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.

(CNN)   Santorum: Almost half of all Americans are relying on government aid. CNN Fact Check: No. And by No, we mean Yes, But But Bush   (cnn.com) divider line 129
    More: Asinine, Rick Santorum, CNN Fact, CNN, welfare  
•       •       •

3641 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Aug 2012 at 12:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-29 11:50:39 AM
And hey, whattaya know... when Mr. and Mrs. Santorum pass away, guess which one of their little tardlets is going to be completely dependent upon the state for her care and well-being? Assuming she doesn't die young, that is.
 
2012-08-29 11:58:30 AM
About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.
 
2012-08-29 12:00:52 PM
Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-29 12:07:46 PM
And by "yes, but Bush" Subby means that the article didn't mention Bush once? Even indirectly?

Or is even mentioning the recession the same as blaming Bush?
 
2012-08-29 12:08:18 PM

Bladel: Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").


You mean like a Senator's salary?
 
2012-08-29 12:11:47 PM

Bladel: Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").


They both also seem to think that government is separate from the people it governs. But then, the people think that, as well, which is why most of them aren't really interested in fixing any problems within it.
 
2012-08-29 12:23:09 PM

Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.


Well of course they count them. They also count these people in their "49% of Americans pay no income tax" boondoggle. It's true, America. Retirees living off Social Security do not, in fact, pay income tax on that income. They already paid taxes on it when they were working. It was called the Social Security tax.
 
2012-08-29 12:24:22 PM

vpb: Or is even mentioning the recession the same as blaming Bush?


I don't know about you, but it sure sounds like a guilty conscience to me.
 
2012-08-29 12:25:59 PM

Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.


Just part of the fark veterans and the elderly as much as possible platform.
 
2012-08-29 12:30:49 PM
Boy, let me tell you I had it rough growing up.

I could tell my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio.

I was so ugly my mother used to feed me with a sling shot.

I came from a real tough neighborhood. Why, every time I shut the window I hurt somebody's fingers.
 
2012-08-29 12:37:32 PM
So it just counts all old people.
 
2012-08-29 12:41:56 PM
even if he took the best argument his has on the economy - that means-tested government aid has gone up since the economy tanked, how does an agenda of attacking gay people and women solve that problem?
 
2012-08-29 12:45:53 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.

Well of course they count them. They also count these people in their "49% of Americans pay no income tax" boondoggle. It's true, America. Retirees living off Social Security do not, in fact, pay income tax on that income. They already paid taxes on it when they were working. It was called the Social Security tax.


If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

If you recieve an income, you pay social security taxes on it. Then, after you hit 65, you recieve some of that money back as social security. Conservatives believe that because you do not again pay taxes on that original income, you are a teat-sucking freeloader, even though actually already have paid the IRS that money.
 
2012-08-29 12:46:17 PM
This makes me sick. I've never had to use a government program. Other than mortgage interest deduction, studen loan interest deduction, student loans, pell grants and SBIRs.

voices.washingtonpost.com

Federal programs and the percentage of people polled who received aid from those programs yet told the poll taker that they had not received any government aid.
 
2012-08-29 12:46:59 PM

Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.


It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.
 
2012-08-29 12:47:31 PM
Never let facts interfere with what you want to believe.
 
2012-08-29 12:48:57 PM
Only half? His math is just wrong. See Job Creators need those low taxes and government subsidies to create those jobs, so the reality is 100% of all Americans depend on government aid.
 
2012-08-29 12:49:16 PM
Misleading. The "nearly half" Santorum cited includes most seniors who receive Medicare and Social Security benefits, while a large portion of the increase in poverty-assistance programs is a result of the lingering effects of the 2007-2009 recession.

That's right folks, citing Medicare, Social Security, and 2008/2009 is also known as "but but Bush!"

Hey you know what, we should be nice to subby. Let him keep criticizing Medicare and Social security, see how far that gets him.
 
2012-08-29 12:49:21 PM
"It also includes Social Security and Medicare, the federal pension and health care programs for seniors"


You run with that,GOP.
Shout it from the rooftops.
What could go wrong?
 
2012-08-29 12:49:33 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.

Well of course they count them. They also count these people in their "49% of Americans pay no income tax" boondoggle. It's true, America. Retirees living off Social Security do not, in fact, pay income tax on that income. They already paid taxes on it when they were working. It was called the Social Security tax.


I don't think it works that way.

If you overpay your estimated taxes and get a refund, you have to report that amount next year as income. Those on SS probably earn so little money and have other deductions that they wind up owing nothing. That part is likely true.
 
2012-08-29 12:49:57 PM
How bad must you suck at math and logic to be a republican?
 
2012-08-29 12:50:05 PM

lennavan: Misleading. The "nearly half" Santorum cited includes most seniors who receive Medicare and Social Security benefits, while a large portion of the increase in poverty-assistance programs is a result of the lingering effects of the 2007-2009 recession.

That's right folks, citing Medicare, Social Security, and 2008/2009 is also known as "but but Bush!"

Hey you know what, we should be nice to subby. Let him keep criticizing Medicare and Social security, see how far that gets him.


FTFM
 
2012-08-29 12:50:21 PM

Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.


Let's do an experiment: cut off Social Security and Medicare for a couple months. Then you can tell me whether they think the government had been assisting them.

/Fact checkers should be fact checkers, and 49% is pretty damned near half. Want to biatch about the significance of a fact? Get an opinion page or a Fark account.
 
