jackpot777: I love the way he bluffs when he's panicky (he won't take old information, but "current" information are just estimates and it's easy to see how inaccurate projections are), but he wants to only concentrate on what we know from 2009 and dismisses things he doesn't like with phrases like it being "a very liberal assumption".


hehe you always mistake absolute mockery for fear. Why do you do that? It makes you looks more stupid than your words themselves - desperate to stay afloat aboard your sinking argument by trying to pretend your stupidity is inducing some negative emotional response in me. It doesn't work that way. You're an idiot and people are not afraid of debating you.

you do know that the word "liberal" has a variety of meanings and the meaning I was using there has nothing to do with political affiliation but rather giving you a very generous estimate of the impact we were discussing. Flail moar.
 
2012-07-12 02:47:17 PM

mpirooz: We should just get rid of taxes.

For freedom.


Seems like one of the candidates is WELL ahead of you on that. For personal use, of course.
 
2012-07-12 03:10:30 PM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: His equation was: [the amount saved as mentioned in the stimulus] - [the payroll tax deduction this year] = [the difference from the stimulus "which ended in 2010" (his words) than in the current payroll tax cut]

There's no reason to bring "therefore, Hitler was a bad dude" into it. His equation WAS 2 + 2 = 7.

His was 2+2=4. You're saying that it shouldn't be 2+2, but rather 2+1, therefore he's stupid for saying 2+2=4 because it's clearly 3. You're a farking moron.

What's particularly hilarious is that you think this has anything to do with what you totally failed at: understanding negative numbers.


Interesting assertion of fact there. Because you know what you can actually tell about what I have actually thought in any given moment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry. Not fact. What's that other word that means the opposite of fact?

My apologies. People failing at doing things they claim to be able to do. Continue.
 
2012-07-12 03:14:45 PM

Jackpot777: Interesting assertion of fact there. Because you know what you can actually tell about what I have actually thought in any given moment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry. Not fact. What's that other word that means the opposite of fact?

My apologies. People failing at doing things they claim to be able to do. Continue.


Jackpot777: I love the way he bluffs when he's panicky


lulz. You're like a cartoon rendering of a caricature of a stereotype of an idiot who has no self-awareness with some awesome CGI enhancements to make it even more ridiculous.
 
2012-07-12 03:15:20 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: Even DarwiOdrade called him out on his shiat.

yeah, it truly is a rare day when DOD disagrees with something I say


Jackpot777: I love the way he bluffs when he's panicky (he won't take old information, but "current" information are just estimates and it's easy to see how inaccurate projections are), but he wants to only concentrate on what we know from 2009 and dismisses things he doesn't like with phrases like it being "a very liberal assumption".

hehe you always mistake absolute mockery for fear. Why do you do that? It makes you looks more stupid than your words themselves - desperate to stay afloat aboard your sinking argument by trying to pretend your stupidity is inducing some negative emotional response in me. It doesn't work that way. You're an idiot and people are not afraid of debating you.

you do know that the word "liberal" has a variety of meanings and the meaning I was using there has nothing to do with political affiliation but rather giving you a very generous estimate of the impact we were discussing. Flail moar.


I love it when someone starts a sentence with the words "you're an idiot", and then mangles the rest of the sentence in a way an idiot wouldn't.

You mean "to debate you".

Know how I know it was a bluff, and you're trying under the emotion you feel the need to dismiss?

It's like we've never see you make mistakes like this before.
 
2012-07-12 03:21:06 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: Interesting assertion of fact there. Because you know what you can actually tell about what I have actually thought in any given moment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry. Not fact. What's that other word that means the opposite of fact?

My apologies. People failing at doing things they claim to be able to do. Continue.

Jackpot777: I love the way he bluffs when he's panicky

lulz. You're like a cartoon rendering of a caricature of a stereotype of an idiot who has no self-awareness with some awesome CGI enhancements to make it even more ridiculous.


So you're not going to back up the part where you say

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

by passing it off as

"In 2009 effective tax rates were the lowest they had been in 30 years" - that's an accurate headline supported by the data contained in the article

while completely ignoring the part which was your opinion.

How did you put it: why does logic [f]right[en] you?

How did you put it: I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

It smells like your mom's basement. Am I don't it right? Why are you scared to answer it?
 
2012-07-12 03:22:16 PM

Jackpot777: I love it when someone starts a sentence with the words "you're an idiot", and then mangles the rest of the sentence in a way an idiot wouldn't.

You mean "to debate you".

