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.

(Reason Magazine)   Puttin On The Ritz: Romney's explanation of his election loss may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe   (reason.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Romney's, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Michael Kinsley, human beings, Democrats of the Left, Jane Mayer, James Buchanan, Samuel Adams  
•       •       •

8924 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 1:43 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



397 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-20 11:34:07 AM  
Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.
 
2012-11-20 11:37:00 AM  
Some of the best unintentional comedy on the internet manifests itself as articles on Reason.
 
2012-11-20 11:38:17 AM  
FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.
 
2012-11-20 11:40:33 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.
 
2012-11-20 11:42:27 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


And he was representing a party that went off the derp end into pure hatefulness.
 
2012-11-20 11:44:09 AM  
Rev.K: If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.
 
2012-11-20 11:44:54 AM  
How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!
 
2012-11-20 11:46:28 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.


Really??
Mine arrived last Friday. I upgraded to the War Pony so that when the revolution begins, I can wage war 47% style.
 
2012-11-20 11:48:33 AM  
Or, maybe it isn't, and no matter how 'edgy' and 'controversial' your headline is, there's just no way on Earth I'm clicking on your shiatty derptastic link.

It's gotta be one or the other, for sure.
 
2012-11-20 11:48:38 AM  
Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.
 
2012-11-20 11:48:58 AM  
We're talking about health care, not a goddamn iPad.
 
2012-11-20 11:52:09 AM  
that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage

I generally don't consider something I buy for myself as a "gift."

Some for laws saying the insurance I buy can't fark me over.
 
2012-11-20 12:06:35 PM  

Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.


My .50 cal air-cooled machine gun is on back-order. As long as it arrives by Kill All Real Americans Day I'll be okay.
 
2012-11-20 12:07:22 PM  
...and Romney wanted to "buy" the election with tax breaks for the wealthiest and coverage for businesses that want to export jobs.

It's funny how that seems to elude folks. Promises were made. Romney's promises were to continue a fiscal policy that nearly wrecked the system, but made some folks fairly wealthy and shipped billions outside the economy. But continuation of that isn't a "gift" I guess, that's just plain "common sense"?
 
2012-11-20 12:19:48 PM  
Let me get this straight: Reason believes when a majority of people voted for altruistic self interest - it's wrong because its not what the 1% rich free market people want?

Wow. If this is a sample of Reasons logic, I dare say their website name leaves them open to a false advertisement lawsuit.

Because helping out your neighbor and yourself isn't very American, is it?
 
2012-11-20 12:22:07 PM  

Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.


I'm still waiting for my OJ winnings.

//Y U SO FUNNY CHRIS?
 
2012-11-20 12:26:01 PM  
Yup. Obama promised me a stable economy, less war, and a higher national standard.

But it was the $20 a month I now save in whore pills that really tipped the balance for me.
 
2012-11-20 12:26:50 PM  

Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.


No, although I was promised one gay marriage and a 2-for-1 Islamofascist abortion, but I don't know how the USPS is going to deliver that.
 
2012-11-20 12:28:19 PM  

what_now: Yup. Obama promised me a stable economy, less war, and a higher national standard.

But it was the $20 a month I now save in whore pills that really tipped the balance for me.


I thought they were for your complexion, you liar!
 
2012-11-20 12:28:19 PM  
HAHAHA!
I got my gift from Obama last week.

Guess he just hates you guys, cause it's really cool.
 
2012-11-20 12:28:33 PM  

what_now: Yup. Obama promised me a stable economy, less war, and a higher national standard.

But it was the $20 a month I now save in whore pills that really tipped the balance for me.


It was the free cell phone and the mad $13k a year in welfare checks that did it for me. Do you know how much you can bling out your public housing on $13k biatches?
 
2012-11-20 12:31:12 PM  
Obama sent me a Guinness towel.
 
2012-11-20 12:33:40 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: what_now: Yup. Obama promised me a stable economy, less war, and a higher national standard.

But it was the $20 a month I now save in whore pills that really tipped the balance for me.

I thought they were for your complexion, you liar!


I use my whore pills to stop from getting knocked up. No one wants me to parent.
 
2012-11-20 12:36:54 PM  

hubiestubert: ..and Romney wanted to "buy" the election with tax breaks for the wealthiest and coverage for businesses that want to export jobs.


How is that even possible? You're "paying off" the top of the pyramid. That by definition is the smaller number of people.

Yes it's the O'reilly factor. But if he got it wrong Media Matters will be all over it.

The long and the short of it was simple, Mitt got outmaneuvered. Obama beat him to death about no specifics in his tax plan while never going into a single idea other than I'm going to get the rich to pay more. And it worked! It was simple and elegant. Every time someone asked him about the budget he would say something along the lines of "I think the rich should cover it" and then start lying about what was in Mitt's plan and no one and I mean no one challenged him on it. A simple "Mr. President if all the millionaires and billionaires are taxed at 100% you'd only pay for the government for a quarter. Or and I'd pay money for this! "Mr. President even your top campaign people have admitted that whole 5 trillion number is bs why do you keep using it". Yes it was said but no one made him answer it.

So now we get to see if that works. I hope it does. I really do. I said this four years ago and I mean it today. I would rather have a booming economy under a D then a recession under an R. Winning internet debates and getting to say I told you so doesn't help feed my kids, cover my mortgage or save for the kids' college. I want them to have it better than I had it, I hope Obama does pull it off. I just find it highly unlikely.
 
2012-11-20 12:39:57 PM  
Why don't you run him again in 2016?
 
2012-11-20 12:48:15 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: while never going into a single idea other than I'm going to get the rich to pay more


You didn't know the President's ideas so therefore he didn't have any? All it would have taken to inform yourself is watching any one of his campaign speeches.
 
2012-11-20 12:50:18 PM  

what_now: Yup. Obama promised me a stable economy, less war, and a higher national standard.

But it was the $20 a month I now save in whore pills that really tipped the balance for me.


I'm giving those biatches pills. biatches love pills.
 
2012-11-20 01:02:20 PM  
FTFA: "less than artfully phrased". Sounds just like the "Not Elegantly Stated" 47% thing.

Guy seriously needs to either stick to a script, or STFU.
 
2012-11-20 01:06:27 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: hubiestubert: ..and Romney wanted to "buy" the election with tax breaks for the wealthiest and coverage for businesses that want to export jobs.

How is that even possible? You're "paying off" the top of the pyramid. That by definition is the smaller number of people.

Yes it's the O'reilly factor. But if he got it wrong Media Matters will be all over it.

The long and the short of it was simple, Mitt got outmaneuvered. Obama beat him to death about no specifics in his tax plan while never going into a single idea other than I'm going to get the rich to pay more. And it worked! It was simple and elegant. Every time someone asked him about the budget he would say something along the lines of "I think the rich should cover it" and then start lying about what was in Mitt's plan and no one and I mean no one challenged him on it. A simple "Mr. President if all the millionaires and billionaires are taxed at 100% you'd only pay for the government for a quarter. Or and I'd pay money for this! "Mr. President even your top campaign people have admitted that whole 5 trillion number is bs why do you keep using it". Yes it was said but no one made him answer it.

So now we get to see if that works. I hope it does. I really do. I said this four years ago and I mean it today. I would rather have a booming economy under a D then a recession under an R. Winning internet debates and getting to say I told you so doesn't help feed my kids, cover my mortgage or save for the kids' college. I want them to have it better than I had it, I hope Obama does pull it off. I just find it highly unlikely.


The difficulty is this: Romney repeatedly went on record advocating the same policies that got us into the current financial mess. The same mess that a lot of economists warned folks about BEFORE we leaped off the cliff. Romney had no prescription for our economic woes, simply to "stay the course" and eventually, maybe, we'd get better by the sheer weight of inertia, or until the markets collapsed completely and by then, enough folks would have their cash offshore, and could then follow it.