2012-08-29 12:50:23 PM
Do we include politicians salaries?
 
2012-08-29 12:50:45 PM

Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.


That's gooooood number fudgin'!

/Kadath
 
2012-08-29 12:51:09 PM
Maybe the problem is that too many jobs don't pay a living wage?
 
2012-08-29 12:51:45 PM

Garet Garrett: Let's do an experiment: cut off Social Security and Medicare for a couple months.


Cut off roads and the electrical grid and see who survives then! It turns out 99% of Americans are on government assistance!
 
2012-08-29 12:51:47 PM
49% but the number includes more than just people receiving anti-poverty assistance. It also includes Social Security and Medicare, the federal pension and health care programs for seniors -- programs that are funded by workers' payroll taxes and aren't typically associated with concerns about dependency. It also includes other benefits, such as worker's compensation or educational assistance for veterans.
 
2012-08-29 12:52:04 PM

DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.


Not entirely. Certain expenses are deducted from income before taxes, such as mortgage interest.

impaler: Other than mortgage interest deduction, studen loan interest deduction


I wouldn't consider a deduction as receiving assistance from the government. Otherwise you could consider everyone with an income who takes any deductions or receives any credits as receiving assistance. Which would include the entire population. I think we're talking about transfers here, so Pell grants and SBIRs would count.
 
2012-08-29 12:52:07 PM

DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.


Hell, I paid my taxes, then I bought something at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart paid it's worker with my money, then he had to pay taxes on that! It's double taxation! Plus, I totally own that worker because he was paid with my money, just like those dirty union state workers that are paid with my taxpayer money.
 
2012-08-29 12:52:22 PM
Y KANT SUBBI READ
 
2012-08-29 12:52:29 PM

Garet Garrett: Let's do an experiment: cut off Social Security and Medicare for a couple months. Then you can tell me whether they think the government had been assisting them.


Yes, let's do that.

But, let's make sure to point out that the GOP hates the idea of all those people getting that dependence. Can't wait for that experiment to start.
 
2012-08-29 12:52:30 PM
Not so much B-b-but Bush as B-b-but Roosevelt
 
2012-08-29 12:52:59 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Not entirely. Certain expenses are deducted from income before taxes, such as mortgage interest.


Yes, those things we have specifically carved out in order to promote those activities. Hardly the same thing.
 
2012-08-29 12:53:17 PM

DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.


And if an individual collects UI, that counts as "income" and is taxed. Did AIG/Goldman pay taxes on their bailout money?
 
2012-08-29 12:53:28 PM

impaler: This makes me sick. I've never had to use a government program. Other than mortgage interest deduction, studen loan interest deduction, student loans, pell grants and SBIRs.

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 611x374]

Federal programs and the percentage of people polled who received aid from those programs yet told the poll taker that they had not received any government aid.


Let's see, students, veterans, mortgage owners, children, and people who paid into social security and unemployment. These people are clearly all worthless leeches on society and should just go get a damned job instead of taking money out of my pocket!
 
2012-08-29 12:53:45 PM
Rick Santorum has received a government check every month for 28 out of the 32 years since he earned his bachelor's degree (1980).
 
2012-08-29 12:53:52 PM

Gwendolyn: Just part of the fark veterans and the elderly as much as possible platform.


Naturally. Since the veterans are no longer fighting in some god forsaken hellhole to make some government official money, they don't care about them anymore.
 
2012-08-29 12:54:15 PM

Dr Dreidel: DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.

And if an individual collects UI, that counts as "income" and is taxed. Did AIG/Goldman pay taxes on their bailout money?


You don't pay taxes on loans, to be fair. Either corporate or individual.
 
2012-08-29 12:54:31 PM

Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.


I'm curious about these numbers. Specifically before the war started to now. But hey, war is good for business right?
 
2012-08-29 12:55:31 PM

bulldg4life: How bad must you suck at math and logic to be a republican?


Not quite as badly as they suck at biology, history and human empathy, but still pretty badly.
 
2012-08-29 12:56:17 PM
He was addressing the convention attendees and was kind enough not to name names.
 
2012-08-29 12:56:30 PM

Unoriginal_Username: I'm curious about these numbers. Specifically before the war started to now. But hey, war is good for business right?


It is for Halliburton.
 
2012-08-29 12:56:40 PM
I thought it was closer, ya know, to 100%. I mean everyone relies on the government. EVERYONE. No governmental aid means no roads, no police, no fire fighters, no national defense, no education, and no LAWS. Dumb argument is dumb
 
2012-08-29 12:56:59 PM

Isitoveryet: He was addressing the convention attendees and was kind enough not to name names.


www.sitcomsonline.com
 
2012-08-29 12:57:21 PM
Truthiness, taking on a whole new form at the GOP convention.
 
2012-08-29 12:57:28 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: 49% but the number includes more than just people receiving anti-poverty assistance. It also includes Social Security and Medicare, the federal pension and health care programs for seniors -- programs that are funded by workers' payroll taxes and aren't typically associated with concerns about dependency. It also includes other benefits, such as worker's compensation or educational assistance for veterans.


I BLAME OBAMA FOR KEEPING GRANDMA ALIVE AND FOR HELPING VETERANS RECEIVE A DEGREE

SLACKERS
 
2012-08-29 12:58:45 PM
So, if we kick all those seniors and venterans off the dole, that will fix everything!
 
