Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3644 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Aug 2012 at 12:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 29 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report