Therein is the rub: Romney had no plan. He didn't have anything save a desire to run for President. And grift his way through a campaign to slide cash to the right folks, advance a narrative, and then get the Hells out. His greatest fear would be if he'd won. If he'd won, then he'd have had to actually fix the crap that he and his had contributed in wrecking. Romney isn't the problem, he is however, a symptom. Folks who want to appear to be doing something, as opposed to doing something useful. So long as they have the appearance, then they don't have to actually show their work. Phantom politics and phantom policies aren't going to get us out of anything. Confidence can only get folks so far, and then you have to have confidence in the very real work that you do, and Romney is none to fond of that work. He'd rather watch others do it, and then take the credit after. That has been his MO for a lot of years, and that's sort of the issue: some of us have been paying attention.
 
2012-11-20 01:14:47 PM  

hubiestubert: The Stealth Hippopotamus: hubiestubert: ***snip***


Your post is similar to my feelings on Scott Walker. Since he started with the union changes, I have always wondered what the endgame was. I would love to have a few minutes in a soundproof room with a few of these guys, including Obama, and just ask "Why did you do X?" and get real actual answers. Obviously, I would be killed before my foot hit the ground outside that room, but it would almost be worth it.
 
2012-11-20 01:40:08 PM  
Sumbiatch has he was gonna give me a pony.

WHAR MAH PONY FARTBONGO??!?
 
2012-11-20 01:41:02 PM  

give me doughnuts: Sumbiatch has he was gonna give me a pony.

WHAR MAH PONY FARTBONGO??!?


He told me I was getting a fish, but he stole it.
 
2012-11-20 01:41:15 PM  
*sigh* has = said

/dammitsomuch
 
2012-11-20 01:45:24 PM  
Wait I though the lost cuz Christia ate all the food at the Kraft Service table on election night
 
2012-11-20 01:45:25 PM  
www.flpundit.com
 
2012-11-20 01:45:35 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.

My .50 cal air-cooled machine gun is on back-order. As long as it arrives by Kill All Real Americans Day I'll be okay.


All I got way a bayonet. ;(
 
2012-11-20 01:46:24 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: hubiestubert: ..and Romney wanted to "buy" the election with tax breaks for the wealthiest and coverage for businesses that want to export jobs.

How is that even possible? You're "paying off" the top of the pyramid. That by definition is the smaller number of people.


Because they have all the money. Money they'll donate to your campaign. Duh.
 
2012-11-20 01:47:03 PM  
may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Or maybe not considering reason.com is just another derper rag.
 
2012-11-20 01:47:23 PM  

roc6783: hubiestubert: The Stealth Hippopotamus: hubiestubert: ***snip***

Your post is similar to my feelings on Scott Walker. Since he started with the union changes, I have always wondered what the endgame was. I would love to have a few minutes in a soundproof room with a few of these guys, including Obama, and just ask "Why did you do X?" and get real actual answers. Obviously, I would be killed before my foot hit the ground outside that room, but it would almost be worth it.


Part of my problem with NeoCons and the folks who follow their model, is that they are invested with subjective reality as the basis of their policy. So long as folks believe it, then it will be OK. They will make it so.

Subjective reality IS an important concept. It IS important to understand. The problem with so many within my former party is a willful misunderstanding of the concept. We do have to understand that how folks perceive things IS important. A woman who feels insulted by something you said, even if you didn't intend for it to be insulting IS offended. She WILL act on that basis. Understanding that in HER reality, you are a dick IS important. The difficulty is, that many have misconstrued the concept to mean that so long as you believe reality is such, that it will BE such.

Walker distances himself from a lot of NeoCon principles, but much of the party is still wedded to a leadership that feels that if they just wish hard enough, that things will fall into place. That if they just keep repeating a lie, that it will become truth. That if you just believe a policy will work, that it will. And reality doesn't work like that. Understanding that numbers can be massaged to give an impression and you can manipulate those numbers doesn't make the new set change reality, only folks perception. That only works for so long. Cooking the books can let you fool folks for a while, but eventually, the market is going to work onward, and at some point, you have to look at things in an objective sense, and then adjust your sails. At this point, a lot of folks have been drinking Kool Aid and calling it wine, and they're "drunk" is just so much acting...
 
2012-11-20 01:48:20 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


All taxes are theft. If I rob you less, it's not a gift since you're still stealing from me.

This is what Reason really believes.
 
2012-11-20 01:49:23 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


along with dropping a DoJ investigation or two and possibly a war with Iran.
 
2012-11-20 01:49:45 PM  
www.rushimg.com

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.
 
2012-11-20 01:50:05 PM  
Obama did bring us donuts...
 
2012-11-20 01:50:47 PM  

tricycleracer: Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.

All taxes are theft. If I rob you less, it's not a gift since you're still stealing from me.

This is what Reason really believes.


So, the fine folk at Reason don't like living in a first world country?
 
2012-11-20 01:50:49 PM  
A gift can be more than physical, monetary, or direct.

All politicians are promising gifts to their constituents. That is the entire point of the government: to do stuff. If you don't want a controlling body (in our case one elected by the people, don't forget) to be collecting taxes and spending them in the best interests of somebody, then you don't want a government at all.

So unless Romney was an Anarchist, he was promising gifts to those who would vote for him.
 
2012-11-20 01:51:24 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody

bold for truthiness
 
2012-11-20 01:51:27 PM  

Bontesla: Really??
Mine arrived last Friday. I upgraded to the War Pony so that when the revolution begins, I can wage war 47% style.


Hmm. I'm still riding my unicorn from 2008. He's pretty awesome!

/farts rainbows that smell like fresh-baked cookies
 
2012-11-20 01:51:38 PM  
The situation brings to mind Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe as when a politician tells the truth.

"47% of Americans don't pay taxes" is not a truth.

"47% of Americans effectively pay 0% in federal income tax" is a truth. This is because they're taking deductions on real estate, children, and 401k contributions, but that doesn't fit into the narrative of welfare queens. This narrative is decidedly not "the truth".

Keep in mind, you're reading a rant about "takers and makers" from a blogger.
 
2012-11-20 01:51:53 PM  
Ritz?

localbound.files.wordpress.com

Mmmm, Good cracker. 

because Jebus
 
2012-11-20 01:52:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.


Wait, I thought Obamacare was a huge tax increase ion the lower and middle classes? Now it's free stuff?
 
2012-11-20 01:52:32 PM  
If public goods provided by governments are gifts, I hope Republicans return the gifts of roads, clean water, Medicaid/Medicare, social security, defense spending, veteran's benefits, national parks, fossil fuel prices kept artificially low via a variety of policy measures, tax breaks as economic incentives...

Do you drive to the municipal swimming pool? Give that shiat back, you're a greedy drain on society.
 
2012-11-20 01:53:22 PM  
Thanks for the "gift" of not being completely shut out from buying health insurance because of my pre-existing condition.
 
2012-11-20 01:53:33 PM  
I can think of a more "legitimate" reason Romney lost.

The American public just has ways of shutting down the sort of BS people like Romney spew.
 
2012-11-20 01:53:33 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lando Lincoln: Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.

My .50 cal air-cooled machine gun is on back-order. As long as it arrives by Kill All Real Americans Day I'll be okay.

All I got way a bayonet. ;(


Unpossible! We've all been assured that Obummer's cut the number of bayonets to an all-time minimum.....
 
2012-11-20 01:53:42 PM  
Holy shiat..Elmo resigned!
 
2012-11-20 01:54:09 PM  

Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 01:54:42 PM  
No Reason; hoping for 'gifts' from the federal government is not why I voted for McCain four years ago, but switched to a nearly straight democratic ticket two weeks ago.

What did that was I Republicans spent four years acting like complete and utter dicks. Not just that - disingenuous to downright stupid dicks.
You fill your party with people who believe that you can't get pregnant from rape, you fill it with people who see differences between rape and forcible rape, you fill it with people who think you can balance the budget by cutting funding to planned parenthood and PBS while at the same time increasing funding to the military and starting a war with Iran - and guess what? Even if those views aren't personally held by your presidential candidate he still gets tarred with them just by association.

Groucho Marx wouldn't belong to a club that would have someone like him as a member, and I'll be damned if I vote for a republican candidate for president who won't at least one single time tell his party to grow the fark up and stop acting like children.
 
2012-11-20 01:54:55 PM  

Bontesla: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.

Really??
Mine arrived last Friday. I upgraded to the War Pony so that when the revolution begins, I can wage war 47% style.