Know how I know it was a bluff, and you're trying under the emotion you feel the need to dismiss?

It's like we've never see you make mistakes like this before.


you just can't make this stuff up.
 
2012-07-12 03:24:19 PM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: Interesting assertion of fact there. Because you know what you can actually tell about what I have actually thought in any given moment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry. Not fact. What's that other word that means the opposite of fact?

My apologies. People failing at doing things they claim to be able to do. Continue.

Jackpot777: I love the way he bluffs when he's panicky

lulz. You're like a cartoon rendering of a caricature of a stereotype of an idiot who has no self-awareness with some awesome CGI enhancements to make it even more ridiculous.

So you're not going to back up the part where you say

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

by passing it off as

"In 2009 effective tax rates were the lowest they had been in 30 years" - that's an accurate headline supported by the data contained in the article

while completely ignoring the part which was your opinion.

How did you put it: why does logic [f]right[en] you?

How did you put it: I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

It smells like your mom's basement. Am I don't it right? Why are you scared to answer it?


Know how I know it was a bluff, and you're trying under the emotion you feel the need to dismiss?
 
2012-07-12 03:38:06 PM

Jackpot777: What's particularly hilarious is that you think this has anything to do with what you totally failed at: understanding negative numbers.

Interesting assertion of fact there. Because you know what you can actually tell about what I have actually thought in any given moment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry. Not fact. What's that other word that means the opposite of fact?

My apologies. People failing at doing things they claim to be able to do. Continue.


I stand corrected. I forgot that you are incapable of thought, and incorrectly attributed that human attribute to you.
 
2012-07-12 03:43:59 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: I love it when someone starts a sentence with the words "you're an idiot", and then mangles the rest of the sentence in a way an idiot wouldn't.

You mean "to debate you".

Know how I know it was a bluff, and you're trying under the emotion you feel the need to dismiss?

It's like we've never see you make mistakes like this before.

you just can't make this stuff up.


I don't need to. You addressed one word, "panicky", at great length. Making stuff up would look like this:

while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now
 
2012-07-12 03:45:44 PM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: What's particularly hilarious is that you think this has anything to do with what you totally failed at: understanding negative numbers.

Interesting assertion of fact there. Because you know what you can actually tell about what I have actually thought in any given moment?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry. Not fact. What's that other word that means the opposite of fact?

My apologies. People failing at doing things they claim to be able to do. Continue.

I stand corrected. I forgot that you are incapable of thought, and incorrectly attributed that human attribute to you.


TIL "in any given moment" is the same as forever.

Let's start with the basics. Do you know how the progression of time, cause to effect, works? And do you have sub-divisions for that progression?
 
2012-07-12 03:46:35 PM
Jesus, could we get a rain delay? Or maybe a Maker's Mark delay? Just call yourselves too drunk to continue.
 
2012-07-12 03:50:38 PM

skullkrusher: It smells like your mom's basement. Am I don't it right? Why are you scared to answer it?

Know how I know it was a bluff, and you're trying under the emotion you feel the need to dismiss?


Well, there's nothing wrong with your focus when given motivation. You CAN put your mind to work if you need to.
 
2012-07-12 03:56:21 PM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: I love it when someone starts a sentence with the words "you're an idiot", and then mangles the rest of the sentence in a way an idiot wouldn't.

You mean "to debate you".

Know how I know it was a bluff, and you're trying under the emotion you feel the need to dismiss?

It's like we've never see you make mistakes like this before.

you just can't make this stuff up.

I don't need to. You addressed one word, "panicky", at great length. Making stuff up would look like this:

while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now


yeah, that was an expression of mockery. As in, comedy writers couldn't invent a scenario funnier than what you are currently doing to yourself.
I was not whining that you aren't allowed to make things up. You do that all the time and it is really, really obvious.

In your state of pants shiatting panic, you have lost any ability to appear even remotely rational. It's not the smell of desperation in the air, it's the mess in your drawers.

This is over but I'll leave you with one last bit of info.

15.8% That's what the OMB estimates as the percentage of tax receipts vs GDP for 2012.
That number was 15.1% in 2009.
 
2012-07-12 04:04:49 PM

Jackpot777: TIL "in any given moment" is the same as forever.


We already know you're bad at math, you don't need to keep proving it.
 
2012-07-12 04:12:40 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: I love it when someone starts a sentence with the words "you're an idiot", and then mangles the rest of the sentence in a way an idiot wouldn't.

You mean "to debate you".

Know how I know it was a bluff, and you're trying under the emotion you feel the need to dismiss?