2012-08-29 12:58:54 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: 49% but the number includes more than just people receiving anti-poverty assistance. It also includes Social Security and Medicare, the federal pension and health care programs for seniors -- programs that are funded by workers' payroll taxes and aren't typically associated with concerns about dependency. It also includes other benefits, such as worker's compensation or educational assistance for veterans.


All of which the Republicans want to eliminate. Yes, even veteran's benefits.
 
2012-08-29 12:59:36 PM
We should tear up every road and bridge and start over.

if you can't pave your own street and get around your town then you don't deserve anything America has to offer.

"American sucks and the government sucks and everything is completely broken. Elect me and I will prove it to you."

a tad derpy, but damn, they hate America. Well, they hate Americans. Wait, they hate poorer Americans.

/tilt
//restart
 
2012-08-29 12:59:39 PM
And if you include the aid of actually having a stable nation in which to accumulate anything beyond what you can carry... 99.999% of us do.

What - you have the money, at millions of dollars per mile, depending on the width of the road and the landscape it's to go through, to build the roads you use every year? Hell, the Tampa Bay Times Forum arena (location the Republican Party chose to host a convention with the "We Built This" theme) was built with taxpayer funds which accounted for $86 million (or 62%) of the total money needed to finance the construction of the stadium. For starters.

i301.photobucket.com 

It's like listening to a child screaming about how they do everything in the house and they should get to have what they want.
 
2012-08-29 12:59:50 PM

Irving Maimway: So, if we kick all those seniors and venterans off the dole, that will fix everything!


exactly, the biggest problem with our economy right now is that too many people have means with which to feed themselves.
 
2012-08-29 01:00:14 PM
Isn't that a good thing? So why do I pay taxes? So they can give it away in the form of subsidies and monopsonistic contracts to billionaires?
 
2012-08-29 01:02:21 PM

Galloping Galoshes: DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.

Not entirely. Certain expenses are deducted from income before taxes, such as mortgage interest.
impaler: Other than mortgage interest deduction, studen loan interest deduction

I wouldn't consider a deduction as receiving assistance from the government. Otherwise you could consider everyone with an income who takes any deductions or receives any credits as receiving assistance. Which would include the entire population. I think we're talking about transfers here, so Pell grants and SBIRs would count.


Tomato. Tomato.
I wouldn't consider letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire to be a tax increase, but some of our politicians do.
The fact is that most people (and lenders) consider the mortgage interest tax deduction when deciding how big a mortgage they can afford. It affects how houses are priced and it effectively becomes a subsidy to the seller.
 
2012-08-29 01:02:27 PM
I knew Santorum would be all over that convention. Republicans just can't get enough Santorum, no matter what they try to tell their wives and children.
 
2012-08-29 01:02:46 PM

bulldg4life: How bad must you suck at math and logic to be a republican?


Speaking as a former Republican...

Logic's got nothing to do with it. It's all about machismo. Being Republican makes their dick hard with pride. Being an ignorant jackass is a good thing.
 
2012-08-29 01:03:33 PM
100% of Americans receive government aid...when you factor in police, military, emergency response, disaster relief, interstate highway construction and maintenance, state highway construction and maintenance, postal services, power and communications infrastructure construction and maintenance...

End the welfare state! Abolish the military!
 
2012-08-29 01:03:37 PM

Garet Garrett: Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.

Let's do an experiment: cut off Social Security and Medicare for a couple months. Then you can tell me whether they think the government had been assisting them.

/Fact checkers should be fact checkers, and 49% is pretty damned near half. Want to biatch about the significance of a fact? Get an opinion page or a Fark account.


Are you dense?

Santorum is intentionally being dishonest, a stretch for him I know, by including things that were never ever included before when you had a discussion on people receiving federal aid. When ever legislators have this discussion they are only referring to "means-tested" benefits, not social security, veterans benefits, federal pensions, Pell Grants or student loans. People like Santorum, and apparently you, want to throw that stuff in with the number of people on means tested benefits to try to lie and claim that half of America can't take care of itself because of Obama, which isn't true.
 
2012-08-29 01:03:49 PM
The stated goal of Fartbama is for 100% unemployment and 100% reliance on government aid. If you can't see The Truth™ of this, you're as stupid as a Liberal. Saul Alinsky. And you smell bad too.
 
2012-08-29 01:04:05 PM

pippi longstocking: Isn't that a good thing? So why do I pay taxes? So they can give it away in the form of subsidies and monopsonistic contracts to billionaires?


You mean "job creators"?
 
2012-08-29 01:04:08 PM

Graffito: It affects how houses are priced and it effectively becomes a subsidy to the seller.


And the buyer. The surplus is to both parties. But it is a transfer payment from people who don't own homes to those who do. It's redistribution of wealth.
 
2012-08-29 01:04:23 PM

qorkfiend: Rick Santorum has received a government check every month for 28 out of the 32 years since he earned his bachelor's degree (1980).


But it's not a handout as he supplies valuable hot air and vast quantities of fertilizer in exchange.
 
2012-08-29 01:04:48 PM
The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so.

I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted.

They seem to mistake the Point.

Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.

He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

-- Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris. Christmas Day, 1783. Seeing as Gov. Christie was so kind to remind us how much they honor what our Founding Fathers were for.
 
2012-08-29 01:04:55 PM
"the dream of freedom and opportunity has become a nightmare of dependence, with almost half of America receiving some sort of government assistance."

I wonder how many of that "almost half" are people like him who are scamming the system.
 