That's awesome. Did that come with or without the Deluxe Bayonet package?
 
2012-11-20 01:55:19 PM  
Reason Magazine may be a lot closer to something you would use to line a birdcage than those who publish it would like to believe.
 
2012-11-20 01:55:45 PM  

Rapmaster2000: The situation brings to mind Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe as when a politician tells the truth.

"47% of Americans don't pay taxes" is not a truth.

"47% of Americans effectively pay 0% in federal income tax" is a truth. This is because they're taking deductions on real estate, children, and 401k contributions, but that doesn't fit into the narrative of welfare queens. This narrative is decidedly not "the truth".


What's really ironic is that those sort of deductions are "unfair" and make the poor "takers", while the deductions which allow someone like Romney to drop his effective tax rate form 30% to less than 15% are perfectly acceptable and noble.
 
2012-11-20 01:55:49 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Thanks for the "gift" of not being completely shut out from buying health insurance because of my pre-existing condition.


Welfare queen!
 
2012-11-20 01:56:32 PM  
Obama got me a phone!
personalmutations.files.wordpress.com 
And cigarettes. Cartons and cartons of cigarettes. Just use your Food Stamps!
 
2012-11-20 01:58:04 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


This

Rev.K: Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


Aaaaaaand this

/thread and subject
 
2012-11-20 01:58:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: hubiestubert: ..and Romney wanted to "buy" the election with tax breaks for the wealthiest and coverage for businesses that want to export jobs.

How is that even possible? You're "paying off" the top of the pyramid. That by definition is the smaller number of people.

Yes it's the O'reilly factor. But if he got it wrong Media Matters will be all over it.

The long and the short of it was simple, Mitt got outmaneuvered. Obama beat him to death about no specifics in his tax plan while never going into a single idea other than I'm going to get the rich to pay more. And it worked! It was simple and elegant. Every time someone asked him about the budget he would say something along the lines of "I think the rich should cover it" and then start lying about what was in Mitt's plan and no one and I mean no one challenged him on it. A simple "Mr. President if all the millionaires and billionaires are taxed at 100% you'd only pay for the government for a quarter. Or and I'd pay money for this! "Mr. President even your top campaign people have admitted that whole 5 trillion number is bs why do you keep using it". Yes it was said but no one made him answer it.

So now we get to see if that works. I hope it does. I really do. I said this four years ago and I mean it today. I would rather have a booming economy under a D then a recession under an R. Winning internet debates and getting to say I told you so doesn't help feed my kids, cover my mortgage or save for the kids' college. I want them to have it better than I had it, I hope Obama does pull it off. I just find it highly unlikely.


If anybody else had asked those Down syndrome-inspired "questions" they would have been laughed off the national stage as well. It wasn't just that you had the wrong asshole - the shiat stank, too.
 
2012-11-20 01:58:31 PM  
it was Christie!

it was Moochers (you know, minorities and whites who act like them)!

it was the hurricane!

it was voter fraud!!! (I'm sure we'll find some evidence at some point)

it was anything but our fault!!!

Please proceed GOP
 
2012-11-20 02:00:02 PM  

bobbette: YoungSwedishBlonde: Thanks for the "gift" of not being completely shut out from buying health insurance because of my pre-existing condition.

Welfare queen!


Don't tell anyone, but I took FDA regulated drugs this morning while laughing at Glenn Beck's craziness on FCC regulated airwaves.
 
2012-11-20 02:00:25 PM  

what_now: whore pills


I almost spit water on my laptop, damn you.
 
2012-11-20 02:00:40 PM  
Barack Obama spent his childhood in Indonesia. Taco, the musician who had a hit in the '80s with his version of "Puttin on the Ritz" was also from Indonesia.

www.the-tune.net 

What does it mean?
 
2012-11-20 02:01:10 PM  
Puttin on the Ritz? Now all I can picture is Romney as the monster in "Young Frankenstein"
 
2012-11-20 02:02:08 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.
 
2012-11-20 02:02:39 PM  
These are gold medal-worthy mental gymnastics.

Valid: "I'm voting for Romney because his policies are in my economic self-interest."
Invalid: "I'm voting for Obama because his policies are in my economic self-interest."

For fark's sake.
 
2012-11-20 02:03:08 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


If everybody knew it, why did almost half the people still vote for him?
 
2012-11-20 02:03:28 PM  
I guess "HAY! You'll get a job if you vote for me, but if you vote for the other guy the world is going to end!!" doesn't really fit into the category of bribing people for votes?
 
2012-11-20 02:03:36 PM  
FTFA: Yet when Romney suggests that Democratic voters might have been motivated by self-interest, his comments are condemned.

...and then on a day in late November, 2012, Reason accidentally admitted that voting for Republicans is not in people's self-interest.
 
2012-11-20 02:03:41 PM  
womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!
 
2012-11-20 02:03:42 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


Two things, if you read TFA, they said exactly that. And secondly, 'gifting' tax breaks are essentially giving people back what you already took from them. Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.

But whatever, it was a good article. Of course Romney was technically right that Obama bought votes with healthcare etc., but that's how politics works. Kind of silly of him to whine about it.
 
2012-11-20 02:04:02 PM  
uploads.neatorama.com
 
2012-11-20 02:04:31 PM  
Obama's "free gift" is mandating everyone buy private health insurance.

Best part? He regifted it from Romney but Republicans are too gullible to realize it.
 
2012-11-20 02:05:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But whatever, it was a good article. Of course Romney was technically right that Obama bought votes with healthcare etc., but that's how politics works. Kind of silly of him to whine about it.


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 02:06:25 PM  
Yeah, Reason, we know wht he says is true. Try to catch up. It's just that we find "gifts" to unpriviledged classes of people who are more likely to be below the poverty level to be preferable than "gifts" to millionaires and billionaires who don't need them. It just also happens to be a winning election strategy considering how many millions more of these people there are.
 
2012-11-20 02:06:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: T Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.


Of course that isn't what the policy does. But hey, the truth never has applied to the Romney campaign.
 
2012-11-20 02:06:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lando Lincoln: Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.

My .50 cal air-cooled machine gun is on back-order. As long as it arrives by Kill All Real Americans Day I'll be okay.

All I got way a bayonet. ;(


Pfft, I'm still waiting for my Prius with a mounted .50 Cal. Step it up Fartbongo, my bus pass expires soon!
 
2012-11-20 02:08:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!


It's true. Just this weekend I went to my Cadillac dealer, showed them I voted for Obama and they game two Caddys. The ATS is a sweet ride. It's black. Go get yours today.

I am now dumber for even replying to your post.
 
2012-11-20 02:08:03 PM  
Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.
 
2012-11-20 02:09:44 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.


Well thanks for ruining my gift, you ass.
 
2012-11-20 02:09:56 PM  
i used to read reason, when they had sane articles. now its just a front for all these neocons. how could any libertarian support romney?
 
2012-11-20 02:10:06 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So now we get to see if that works. I hope it does. I really do. I said this four years ago and I mean it today. I would rather have a booming economy under a D then a recession under an R. Winning internet debates and getting to say I told you so doesn't help feed my kids, cover my mortgage or save for the kids' college. I want them to have it better than I had it, I hope Obama does pull it off. I just find it highly unlikely.


Yeah but you guys also thought Romney was going to win and all the polls were skewed.

What the hell do Republicans actually know? Where is their credibility? And why do they find it necessary to keep giving us their opinions on things? You guys lost, show some humility and shut up.

/Listening to Rush
 
2012-11-20 02:10:46 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!


Ironically if I were interviewing someone so stupid they thought that was funny I would pass on them as a candidate and create a job for someone different.
 
2012-11-20 02:11:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.

Two things, if you read TFA, they said exactly that. And secondly, 'gifting' tax breaks are essentially giving people back what you already took from them. Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.

But whatever, it was a good article. Of course Romney was technically right that Obama bought votes with healthcare etc., but that's how politics works. Kind of silly of him to whine about it.


i.qkme.me
 
2012-11-20 02:14:25 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.


right we should go with the GOP plan.
oops we did.

well, that was the old GOP plan the new one is to do nothing to fix a terribly broken system, that way no one gets healthcare paid for by someone else

oops except poor people who go to the ER. If only there was a way they could just die as cheaply as possible.