It's like we've never see you make mistakes like this before.

you just can't make this stuff up.

I don't need to. You addressed one word, "panicky", at great length. Making stuff up would look like this:

while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

yeah, that was an expression of mockery. As in, comedy writers couldn't invent a scenario funnier than what you are currently doing to yourself.
I was not whining that you aren't allowed to make things up. You do that all the time and it is really, really obvious.

In your state of pants shiatting panic, you have lost any ability to appear even remotely rational. It's not the smell of desperation in the air, it's the mess in your drawers.

This is over but I'll leave you with one last bit of info.

15.8% That's what the OMB estimates as the percentage of tax receipts vs GDP for 2012.
That number was 15.1% in 2009.


It's funny how a person that seems to know mockery doesn't see it himself. Project that [f]ear much. OOH LOOK, JACKPOT HAS A GRAMMATICAL MISTAKE IN THERE TOO, I FOUND SOMETHING THAT DEFINITELY WASN'T MOCKERY, I FOUND IT, IT'S DEFINITELY A MISTAKE!

So your final 'info' is actually a projection.

2009 - projected deficit will be $1.85 trillion.

2009, same website - wait, that was out by $400 billion.

You use that word: info...
 
2012-07-12 04:15:31 PM
"... and they were put into place by the preceding republican government."

you forgot that bit
 
2012-07-12 04:19:00 PM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: TIL "in any given moment" is the same as forever.

We already know you're bad at math, you don't need to keep proving it.


Well, you getting any one specific moment confused with all possible moments in time would explain a thing or two.

i301.photobucket.com

OK, one thing.
 
2012-07-12 04:23:53 PM

Jackpot777: [i301.photobucket.com image 640x595]

OK, one thing.


It really is hilarious to me that you still think the government should have read Tom Clancy to predict and prevent 9/11.
 
2012-07-12 04:29:26 PM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: [i301.photobucket.com image 640x595]

OK, one thing.

It really is hilarious to me that you still think the government should have read Tom Clancy to predict and prevent 9/11.


Considering that was in answer to your statement... what was it again, in relation to 9/11?

"using planes as a missile was something entirely new" - sprawl15

I only started with how it was old in fiction. You know how I like to draw people in, but buck1138 (damn that Farker) spoiled the fun!

But seriously: it was, wasn't it. Using planes as a missile was something entirely new in 2001. Just like you said.
 
2012-07-12 04:51:04 PM

Jackpot777: Considering that was in answer to your statement... what was it again, in relation to 9/11?


Go re-read the thread.
sprawl15:DROxINxTHExWIND: got a breif that says a Muslim wanted to hijack planes and that they had been looking at buildings in NY.

That he wanted to hijack a single plane for a prisoner exchange and had been looking at federal buildings in NY. For independent reasons. If Bush actioned everything on that brief as soon as he read it, he would have stationed a bunch of bomb sniffing dogs around federal buildings on the east coast and expected a single hijacking that would fly around in circles for a while and then land. Neither of which had anything to do with 9/11, except tangentially in the hijacking case. And "Muslim extremists want to hijack or blow up planes" had been a true statement for over a decade, using planes as a missile was something entirely new.

DROxINxTHExWIND: ...And that is what you call useless information?

Yes. Yes, it is.

The funniest part of you reposting that picture is that every time you do it, you honestly mean it. You really don't get how incredibly stupid it makes you sound to argue that a Tom Clancy novel should have shaped national counterterrorism policy.
 
2012-07-12 04:56:57 PM

Jackpot777: sprawl15: Jackpot777: [i301.photobucket.com image 640x595]

OK, one thing.

It really is hilarious to me that you still think the government should have read Tom Clancy to predict and prevent 9/11.

Considering that was in answer to your statement... what was it again, in relation to 9/11?

"using planes as a missile was something entirely new" - sprawl15

I only started with how it was old in fiction. You know how I like to draw people in, but buck1138 (damn that Farker) spoiled the fun!

But seriously: it was, wasn't it. Using planes as a missile was something entirely new in 2001. Just like you said.


Jackpot777: Answer the question, Mister "Nobody ever attacted the USA with planes before 9/11"


sprawl15, skullkrusher. Both start with the sound a snake makes. sssssss

/hehe, "attacted"
 
2012-07-12 09:10:44 PM

Jackpot777: sprawl15: "using planes as a missile was something entirely new"

But seriously: it was, wasn't it. Using planes as a missile was something entirely new in 2001. Just like you said.


No, it was not, morans.
 
Displayed 147 of 147 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report