2012-08-29 01:04:58 PM
Why did Santorum stop at 49%?

Do you depend on some local water department for clean H2O? Then you're a dependent of Uncle Sam.
That'd get you at least into the 90's.
 
2012-08-29 01:05:22 PM

impaler:
[voices.washingtonpost.com image 611x374]

Federal programs and the percentage of people polled who received aid from those programs yet told the poll taker that they had not received any government aid.


Let me just run down that list for you:

- I earned it
- I paid it
- I was owed it
- I deserved it
- I was owed it
- I earned it
- I paid into it
- I deserved it
- I paid into it, and earned it
- I deserved it
- I earned it
- I deserve it even though I'm opposed to everyone else having it
- I don't know what that is so it doesn't really count
- I deserve, earned, and paid for it
- That's a waste of tax money (except for mine.)
- See: Medicare
- I hate people getting this but see, I'm different, I have a real reason
- Ditto.
- Ditto again.

There. Your chart is invalid.
 
2012-08-29 01:05:49 PM
It's a bullshiat talking point because they don't have a plan to change it and won't acknowledge their role in creating the problem.

So, enjoy the dog and pony show, kids. Nothing will change.
 
2012-08-29 01:06:13 PM

Lando Lincoln: Speaking as a former Republican...
Logic's got nothing to do with it. It's all about machismo. Being Republican makes their dick hard with pride. Being an ignorant jackass is a good thing.


I've known a few Republicans now, and thinking has nothing to do with their politics.
 
2012-08-29 01:06:35 PM

ongbok: Santorum is intentionally being dishonest


How can you tell the difference? Sometimes he's just accidentally dishonest. The real question is he an asshole or a retard? Assuming he's not both.
 
2012-08-29 01:06:55 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-29 01:07:20 PM
and if us normal folk went around bashing our employer like these guys do....we would be FIRED!

Go Team Republican!

pukes


/fired up today....lunchtime
 
2012-08-29 01:08:24 PM

Bladel: Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").


Does that apply to businesses who receive checks from the government as well?
 
2012-08-29 01:09:13 PM
Can we just cut to the chase and brush this off because Rick Santorum is a f*cking idiot?
 
2012-08-29 01:09:25 PM

Karac: Why did Santorum stop at 49%?

Do you depend on some local water department for clean H2O? Then you're a dependent of Uncle Sam.
That'd get you at least into the 90's.


Are you kidding me? What about the U.S. Mint? In order to pay for anything, the government had to print money so you could pay for it.
 
2012-08-29 01:10:13 PM
They guy that takes his dead baby home is giving a speech at a convention where they want a guy who straps a dog to the roof of his car to be President.

Jesus Christ.
 
2012-08-29 01:10:45 PM
i64.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-29 01:10:46 PM

Muta: Bladel: Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").

Does that apply to businesses who receive checks from the government as well?


O hai wat's going on in this thread?

thedailybanter.com
 
2012-08-29 01:11:05 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/554666_4565713429320_15185 40552_n.jpg

...FAT-man?

/too easy
 
2012-08-29 01:11:56 PM

Garet Garrett: Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.

Let's do an experiment: cut off Social Security and Medicare for a couple months. Then you can tell me whether they think the government had been assisting them.

/Fact checkers should be fact checkers, and 49% is pretty damned near half. Want to biatch about the significance of a fact? Get an opinion page or a Fark account.


If it is something you earned though service, or a benefit program you paid in to all of your life, I would hardly call it "assistance."
 
2012-08-29 01:12:10 PM
Conservatives are real thinkerers, aren't they

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-08-29 01:12:20 PM
This is one of those technically correct things. In GOP idiot voter minds, "some kind of government assistance" = they are on welfare. So you get to say something that is "factually correct" (50% of Americans receive some form of government air or assistance) while illiciting a response commiserate with telling a blatant lie (Obama put half of America on Welfare to buy their votes)
 
2012-08-29 01:12:59 PM

Bladel: Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").


Most intelligent people can discern assistance from welfare. Welfare is one type of assistance. Only liberals pertain to be too dumb to understand.
 
2012-08-29 01:13:46 PM

keylock71: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 299x251]


I have a hard time believing that Chris Christies mother ever said no to him.

and just after Ms. Romney spoke about love, Christie goes on to tell us to chose truth over love. I thought that was kinda silly. don't they coordinate with one another?
 
2012-08-29 01:13:51 PM

KarmicDisaster: Hell, I paid my taxes, then I bought something at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart paid it's worker with my money, then he had to pay taxes on that! It's double taxation! Plus, I totally own that worker because he was paid with my money, just like those dirty union state workers that are paid with my taxpayer money.


I bet you own some Walmart stock in one of the mutual funds in your 401K account. So you're paying those Walmart workers twice plus paying his taxes 3 times.
 
2012-08-29 01:13:54 PM

CPennypacker: This is one of those technically correct things. In GOP idiot voter minds, "some kind of government assistance" = they are on welfare. So you get to say something that is "factually correct" (50% of Americans receive some form of government air or assistance) while illiciting a response commiserate with telling a blatant lie (Obama put half of America on Welfare to buy their votes)


That's actually exactly my interpretation as well. Well said.
 
2012-08-29 01:14:30 PM

Jackpot777: The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so.

I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted.

They seem to mistake the Point.

Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.

He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

-- Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris. Christmas Day, 1783. Seeing as Gov. Christie was so kind to remind us how much they honor what our Founding Fathers were for.