If you choose not to have a plan you still have made a choice.
 
2012-11-20 02:14:33 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!


TWO Cadillacs? Damn, how much does welfare pay, anyway?

The cartoonist was careful to make her look like an older white lady, so how much would she get without any kids?

...an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.

That is EASILY enough to make monthly payments on two new Caddies!

You farking tool.
 
2012-11-20 02:15:56 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Some of the best unintentional comedy on the internet manifests itself as articles on Reason.


But those articles are usually lambasted in the comments.
 
2012-11-20 02:17:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.


I have a wife and a 13 year old son. My wife and I both work and we are well within the middle-class income bracket.

What am I getting? I'd like Hitman: Absolution for the Xbox360 if that's available.
 
2012-11-20 02:18:16 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.



If you can believe that one .jpg, she's probably waiting for you upstairs.
 
2012-11-20 02:19:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Of course Romney was technically right that Obama bought votes with healthcare etc.


I thought the US was against Obamacare?

Didn't Romney promise to keep the "free" parts of Obamacare, and remove the parts were we actually pay for it?

WTF is wrong with you guys? Do you not have a working memory?
 
2012-11-20 02:20:31 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

I have a wife and a 13 year old son. My wife and I both work and we are well within the middle-class income bracket.

What am I getting? I'd like Hitman: Absolution for the Xbox360 if that's available.


Why... you're getting the best gift of all... you get to be sanctimoniously disapproving of helping other Americans.
 
2012-11-20 02:20:40 PM  

Rev.K: If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


No, because the rich never got any help and they built everything and the government takes their money at gunpoint (it's true they're arming the IRS!) and that's called robbery and Taxreefer Fartbonghit is going to knock on the doors. First they came for the job creators and I said nothing because I wasn't a job creator, and then I was put in a concentration camp that makes socialism and upside down crosses.

/when they're rich, it's not a "gift", it's that they're smart enough to outwit the government
 
2012-11-20 02:20:46 PM  
That's it America. That was the last straw. I'm going Galt. You won't have Mitt Romney around to buy everything for you anymore.
 
2012-11-20 02:21:26 PM  

busy chillin': Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!

It's true. Just this weekend I went to my Cadillac dealer, showed them I voted for Obama and they game two Caddys. The ATS is a sweet ride. It's black. Go get yours today.

I am now dumber for even replying to your post.


Ummm, I think the original poster was trying to make fun of right-wing retards who are under the belief that poor people will now be receiving a bevy of goodies under the Obama Administration
 
2012-11-20 02:21:26 PM  
I voted against my best interest. I have been quite fortunate in my life and I'm not afraid of some minor inconveniences in the way of slightly higher taxes to benefit people less fortunate than me. I say this while simultaneously believing that 99% of my good fortune has been because of the good choices I've made and not magic, random luck, etc. We largely make our own luck. That doesn't mean I don't think the person who dropped out of high school and flips burgers for a living doesn't deserve basic health care.
 
2012-11-20 02:22:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Two things, if you read TFA, they said exactly that


Oh, where they said this?

They can give up on the free-market approach and try to compete with the left-wing Democrats on the gift-giving front.

This would imply that the Romney campaign was not participating in the "gift-giving front".

Which is of course bullsh*t.
 
2012-11-20 02:22:23 PM  
img7.imageshack.us

Hobodeluxe: That's it America. That was the last straw. I'm going Galt. You won't have Mitt Romney around to buy everything for you anymore.



ftfm
 
2012-11-20 02:22:53 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.


You must order one by using an obamaphone. It's the only way.
 
2012-11-20 02:23:38 PM  
So it looks like the gifts Rmoney was offering (tax cuts for higher income earners and cap gains recipients) was outdone by the gifts more applicable to a higher number of voters.

//Lets not forget they were both making promises for "gifts" but I guess there were not enough battle ship makers out there to get him elected.
 
2012-11-20 02:23:51 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


Pretty much this. Except it's a matter of perspective,
The conservative perspective: Things poor people wouldn't have without the government are gifts, while tax breaks are just what the rich would have had without the government.
Actual reality: Campaign promises solicit votes.
 
2012-11-20 02:24:34 PM  
Considering most Americans are just one layoff away from the poor house, it makes sense for most Americans to vote for "free stuff for the poor."

Saving enough money to pay the monthly bills PLUS health insurance for an extended period after a layoff is out of reach for most Americans.

Democrats are concerned that bad things might happen to people who don't deserve it.

Republicans are concerned that good things might happen to people who don't deserve it.
 
2012-11-20 02:24:52 PM  

cmb53208: busy chillin': Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!

It's true. Just this weekend I went to my Cadillac dealer, showed them I voted for Obama and they game two Caddys. The ATS is a sweet ride. It's black. Go get yours today.

I am now dumber for even replying to your post.

Ummm, I think the original poster was trying to make fun of right-wing retards who are under the belief that poor people will now be receiving a bevy of goodies under the Obama Administration


Poe's law gets me every time.
 
2012-11-20 02:24:58 PM  
I'm having trouble seeing how "buying votes" in the Romney sense is different than "campaigning."
 
2012-11-20 02:25:35 PM  

the_geek: I voted against my best interest. I have been quite fortunate in my life and I'm not afraid of some minor inconveniences in the way of slightly higher taxes to benefit people less fortunate than me. I say this while simultaneously believing that 99% of my good fortune has been because of the good choices I've made and not magic, random luck, etc. We largely make our own luck. That doesn't mean I don't think the person who dropped out of high school and flips burgers for a living doesn't deserve basic health care.


Actually, if you think about it, paying a slightly higher tax for keeping more people out of destitution is in your best interests, since said people will be less likely to engage in criminal activities that would possibly lead to a loss of your property and/or life. Desperate people make desperate decisions, and the less desperate people there are out there, the less chance a desperate decision will affect you.
 
2012-11-20 02:25:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.

Two things, if you read TFA, they said exactly that. And secondly, 'gifting' tax breaks are essentially giving people back what you already took from them. Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.

But whatever, it was a good article. Of course Romney was technically right that Obama bought votes with healthcare etc., but that's how politics works. Kind of silly of him to whine about it.


Damn, son. Some day you need to learn to lose like a man.
 
2012-11-20 02:26:32 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Rapmaster2000: The situation brings to mind Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe as when a politician tells the truth.

"47% of Americans don't pay taxes" is not a truth.

"47% of Americans effectively pay 0% in federal income tax" is a truth. This is because they're taking deductions on real estate, children, and 401k contributions, but that doesn't fit into the narrative of welfare queens. This narrative is decidedly not "the truth".

What's really ironic is that those sort of deductions are "unfair" and make the poor "takers", while the deductions which allow someone like Romney to drop his effective tax rate form 30% to less than 15% are perfectly acceptable and noble.



Don't forget the $80,000 deduction for his prancing pony!

/won't Obama think of the poor prancing ponies!?!?
 
2012-11-20 02:26:59 PM  
I see a trend here, but I can't put my finger on it.

(This list is off the top of my head, what'd I miss?)

Obama's "gifts:"
Expanded Pell Grants- helps educate the poor and middle classes get an education
Equal pay and reproductive rights for women - helps all women
Immigration reform - helps immigrants legally become citizens/taxpayers
Obamacare - expands healthcare coverage for lower and middle classes
Continue tax breaks for middle and lower classes - helps middle and lower classes

Romney's promised "gifts:"
Tax breaks continue for rich - helps the top 2%
Do away with capital gains tax - helps those in the middle class with investments; REALLY helps the rich
 
2012-11-20 02:27:11 PM  

monoski: So it looks like the gifts Rmoney was offering (tax cuts for higher income earners and cap gains recipients) was outdone by the gifts more applicable to a higher number of voters.

//Lets not forget they were both making promises for "gifts" but I guess there were not enough battle ship makers out there to get him elected.


They were relying on demoralization and voter turn-out minimizing projects (like the Voter ID mess in PA) to bridge the gap.
 
2012-11-20 02:27:18 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-20 02:28:05 PM  

Weigard: I'm having trouble seeing how "buying votes" in the Romney sense is different than "campaigning."


Obama is the first candidate ever to make campaign promises about specific actions he'd take. Frankly, I find a presidential candidate telling voters what they'd do in office, and the voters voting for the candidate that would do things they prefer, repugnant.
 
2012-11-20 02:28:17 PM  
WAAAAAHHHHH

THE LIBRULS CHEATED THEY ENDORSED POLICIES THAT WERE GOOD FOR LOTS OF PEOPLE RATHER THAN GOOD FOR MILLIONAIRES!

THEY'RE CHEATERS! AND KENYANS!
 
2012-11-20 02:28:36 PM  
The problem with what Romney said was never what he said, but how he said it. If he'd said "People voted in their own interests, and Obama's platform was more in their interests than mine", few people would have any issue with it. It's the phrasing of "gifts", however, and the fact it seems to need to be in quotations. If Obama was heading to people's houses and giving them nicely wrapped Wii Us (hey, he's the President, he might have got some early!), he's giving out gifts. If he's implementing policies that help the less well off, he's not.

Sour grapes doesn't lead to good whine.
 
2012-11-20 02:28:38 PM  
Shared burden safety nets we all pay into that go to the elderly, the poor, children and veterans = "gifts".
Corporate welfare and trickle down employment = "economics".

I guess "entitled" means something different when corporations and rich people do it.
 
2012-11-20 02:29:25 PM  
"There is no Romney wing in the party that he needs to address," said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. "He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn."
 
2012-11-20 02:29:26 PM  
GOP's latest efforst to broaden their perspectives:

behance.vo.llnwd.net 

/That was some was political trolling meaningless bullshiat. It's the type of bullshiat where I'm mad at subby for making me add a '1' to their visitor counter.

//But yes, lets reduce the entire economy and country to a single emotional phrase. That should work, good job GOP.
 
2012-11-20 02:29:32 PM  

Hobodeluxe: [img7.imageshack.us image 720x960]

Hobodeluxe: That's it America. That was the last straw. I'm going Galt. You won't have Mitt Romney around to buy everything for you anymore.


ftfm


I've never seen anyone pump gas while looking so creepy.

I'm going to have to try that one day.
 
2012-11-20 02:29:50 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.


Um, wrong candidate dude. You should have voted for Vermin Supreme if you wanted a pony.
 
2012-11-20 02:31:21 PM  

Hobodeluxe: [img7.imageshack.us image 720x960]

Hobodeluxe: That's it America. That was the last straw. I'm going Galt. You won't have Mitt Romney around to buy everything for you anymore.


ftfm


what is that picture from?
 
2012-11-20 02:31:34 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: We're talking about health care, not a goddamn iPad.


This has not been said enough.

Of course, I view healthcare along with food, water, and shelter as a basic human right, so-

/maybe even education
 
2012-11-20 02:32:29 PM  

jasimo: Romney's promised "gifts:"
Tax breaks continue for rich - helps the top 2%
Do away with capital gains tax - helps those in the middle class with investments; REALLY helps the rich


Remove the "pay health insurance" mandate, and keep the "no denying health insurance because of preexisting condition" rule.
 
2012-11-20 02:32:30 PM  

jasimo: I see a trend here, but I can't put my finger on it.

(This list is off the top of my head, what'd I miss?)

Obama's "gifts:"
Expanded Pell Grants- helps educate the poor and middle classes
Equal pay and reproductive rights for women - helps all women
Immigration reform - helps immigrants legally become citizens/taxpayers
Obamacare - expands healthcare coverage for lower and middle classes
Continue tax breaks for middle and lower classes - helps middle and lower classes

Romney's promised "gifts:"
Tax breaks continue for rich - helps the top 2%
Do away with capital gains tax - helps those in the middle class with investments; REALLY helps the rich


Another couple for Romney:
Build lots of naval ships - helps defense contractors and Romney's shipyard buddies
Give Adelson a break for his HK shenanigans - helps, well, Sheldon Adelson
 
2012-11-20 02:33:37 PM  
News flash:

People vote for the candidate they feel best serves their interests.
 
2012-11-20 02:33:47 PM  
I think what we're missing here is that Reason just admitted that the "Class War" cuts both ways, that Republicans are fighting on the rich peoples' side, and that there are fewer people on that side (you see, because they couldn't get a majority of voters to agree with their view of things).
 
2012-11-20 02:33:47 PM  
As opposed to Rmoney's "We take everything you have left and give it all to the rich while America starves to death. F*CK YOU!" platform?
 
2012-11-20 02:33:56 PM  

the_geek: I voted against my best interest. I have been quite fortunate in my life and I'm not afraid of some minor inconveniences in the way of slightly higher taxes to benefit people less fortunate than me. I say this while simultaneously believing that 99% of my good fortune has been because of the good choices I've made and not magic, random luck, etc. We largely make our own luck. That doesn't mean I don't think the person who dropped out of high school and flips burgers for a living doesn't deserve basic health care.


this^


I have never had to use a government program, I pay my taxes. I've made good choices and I know that sometimes people are in desperate situations because they didn't.

I recognize that this country can't prosper with a class of people unable to get treatment if they're sick, or unable to get access to a good education. I'd rather pay more in taxes than drive past tent cities full of people who, for whatever reasons, are out of options.

most people I know who voted for Obama are in good a financial spot and aren't looking to gain anything from the government.

/also if people think it's so awesome living on welfare, why don't you try to live on what they live on for a month? I've looked at what they get, it's far from luxury, more like bare minimum to keep you off the streets.
 
2012-11-20 02:35:14 PM  

Galvatron Zero: News flash:

People vote for the candidate they feel best serves their interests.


Right. And Romney tried to spin it like these people are getting hand outs they don't deserve unlike the rich who they believe should be getting their own tax cuts. It's a bunch of BS.
 
2012-11-20 02:35:24 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It's Fartbongo who's the liar.


images01.olx.ca

Did you remember to pull his finger?
 
2012-11-20 02:36:01 PM  

Headso: Hobodeluxe: [img7.imageshack.us image 720x960]

Hobodeluxe: That's it America. That was the last straw. I'm going Galt. You won't have Mitt Romney around to buy everything for you anymore.


ftfm

what is that picture from?


Today.
 
2012-11-20 02:36:52 PM  
"I'm a CEO! I know business! I know how to create jobs!"

What's worse than a "gift"?

A bullshiat promise.
 
2012-11-20 02:37:44 PM  

elchip: Headso: Hobodeluxe: [img7.imageshack.us image 720x960]

Hobodeluxe: That's it America. That was the last straw. I'm going Galt. You won't have Mitt Romney around to buy everything for you anymore.


ftfm

what is that picture from?

Today.


I'm staying away from QuikTrip today then.

/just in case
 
2012-11-20 02:38:02 PM  

unexplained bacon: most people I know who voted for Obama are in good a financial spot and aren't looking to gain anything from the government.


I would say I do look for something from government. I am looking for stability. I want a stable society where the economy is not going to tank like it did under Bush. And for that to happen we need proper regulation and a good work force. So I am not looking for a "hand out" from the government. I am looking them to provide me something and that is an environment for stable economic growth which I believe Obama will provide much much more over Romney.
 
2012-11-20 02:40:39 PM  

cmb53208: busy chillin': Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!

It's true. Just this weekend I went to my Cadillac dealer, showed them I voted for Obama and they game two Caddys. The ATS is a sweet ride. It's black. Go get yours today.

I am now dumber for even replying to your post.

Ummm, I think the original poster was trying to make fun of right-wing retards who are under the belief that poor people will now be receiving a bevy of goodies under the Obama Administration


People around here are surprisingly unaware of the Onion's editorial cartoonist!
 
2012-11-20 02:41:05 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.


Hey Republican idiot, why did more of the rich vote for Obama?
 
2012-11-20 02:41:08 PM  

Corvus: I want a stable society where the economy is not going to tank like it did under Bush. And for that to happen we need proper regulation and a good work force.


Did you hear that?

It was every Reason writer having a collective stroke.
 
2012-11-20 02:41:10 PM  
I actually didn't vote for Obama. I voted for Jill Stein, because I live in SF and I know that my vote for Stein wasn't going to be a "vote for Romney" and because it would fit better with my conscience and is also a (very, very tiny insignificant) show across the bow of Obama's administration to heed the voices from the more left of the party.