"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them. "

- Ben Franklin, Conservative Monster
 
2012-08-29 01:14:36 PM

Irving Maimway: So, if we kick all those seniors and venterans off the dole, that will fix everything!


Look Gramps, you've had 65 years to sort things out -- you're on your own now!
 
2012-08-29 01:15:13 PM
Subtardmitter, reading is hard huh?

FTA:Misleading. The "nearly half" Santorum cited includes most seniors who receive Medicare and Social Security benefits, while a large portion of the increase in poverty-assistance programs is a result of the lingering effects of the 2007-2009 recession.

They didn't say it was untrue. they said it was misleading which it was.
 
2012-08-29 01:15:31 PM
Let me guess.... anybody receiving any government check from any government program counts as "aid" by Mr. Santorum's standard and by "aid" he means "dogwhistle for welfare".

Click link.... read article... huh, look at that. Exactly what it is.

Your dishonesty is far too transparent, guys. You need to ratchet the derp back about 100-fold.
 
2012-08-29 01:16:50 PM

DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.


Do you not understand how utterly retarded taxing revenue would be? The average profit margin is well under 10% likewise individuals to pay a similar "profit" tax, as they are allowed deductions on taxable income. You do know what agi is correct?
 
2012-08-29 01:18:29 PM

MyRandomName: DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.

Do you not understand how utterly retarded taxing revenue would be? The average profit margin is well under 10% likewise individuals to pay a similar "profit" tax, as they are allowed deductions on taxable income. You do know what agi is correct?


I don't believe I ever advocated paying taxes on revenue. And the deductions to gross income have very little relation to "expenses" in the sense that corporations get to write off. If it were, people would be able to write off food, clothing and shelter.
 
d3
2012-08-29 01:19:24 PM
Isn't this proof that the safety net is working as intended? Lots of unemployed people need assistance right now. Let me know what the numbers look like when/if the economy gets going and people are hired again. I'm betting the percentages will shrink and not because of anything Congress does.
 
2012-08-29 01:19:45 PM

Isitoveryet: keylock71: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 299x251]

I have a hard time believing that Chris Christies mother ever said no to him.

and just after Ms. Romney spoke about love, Christie goes on to tell us to chose truth over love. I thought that was kinda silly. don't they coordinate with one another?


She said "No" to him once... and then he ate her.

Yeah, 'cause if there's one word I think of when I think of Republicans, it's "Truth".
 
2012-08-29 01:22:58 PM
 
2012-08-29 01:23:28 PM
What's the percentage when you take out SSI and Medicare?

Those aren't welfare programs in any traditional, means-tested sense. Its a social agreement that todays workers take care of tomorrow's retirees, and tomorrow's workers take care of tomorrow's retirees.
 
2012-08-29 01:28:37 PM

bulldg4life: How bad must you suck at math and logic to be a republican?


potato?
 
2012-08-29 01:32:03 PM

MyRandomName: Bladel: Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").

Most intelligent people can discern assistance from welfare. Welfare is one type of assistance. Only liberals pertain to be too dumb to understand.


The biggest partisan douchebag on Fark thinks he is intelligent.
 
2012-08-29 01:33:48 PM

d3: Isn't this proof that the safety net is working as intended? Lots of unemployed people need assistance right now. Let me know what the numbers look like when/if the economy gets going and people are hired again. I'm betting the percentages will shrink and not because of anything Congress does.


No. Nothing the government touches ever works as intended. Haven't you been paying attention?
 
2012-08-29 01:42:09 PM
And by herpty derp Subby, I mean you're a low brow retard.
 
2012-08-29 01:45:02 PM

Graffito: d3: Isn't this proof that the safety net is working as intended? Lots of unemployed people need assistance right now. Let me know what the numbers look like when/if the economy gets going and people are hired again. I'm betting the percentages will shrink and not because of anything Congress does.

No. Nothing the government touches ever works as intended. Haven't you been paying attention?


Nonsense, the government built the roads the mail man uses to bring me my welfare check. It works great!
 
2012-08-29 01:49:51 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so.

I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted.

They seem to mistake the Point.

Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.

He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

-- Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris. Christmas Day, 1783. Seeing as Gov. Christie was so kind to remind us how much they honor what our Founding Fathers were for.

"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I ob ...


I see you missed out the part that didn't fit your world-view. Here. Let me include it for you.

This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; you are welcome to your part of both.

You quote has Franklin widen the tax base, and to include others that could pay for it more easily.

You know. Like repealing the Bush tax cuts!
 
2012-08-29 01:52:06 PM

skullkrusher: - Ben Franklin, Conservative Monster


He's my favorite founding father, but back in Novemeber 1766, when he wrote that, Ben had only been to two countries (or one, if you consider the colonies still part of England at that time). He didn't travel to France for the first tme until the next year. He didn't exactly have a large sample size to see how public assistance was allocated in various countires..

Moreso, the reason for that editorial, which was outlined in the sections prior to that excerpt, was he was annoyed at export restrictions for his farm products, and felt that this ban and other price controls were in place just to make sure the poor could afford food and industry had cheap raw materials.

You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. -- Possibly. -- But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn? By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners. But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.

Full Editorial
 
2012-08-29 01:53:14 PM
Corporate Welfare, Non-competitive DoD Contracts, Tax Loopholes.

Yep, there sure are a lot of free loaders sucking on Uncle Sam's tit.
 