Nevertheless, I volunteered my time towards the election of Obama. (I didn't attend any volunteer grass roots efforts on behalf of Jill Stein; I don't know if there was any such efforts.) I support Obama not because he is offering me freebies and gifts. It's because it's offering a solution that benefits ALL of us. A solution is not a gift. It's a simpler way to get around a conundrum. Specifically, I'm talking about health care. The problem is that the US spends, per capita, more than twice the next highest country on health care and has general results of that spending at around 37th among all countries (based on life expectancies, wellness metrics, etc). It's like we're paying Cordon Bleu prices for thawed out McDonald hamburger patties. That's a problem.

While Obamacare isn't the best solution, it's several things: 1) addresses the problem instead of ignoring it, and 2) is a step in the direction of achieving an even better solution, and 3) is a decent interim solution in and of itself, and 4) hits on the major features of what a solution would do.

What are the major features? We want a solution -- not a gift -- to reduce costs. Check. To provide wider coverage. Check. Provide better results. Eh, not sure on that. Ok, not provide worse results. Most likely check here.

It's not a gift like giving tax breaks to the rich. That is a gift because there's no expectation of any positive returns to the government. Indeed, there's a great expectation of a huge Negative return to the government by exacerbating the deficit, and hence, the debt, and causing even more unemployment. Obamacare will help reduce government, and all other, spending on health care by streamlining and removing waste from the whole healthcare kludge that we currently have. Or, at least, Obamacare is intended to reduce spending on health care. Reducing spending while maintaining the same services is a good thing. It's saying, "Hey, if you're going to buy thawed out burger patties, you might as well pay burger patty prices of $1.98/lb and not fancy-schmancy cordon bleu prices of $14.99/lb."
 
2012-11-20 02:41:31 PM  
I received my HOT COCOA SAMPLER BOX today.
 
2012-11-20 02:41:52 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


This.

Every spokesperson for said campaign was a lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it.
 
2012-11-20 02:42:33 PM  
My 75 year old mom voted for Romney because she was convinced that Obama was cutting social security. I tried to explain that Obama was not cutting benefits, but it was no use. Romney said on Fox news that Obama was cutting Medicare and she's believing it.
 
2012-11-20 02:42:42 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: cmb53208: busy chillin': Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!

It's true. Just this weekend I went to my Cadillac dealer, showed them I voted for Obama and they game two Caddys. The ATS is a sweet ride. It's black. Go get yours today.

I am now dumber for even replying to your post.

Ummm, I think the original poster was trying to make fun of right-wing retards who are under the belief that poor people will now be receiving a bevy of goodies under the Obama Administration

People around here are surprisingly unaware of the Onion's editorial cartoonist!


See, I told you I was dumber for replying. *shakes fist*

Well, we are through the looking glass so you can never be too sure what is sincere and what is satire.
 
2012-11-20 02:43:09 PM  
 
2012-11-20 02:44:57 PM  

Corvus: unexplained bacon: most people I know who voted for Obama are in good a financial spot and aren't looking to gain anything from the government.

I would say I do look for something from government. I am looking for stability. I want a stable society where the economy is not going to tank like it did under Bush. And for that to happen we need proper regulation and a good work force. So I am not looking for a "hand out" from the government. I am looking them to provide me something and that is an environment for stable economic growth which I believe Obama will provide much much more over Romney.


I agree, if that's considered a handout, then I do in fact want that.
I want our government to work for us. Government can do good things with the right leadership. A bunch of math challenged Rand fans showing us how useless government can be by breaking it from within are not what made this country great.

I'm really hoping the GOP's lack of introspection and snowballing derp exposes them for what they are to a large majority of voters so they're completely marginalized and we can move on.
 
2012-11-20 02:45:40 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: the_geek: I voted against my best interest. I have been quite fortunate in my life and I'm not afraid of some minor inconveniences in the way of slightly higher taxes to benefit people less fortunate than me. I say this while simultaneously believing that 99% of my good fortune has been because of the good choices I've made and not magic, random luck, etc. We largely make our own luck. That doesn't mean I don't think the person who dropped out of high school and flips burgers for a living doesn't deserve basic health care.

Actually, if you think about it, paying a slightly higher tax for keeping more people out of destitution is in your best interests, since said people will be less likely to engage in criminal activities that would possibly lead to a loss of your property and/or life. Desperate people make desperate decisions, and the less desperate people there are out there, the less chance a desperate decision will affect you.


Now now sir, that's the sort of basic economic assumption that has been the foundation of society for hundreds of years. What are you - some sort of conservative wanting to stick to what works?
 
2012-11-20 02:46:28 PM  
If one defines 'doing things people think are a good idea and which will improve lives' as 'gifts' then go for it. I prefer to define that as 'the whole farking point of government'
 
2012-11-20 02:47:03 PM  
Why don't you shiatheads exit your farking church o' mises and just admit that your theories about Thunderdome boot-strappiness may well cultivate a tiny handful of incredibly powerful super-predators, but that community, diversification, and cooperation are what result in a stronger America that's ready to meet the challenges of the future and better compete on the world's stage.

Sure, it's farking AWESOME for the Koch brothers if they get to be King shiats of Turd Mountain, and of course they're going to scream from the highest peaks that absolutely nothing should stand in the way of their strip-mining the American standard of living to increase their leverage in our society and grow their own personal gigantic stacks of cash...

But, for everyone else and the country as a whole it sucks balls. It's the economic version of inbreeding and it will leave us as weak and feeble as a baby born of his father-uncle and mama-granny. It leaves us reliant on a tiny minority who reign due to leverage rather than innovation. It's like allowing the buggy whip manufacturers kill the internal combustion engine in order to protect tannery jobs.

More people, who are more capable, and more empowered creates an incubator for innovation and competition... an environment in which a handful of super-rich guys bestow advancement on those who best serve their interests, STIFLES it.
 
2012-11-20 02:47:25 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.


It's Chuck Norris's wife who's the liar. I'm still waiting for that 1,000 years of darkness to begin so I can spend time outside without having to slather on sunscreen.
 
2012-11-20 02:50:50 PM  
Obama voters are on video saying they were going to vote for President Obama because he was giving them phones. They referred to 'em as "Obamaphone." Cell phones ARE gifts.

Obama voters are on video saying a Romney administration would take away their food stamps. Food stamps ARE a gift. And so on and so forth.

The moral outrage at Romney's very factual statement is ludicrous. The racial angle confuses me, too. If more white people are on welfare, which is a widely believed fact, then how it is racist to denigrate people on welfare? Can you say, 'having it both ways'? ... the racial angle is very disingenuous and it only serves to lend less credibility to the race hustler.

Certain demographics breed more than other certain demographics. The more you feed them, the more there are. The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.

Is hating on Mother Nature hate speech? Let's find out.
 
2012-11-20 02:53:17 PM  

MJMaloney187: Certain demographics breed more than other certain demographics. The more you feed them, the more there are. The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.


drlindagalloway.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-20 02:53:20 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.

It's Chuck Norris's wife who's the liar. I'm still waiting for that 1,000 years of darkness to begin so I can spend time outside without having to slather on sunscreen.


I think that was all based on a comical misunderstanding of the old phrase, "once you go black you NEVER go back".
 
2012-11-20 02:55:22 PM  
It wasn't so much that Romney was wrong as he was finger-pointing over doing the exact same thing for his own constituency. What, Romney's cap gains cuts wouldn't have been a gift? Let me guess, paying less tax that everyone else was an *earned right, everyone else is a goddam leech on society.

Also, the presentation of his hatred for the 47% surely turned away some swing votes and perhaps even some more of the saner and/or less racist republicans a little put off by their presidential candidate bashing half of the population of the USA.
 
2012-11-20 02:55:38 PM  

MJMaloney187: Obama voters are on video saying they were going to vote for President Obama because he was giving them phones. They referred to 'em as "Obamaphone." Cell phones ARE gifts.

Obama voters are on video saying a Romney administration would take away their food stamps. Food stamps ARE a gift. And so on and so forth.