2012-08-29 01:58:24 PM
Entertainingly, his favorite Europeans, the French nobility, learned the hard way two decades later that expensive food might make the poor work harder, but not neccessarily on tasks and objectives that the land owners will appreciate.
 
2012-08-29 01:58:51 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Bladel: About half--but only if you count Medicare & Social Security recipients, and veterans benefits.

Gotcha.

Well of course they count them. They also count these people in their "49% of Americans pay no income tax" boondoggle. It's true, America. Retirees living off Social Security do not, in fact, pay income tax on that income. They already paid taxes on it when they were working. It was called the Social Security tax.


Another Republican distortion/half-truth/stupidity- i in fact pay tax on mine.

You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.
 
2012-08-29 02:00:18 PM

Jackpot777: I see you missed out the part that didn't fit your world-view. Here. Let me include it for you.

This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; you are welcome to your part of both.

You quote has Franklin widen the tax base, and to include others that could pay for it more easily.

You know. Like repealing the Bush tax cuts!


ah, I oppose broad based taxation and a safety net now? The things you learn about yourself from idiots on Fark
 
2012-08-29 02:02:29 PM

Degenz: And by herpty derp Subby, I mean you're a low brow retard.


Cuz getting upset when people point out right-wing lies is very classy and high-brow
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-29 02:08:01 PM

MyRandomName: Bladel: Santorum (and subby?) seem to think that a check from the government of any kind is some sort of "assistance" (read: "welfare").

Most intelligent people can discern assistance from welfare. Welfare is one type of assistance. Only liberals pertain to be too dumb to understand.


Pertain? Do you even know what that means?
Did you even understand the article?
 
2012-08-29 02:11:17 PM

Cubicle Jockey: skullkrusher: - Ben Franklin, Conservative Monster

He's my favorite founding father, but back in Novemeber 1766, when he wrote that, Ben had only been to two countries (or one, if you consider the colonies still part of England at that time). He didn't travel to France for the first tme until the next year. He didn't exactly have a large sample size to see how public assistance was allocated in various countires..

Moreso, the reason for that editorial, which was outlined in the sections prior to that excerpt, was he was annoyed at export restrictions for his farm products, and felt that this ban and other price controls were in place just to make sure the poor could afford food and industry had cheap raw materials.

You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. -- Possibly. -- But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn? By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners. But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.

Full Editorial


I've read the full editorial a few times. Whole point was that quoting Franklin as a font of truth is that, sometimes, his truth is contrary to what one might want to convey. His article was about both the price of corn and what he felt was the proper way to deal with poverty and how he views the poor vis-a-vis institutions meant to assist them. A view that I am quite sure Jackpot777 finds horrific
 
2012-08-29 02:22:53 PM

MyRandomName: DamnYankees: Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.

Do you not understand how utterly retarded taxing revenue would be? The average profit margin is well under 10% likewise individuals to pay a similar "profit" tax, as they are allowed deductions on taxable income. You do know what agi is correct?


There is nothing similar about business profit and individual AGI. The comparison is mind-bogglingly inaccurate.

Corporations write off expenses; individuals don't. There are adjustments made in calculating income, but are you claiming there are folks paying income tax on 10% of their total income (not of 10%, but on 10%) mainly due to deductions, and not because they are making barely enough income to be taxed at all? You know what AMT is correct?
 
2012-08-29 02:49:55 PM

jaytkay: Degenz: And by herpty derp Subby, I mean you're a low brow retard.

Cuz getting upset when people point out right-wing lies is very classy and high-brow


Cuz playing the "i know you are but what i am" card is what herpty derps and so called independents do best.
 
2012-08-29 02:59:53 PM

DamnYankees: It's even worse than that - corporations pay income tax on profit, not revenue. They get to write of expenses. Individuals don't.


Umm, actually individuals DO get to write off expenses not just corporations. You either don't know what you're talking about or are being deliberately misleading. A person who has an unincorporated business absolutely gets to deduct the costs associated with running that business. They do not pay income taxes on their revenue as opposed to their profit as you have suggested. I'm not sure why people keep saying this. The write offs aren't exactly the same, but they certainly exist.

Karac: If your corporation recieves income, it pays a tax. If it then pays you your salary, you pay tax. This is the hellish double taxation of job creators that conservatives swear will destroy our nation, despite the fact that it was two different people that were paying those taxes.

If you recieve an income, you pay social security taxes on it. Then, after you hit 65, you recieve some of that money back as social security. Conservatives believe that because you do not again pay taxes on that original income, you are a teat-sucking freeloader, even though actually already have paid the IRS that money.


You also seem to not understand what you are talking about. That is not at all what people complain about when they talk about the "hellish double taxation". What they are speaking of has NOTHING to do with someone paying a tax on a salary they get from a corporation who pays taxes. You should be relieved to know that the people railing on double taxation understand that it's two separate entities paying those taxes and that you are the one who apparently has no understanding of the issue. When people refer to double taxation what they are speaking about is someone who is a stock holder in a corporation. To make my example simple, lets just assume one person who has 100% ownership in a corporation. At the end of the fiscal year that corporation will pay taxes on their profits, typically 34-35% but possibly as low as 15% if the company makes very little money. After they have paid these taxes they then take the remaining money and either reinvest it into the corporation or distribute it to their shareholder(s). So, for simplicity, lets assume that they distribute all of their after tax profits to their single shareholder. This individual now will pay taxes on this at capital gains rates, typically 15%, even though it was already taxed once when the corporation earned it. Now you hopefully understand what people mean by double taxation and can stop spouting off stupid bullshiat.
 
2012-08-29 03:10:42 PM
But the number includes more than just people receiving anti-poverty assistance. It also includes Social Security and Medicare, the federal pension and health care programs for seniors -- programs that are funded by workers' payroll taxes and aren't typically associated with concerns about dependency. It also includes other benefits, such as worker's compensation or educational assistance for veterans.

Poor subby, must be scary when your world view is challenged daily.
 
2012-08-29 03:11:01 PM

skullkrusher: His article was about both the price of corn and what he felt was the proper way to deal with poverty and how he views the poor vis-a-vis institutions meant to assist them.


I disagree. He made a marvelous case for the free market in the first 3/4ths of that editorial. If he had left it as is, it would have been fine.

The paragraph you quoted was him lying. He could NOT have seen how multiple countres dealt with their poor since at the time the only places he had been were England and the English-governed colonies. He could not have known how the poor would have responded to various institutional incentives.

Ben, being clever and aware that the internet would not be invented for over 200 years, knew that noone would be able to refute or even question his travel claims without spending time and money. Even if they did learn the truth, it would be weeks later, and noone would care. So from Ben's perspective, it was a risk-free lie.

He made up an anecdote to support his position, possibly to blunt objections from the 17th century equivalent to social workers. He didn't particularly care what would happen to the poor, just let him sell his wool and corn at market prices, damnit!

It was the equivalent of Mitt Romney asking for specific deregulation in the venture capital industry for the benefit of his stock portfolio, while claiming that on his home planet of Neptune the deregulation also happened to prevent breast cancer.
 
2012-08-29 03:11:48 PM
Using deductive reasoning, subby is saying that Bush called the Great Recession.
 
2012-08-29 03:17:26 PM
Actually, we ALL rely on government aid. Whether it is our highways, our streets, sidewalks and electrical grid, or our police, it's all government "aid".
 
2012-08-29 03:24:22 PM

runin800m: Umm, actually individuals DO get to write off expenses not just corporations.


I am pretty sure he is referring to the human equivalent of operating expenses; food, clothing, shelter, transportation. If I earn $80,000, and spend every cent of it on the above four items, I don't get to claim zero taxes owed.

I am not saying this is a bad or good thing, but this is what he meant, as I read it.
 
2012-08-29 03:35:42 PM

Cubicle Jockey: runin800m: Umm, actually individuals DO get to write off expenses not just corporations.

I am pretty sure he is referring to the human equivalent of operating expenses; food, clothing, shelter, transportation. If I earn $80,000, and spend every cent of it on the above four items, I don't get to claim zero taxes owed.

I am not saying this is a bad or good thing, but this is what he meant, as I read it.


Ah, I see. Well, that is somewhat true but misleading in this case. Businesses/Corporations are allowed to deduct expenses necessary for them to conduct their business. They deduct more than an individual because, unsurprisingly, almost everything a business spends money on is related to the operation of that business. An individual, even an employee, can claim deductions on food, shelter, clothing, and transportation if they are costs necessary for that person to earn their paycheck. If they have an office that they principally operate out of in their home then they can claim that portion of their home as a deductible expense along with a portion of utilities associated with the home office. If they travel for business at their own expense then they can deduct that from their income. If they meet a client for a business lunch at their expense then they can claim a deduction. They are not allowed to deduct their food, clothing, shelter, and transportation that is unrelated to their job, because they would have to have all of those things regardless of whether they have their job or not, and as such they are unrelated to the income that they've earned and are taxable.
 
2012-08-29 03:36:45 PM

skullkrusher: Cubicle Jockey: skullkrusher: - Ben Franklin, Conservative Monster

He's my favorite founding father, but back in Novemeber 1766, when he wrote that, Ben had only been to two countries (or one, if you consider the colonies still part of England at that time). He didn't travel to France for the first tme until the next year. He didn't exactly have a large sample size to see how public assistance was allocated in various countires..

Moreso, the reason for that editorial, which was outlined in the sections prior to that excerpt, was he was annoyed at export restrictions for his farm products, and felt that this ban and other price controls were in place just to make sure the poor could afford food and industry had cheap raw materials.

You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. -- Possibly. -- But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn? By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners. But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.

Full Editorial

I've read the full editorial a few times. Whole point was that quoting Franklin as a font of truth is that, sometimes, his truth is contrary to what one might want to convey. His article was about both the price of corn and what he felt was the proper way to deal with poverty and how he views the poor vis-a-vis institutions meant to assist them. A view that I am quite sure Jackpot777 finds horrific


And yet I don't.

Is this you?

i301.photobucket.com

This is you, isn't it?
 
2012-08-29 03:41:28 PM

Cubicle Jockey: runin800m: Umm, actually individuals DO get to write off expenses not just corporations.

I am pretty sure he is referring to the human equivalent of operating expenses; food, clothing, shelter, transportation. If I earn $80,000, and spend every cent of it on the above four items, I don't get to claim zero taxes owed.

I am not saying this is a bad or good thing, but this is what he meant, as I read it.


Yes, this is exactly what I meant. The types of things individuals can write off have very little connection to the notion of 'expenses'. They are almost entirely things we simply want to incentivize people to do.
 