The moral outrage at Romney's very factual statement is ludicrous. The racial angle confuses me, too. If more white people are on welfare, which is a widely believed fact, then how it is racist to denigrate people on welfare? Can you say, 'having it both ways'? ... the racial angle is very disingenuous and it only serves to lend less credibility to the race hustler.

Certain demographics breed more than other certain demographics. The more you feed them, the more there are. The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.

Is hating on Mother Nature hate speech? Let's find out.


Romney voters are on video slinging racial slurs at Obama so that means if he had won it would have been because white supremacists wanted to put the white back in the whitehouse.


right?

/proceed
//btw, what are your favorite news sources? just curious.
 
2012-11-20 02:56:02 PM  

busy chillin': Lionel Mandrake: cmb53208: busy chillin': Lionel Mandrake: [womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com image 550x385]

SUCK IT hard-working Americans!

It's true. Just this weekend I went to my Cadillac dealer, showed them I voted for Obama and they game two Caddys. The ATS is a sweet ride. It's black. Go get yours today.

I am now dumber for even replying to your post.

Ummm, I think the original poster was trying to make fun of right-wing retards who are under the belief that poor people will now be receiving a bevy of goodies under the Obama Administration

People around here are surprisingly unaware of the Onion's editorial cartoonist!

See, I told you I was dumber for replying. *shakes fist*

Well, we are through the looking glass so you can never be too sure what is sincere and what is satire.


Seriously. I could post that 'toon on Free Republic and it would not stand out as being different from the serious posts there. Pretty mild compared to many, in fact.
 
2012-11-20 02:56:36 PM  

liverleef: My 75 year old mom voted for Romney because she was convinced that Obama was cutting social security. I tried to explain that Obama was not cutting benefits, but it was no use. Romney said on Fox news that Obama was cutting Medicare and she's believing it.


One of ms. qorkfiend's sisters voted for Romney because Romney's web site said he supports student loans.
 
2012-11-20 02:58:43 PM  
 
2012-11-20 03:00:21 PM  

MJMaloney187: Certain demographics breed more than other certain demographics. The more you feed them, the more there are. The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.

Is hating on Mother Nature hate speech?


no not hate speech.
you're just saying that minorities are like weeds in the American garden of white people.

"certain demographics" cowardly racist much?
 
2012-11-20 03:01:00 PM  

MJMaloney187: derp


Maybe you can tell me why so many of the wealthy voted for Obama.
 
2012-11-20 03:01:22 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


That.

Also you could just as easily claim that teh only reason to vote for Romney was the gift of low taxes, deregulation, etc, to all his rich buddies. And to the social ones they got the gift of anti-gay law and abortions banned forever.

It's a retarded concept.
 
2012-11-20 03:01:27 PM  

unexplained bacon: Romney voters are on video slinging racial slurs at Obama so that means if he had won it would have been because white supremacists wanted to put the white back in the whitehouse.


I've got an Obama voter on video saying Obama is paying all mortgages and student loans off and giving everyone free Acuras, so Donald Trump is automatically POTUS for life.
 
2012-11-20 03:01:27 PM  
I haven't seen any right-wing analysis of Romney that includes the word "liar" or "lying," which leads me to believe they're all bullshiat.
 
2012-11-20 03:01:53 PM  

Galvatron Zero: News flash:

People vote for the candidate they feel best serves their interests.


Sort of right:

spydersden.files.wordpress.com 

/nevar, gets, old
 
2012-11-20 03:05:00 PM  

MJMaloney187: The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.


What if I plant a garden of weeds, smart guy? Huh?

I just blew your mind.
 
2012-11-20 03:05:56 PM  

what_now: Yup. Obama promised me a stable economy, less war, and a higher national standard.

But it was the $20 a month I now save in whore pills that really tipped the balance for me.


favorite: Whore Pills
 
2012-11-20 03:07:29 PM  

Karac: What did that was I Republicans spent four eighteen years acting like complete and utter dicks. Not just that - disingenuous to downright stupid dicks.


FIFM.

IMHO, the GOP really started to go off the rails in 1994, when Gingrich, Boehner, Armey, and other party glitterati signed the "Contract with America".

/ some might point out that January 20, 1981 is also a valid starting date...I would not argue against that...
 
2012-11-20 03:08:11 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: unexplained bacon: Romney voters are on video slinging racial slurs at Obama so that means if he had won it would have been because white supremacists wanted to put the white back in the whitehouse.

I've got an Obama voter on video saying Obama is paying all mortgages and student loans off and giving everyone free Acuras, so Donald Trump is automatically POTUS for life.


it's amazing how many of these idiots will point to some useless fringe video while simultaneously ignoring piles of actual data to convince themselves they were right.

/it's also funny that this guy doesn't seem to know why "obamaphones" is a stupid thing to say.
 
2012-11-20 03:08:19 PM  

MJMaloney187: Certain demographics breed more than other certain demographics. The more you feed them, the more there are. The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.

Is hating on Mother Nature hate speech? Let's find out.


A good way to get people to stop breeding is cheap and accessible contraceptives. One could conclude that the GOP, with their near-unanimous opposition to cheap and accessible contraceptives, actually supports the minorities in this demographic battle.
 
2012-11-20 03:08:45 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Karac: What did that was I Republicans spent four eighteen years acting like complete and utter dicks. Not just that - disingenuous to downright stupid dicks.

FIFM.

IMHO, the GOP really started to go off the rails in 1994, when Gingrich, Boehner, Armey, and other party glitterati signed the "Contract with America".

/ some might point out that January 20, 1981 is also a valid starting date...I would not argue against that...


I would argue for the 1964 Republican National Convention.
 
2012-11-20 03:10:27 PM  
Jesus. Did anyone in here actually read the article, or is everyone that much of a knee jerk liberal idiot? This is just as bad as what you regularly lambast the right for.

To summarize the article:

People voted for Obama, because they thought he would best serve their interests. They thought he would best serve their interests by creating a more equitable society based on a variety of government programs. Also, Obama promised non economic gifts to social liberals, like ending the drug war, ending drone strikes, ending our empire, reducing the surveillance state, protecting gay marriage. Although not eloquently stated, it isn't too far out of line to call these government programs "gifts" to the people.

Romney also promised gifts, but his gifts were promised to a different group of people. They were gifts for people who pay lots of taxes, and who own capital. The right also promises gifts for many people who are employed by the MIC. Romney also promises gifts to the social conservatives (I disagree with all of these gifts). The people that Obama promised gifts to outvoted the people that Romney promised gifts to.

The question that the article then brings up is: if you honestly believe that a free market society with few government programs is better than the society with many government benefits, how are you going to get people to vote for the former. And it is a good question. In the past (and would be future), Republicans avoid this question by just paying for everything with debt, but we'll see what happens.

To say this article is bullshiat, however, is completely asinine. The leftists in here mocking this article sound just as dumb as rightists dismissing everything coming from the left, regardless of intellectual merit.

Full Disclosure: I'm in favor of wealth redistribution, although I would most likely have different methods. I'm also completely against (the vast majority of) debt, wars, the MIC, the surveillance state, and the drug war.
 
2012-11-20 03:10:48 PM  
Clicking on Reason links feels an awful lot like getting rickrolled.
 
2012-11-20 03:11:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Forbidden Doughnut: Karac: What did that was I Republicans spent four eighteen years acting like complete and utter dicks. Not just that - disingenuous to downright stupid dicks.

FIFM.

IMHO, the GOP really started to go off the rails in 1994, when Gingrich, Boehner, Armey, and other party glitterati signed the "Contract with America".

/ some might point out that January 20, 1981 is also a valid starting date...I would not argue against that...

I would argue for the 1964 Republican National Convention.


1980 is the advent of big time money in politics. It ramped up throughout the 70s but went nuts in the 1980 campaign and just about every trend you ever see drastically changes around that year.

Even Nixon had accomplishments and (some) morals, and even Hunter S. Thompson said Nixon was better than Bush Jr.
 
2012-11-20 03:12:31 PM  

MattStafford: Although not eloquently stated, it isn't too far out of line to call these government programs "gifts" to the people.


I don't think you actually believe this.
 