2012-08-29 03:51:04 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, this is exactly what I meant. The types of things individuals can write off have very little connection to the notion of 'expenses'. They are almost entirely things we simply want to incentivize people to do.


I addressed this point just a couple of posts earlier. The problem with your line of reasoning is that 'expenses' are not deductible to anyone, business or individual. What is deductible to both businesses and individuals are business/work related expenses. Businesses have mostly business related expenses, and therefore most of their expenses are deductible. This should not be shocking to anyone. Individuals have far fewer expenses that are work related, but when they occur they are generally deductible.
 
2012-08-29 03:53:54 PM

Degenz: Graffito: d3: Isn't this proof that the safety net is working as intended? Lots of unemployed people need assistance right now. Let me know what the numbers look like when/if the economy gets going and people are hired again. I'm betting the percentages will shrink and not because of anything Congress does.

No. Nothing the government touches ever works as intended. Haven't you been paying attention?

Nonsense, the government built the roads the mail man uses to bring me my welfare check. It works great!


That's just the exception that proves the rule or ... something. (I never did understand that expression.)
 
2012-08-29 03:56:20 PM

runin800m: The problem with your line of reasoning is that 'expenses' are not deductible to anyone, business or individual. What is deductible to both businesses and individuals are business/work related expenses.


This doesn't make sense. So both business and individuals are able to deduct business expenses? That's what's called a rigged game. When you start with the claim that expenses of the type endemic to category A 'valid' expenses, you can't then turn around and say that those deductions are fair because of their categorical validity.

We might as well say that only lifestyle/individual expenses are deductible for both businesses and people. That would make just as much sense (ie none).
 
2012-08-29 04:16:29 PM
Well, not only is CNN's Fact Check wrong, Santorum GROSSly underestimates the number of Real'Mericans relying on Government aid.

It appears that he did not include every politician and government worker who lives off the Government dole, and every retired politician who continues to collect generous government benefits, or all of the huge subsidies that various people (corporations) collect with no end in sight.

/ All Fartbonger's fault!!!!!
 
2012-08-29 04:17:37 PM

Cubicle Jockey: The paragraph you quoted was him lying. He could NOT have seen how multiple countres dealt with their poor since at the time the only places he had been were England and the English-governed colonies. He could not have known how the poor would have responded to various institutional incentives.

Ben, being clever and aware that the internet would not be invented for over 200 years, knew that noone would be able to refute or even question his travel claims without spending time and money. Even if they did learn the truth, it would be weeks later, and noone would care. So from Ben's perspective, it was a risk-free lie.

He made up an anecdote to support his position, possibly to blunt objections from the 17th century equivalent to social workers. He didn't particularly care what would happen to the poor, just let him sell his wool and corn at market prices, damnit!


why is it relevant whether he was lying or not? He made an assertion and unless you want to argue that he didn't actually mean what he said (rather than just lying to lend support to his assertion), the point stands. It's not about whether he was correct in his assertion.
 
2012-08-29 04:22:56 PM

DamnYankees: runin800m: The problem with your line of reasoning is that 'expenses' are not deductible to anyone, business or individual. What is deductible to both businesses and individuals are business/work related expenses.

This doesn't make sense. So both business and individuals are able to deduct business expenses? That's what's called a rigged game. When you start with the claim that expenses of the type endemic to category A 'valid' expenses, you can't then turn around and say that those deductions are fair because of their categorical validity.

We might as well say that only lifestyle/individual expenses are deductible for both businesses and people. That would make just as much sense (ie none).


Wow, this really isn't that difficult to understand and it definitely makes sense. I hope you're just being deliberately obtuse and aren't actually this stupid.

What both businesses and individuals are able to deduct from their income are expenses that are necessary for them to earn that income. If a business sells shirts then buying the cotton to make those shirts is a necessary expense for them to be able to generate their income and is therefore deductible. The electricity that they use is necessary for them to operate and is therefore deductible. The electricity in a persons house is not deductible because it has nothing to do with how they earn their income, except as in the example I listed above for a deduction for a home office where the portion of electricity allocated to that office would be deductible but the remainder would not be. If you work for a company that has multiple offices that you have to travel between in the course of your job then the expense related to traveling from one office to another would be deductible as it is a necessary part of how you earn your income.

The simple way my accounting professor gave us to help understand was to ask ourselves whether the person would have incurred the expense even if they did not have the job, and if so then it is probably not deductible. Would that person have to eat if they didn't have their job? Yes, so it's not deductible. Would they have to have shelter and utilities if they didn't have their job? Yes, so it is not deductible. Because most expenses people make are not related to their job most expenses they make are not deductible from their income taxes, except where special provisions are made for certain activities we have decided we wish to encourage. Most expenses a business makes are related to the operation of that business and therefore are deductible.

I hope that clears it up, because I don't know how much more it can be simplified for you. Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer or law student or something? I would hope that someone in law school would have the reasoning abilities necessary to understand something like this.
 
2012-08-29 07:32:37 PM

Bladel: If it is something you earned though service, or a benefit program you paid in to all of your life, I would hardly call it "assistance."


This.
 
2012-08-30 01:29:08 AM
so what are they supposed to live on, after people like romney tossed their jobs away?

ahahahhaha! i still can't believe that guy is running for president.

people like him are the reason there are no jobs, yet they'll piss on you for accepting help now that your job is gone.
 
2012-08-30 02:36:27 AM
Santorum is scum. Lying is par for the course.
 
Displayed 129 of 129 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report