2012-11-20 03:12:33 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Forbidden Doughnut: Karac: What did that was I Republicans spent four eighteen years acting like complete and utter dicks. Not just that - disingenuous to downright stupid dicks.

FIFM.

IMHO, the GOP really started to go off the rails in 1994, when Gingrich, Boehner, Armey, and other party glitterati signed the "Contract with America".

/ some might point out that January 20, 1981 is also a valid starting date...I would not argue against that...

I would argue for the 1964 Republican National Convention.



Vietnam and Watergate. The right wing dorks on college campuses hated hippies and blamed them for everything. That turned into the neocon movement, which turned into the political arm of the GOP that developed with Bush in the CIA then Reagan in the White House, up through what we have now.

They're STILL fighting that same war from the 60s and 70s. It's why they still bleat about the "liberal media" like they did back then, even as the CORPORATE media spoon feeds their corporate allies.
 
2012-11-20 03:12:40 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Some of the best unintentional comedy on the internet manifests itself as articles on Reason.


When Reason seriously compared Canada's political rights record unfavorably to Cuba's, it became clear that only idiots read it.
 
2012-11-20 03:17:51 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: MJMaloney187: The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.

What if I plant a garden of weeds, smart guy? Huh?

I just blew your mind.


Listen man, if you're not going to be serious, why bother getting on the internet?
 
2012-11-20 03:18:25 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.


Pony? Pffft. I got my unicorn last week.

And let me tell you, it was delicious.
 
2012-11-20 03:23:10 PM  

NateGrey: [l1.yimg.com image 310x388]

Obama Wins 8 of 10 Wealthiest Counties in US


Yes, but all the richest counties are in blue states. What, you expected a rich county in MissHippie or Oklahoma?

/Is your Fark handle a takeoff on Nate Silver?
 
2012-11-20 03:24:45 PM  

CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!


Mitch Romney seems to not know that helping the American people is one of those quirky job duties of being the President of the United States.
 
2012-11-20 03:25:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't think you actually believe this.


What does that mean? I'm in favor of wealth redistribution, but I'm not naive enough to think that it isn't a mandatory gift given from taxpayers to tax recipients.
 
2012-11-20 03:27:52 PM  
I suppose the promise of 'gifts' for the destitute, the poor, the maligned, and systemically persecuted goes over better than the promise of 'gifts' for the super wealthy.
 
2012-11-20 03:28:12 PM  

Snarfangel: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.

Pony? Pffft. I got my unicorn last week.

And let me tell you, it was delicious.


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-11-20 03:32:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.

Two things, if you read TFA, they said exactly that. And secondly, 'gifting' tax breaks are essentially giving people back what you already took from them. Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.

But whatever, it was a good article. Of course Romney was technically right that Obama bought votes with healthcare etc., but that's how politics works. Kind of silly of him to whine about it.


When you cut someone's taxes, you are gifting them use of public infrastructure at a reduced cost.

Tax cuts are not budget neutral, and in fact, in the US, more of our budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes than to all of our spending combined. Think about that. We spend all of of our time arguing about the cost of services to the poor, when we spend substantially more on ensuring corporations pay little to no tax.
 
2012-11-20 03:32:25 PM  

MrEricSir: Clicking on Reason links feels an awful lot like getting rickrolled.


Years ago, they used to be a good magazine - but they let me down, and hurt me.
 
2012-11-20 03:33:07 PM  

peter21: Bontesla: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.

Really??
Mine arrived last Friday. I upgraded to the War Pony so that when the revolution begins, I can wage war 47% style.

That's awesome. Did that come with or without the Deluxe Bayonet package?


Without. Apparently if you have an Obamaphone and your contraception is covered under your health insurance, you can't also get the Deluxe Bayonet package. They're classified as "Welfare Queen Accessories" and there's a limit of two Welfare Queen Accessories per applicant unless I can establish I'm here illegally (then the limit is waived).

Goddamn red tape.
 
2012-11-20 03:35:08 PM  

MJMaloney187: Lionel Mandrake: MJMaloney187: The weeds always take over the garden. It can never be the other way around.

What if I plant a garden of weeds, smart guy? Huh?

I just blew your mind.

Listen man, if you're not going to be serious, why bother getting on the internet?


notsureifserious.jpg

the internet is for the lulz.
 
2012-11-20 03:37:13 PM  

Bontesla: peter21: Bontesla: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.

Really??
Mine arrived last Friday. I upgraded to the War Pony so that when the revolution begins, I can wage war 47% style.

That's awesome. Did that come with or without the Deluxe Bayonet package?

Without. Apparently if you have an Obamaphone and your contraception is covered under your health insurance, you can't also get the Deluxe Bayonet package. They're classified as "Welfare Queen Accessories" and there's a limit of two Welfare Queen Accessories per applicant unless I can establish I'm here illegally (then the limit is waived).

Goddamn red tape.


The basic bayonet comes in the Class Warfare Civil Unrest Package.
 
2012-11-20 03:37:47 PM  
Romney's explanation of his election loss may be further from the truth than anyone reasonable wants to believe.
 
2012-11-20 03:39:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: T Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.

Of course that isn't what the policy does. But hey, the truth never has applied to the Romney campaign.


Really? Then where does the additional tax on investment income that is required as a result of ACA go?
 
2012-11-20 03:40:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Bontesla: peter21: Bontesla: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.

Really??
Mine arrived last Friday. I upgraded to the War Pony so that when the revolution begins, I can wage war 47% style.

That's awesome. Did that come with or without the Deluxe Bayonet package?

Without. Apparently if you have an Obamaphone and your contraception is covered under your health insurance, you can't also get the Deluxe Bayonet package. They're classified as "Welfare Queen Accessories" and there's a limit of two Welfare Queen Accessories per applicant unless I can establish I'm here illegally (then the limit is waived).

Goddamn red tape.

The basic bayonet comes in the Class Warfare Civil Unrest Package.


Really? You see, I own a microwave and a refrigerator so I was also ineligible for that, too.

I totally got boned on my War Pony :/

Basically, my pony only came with armor and a meth addiction.
 
2012-11-20 03:42:06 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.


Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.
 
2012-11-20 03:42:53 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: I don't think you actually believe this.

What does that mean? I'm in favor of wealth redistribution, but I'm not naive enough to think that it isn't a mandatory gift given from taxpayers to tax recipients.


No different than any other money the government spends. Agricultural or corporate subsidy? Gift.
Narrowly applied special tax breaks? Gift. Fat contract to build jet fighters that can' fly in the rain" Gift. Oil depletion allowance? Gift. The Maker/taker paradigm is a flat-out lie, and it's time to start saying so.
 
2012-11-20 03:44:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.

Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.


This just in, all employer based healthcare is a "gift".
 
2012-11-20 03:44:34 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: T Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.

Of course that isn't what the policy does. But hey, the truth never has applied to the Romney campaign.

Really? Then where does the additional tax on investment income that is required as a result of ACA go?


Medicare.
 
2012-11-20 03:45:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.


Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.
 
2012-11-20 03:46:35 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: I don't think you actually believe this.

What does that mean? I'm in favor of wealth redistribution, but I'm not naive enough to think that it isn't a mandatory gift given from taxpayers to tax recipients.


Yep, I was right.
 
2012-11-20 03:47:49 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.

Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.


That's a terrible definition of the word gift.
You must be a riot at parties.
 
2012-11-20 03:48:29 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.


So, when your employer pays part of your health insurance premium, that is a gift?

Sh*t, better talk to your accountant and pay all those back gift taxes then.
 
2012-11-20 03:49:42 PM  

Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.


My bad of weed arrived yesterday.
 
2012-11-20 03:50:17 PM  
*bag!

Stupid jerk autocorrect!
 
2012-11-20 03:51:57 PM  

Bontesla: peter21: Bontesla: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.

It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.

Really??
Mine arrived last Friday. I upgraded to the War Pony so that when the revolution begins, I can wage war 47% style.

That's awesome. Did that come with or without the Deluxe Bayonet package?

Without. Apparently if you have an Obamaphone and your contraception is covered under your health insurance, you can't also get the Deluxe Bayonet package. They're classified as "Welfare Queen Accessories" and there's a limit of two Welfare Queen Accessories per applicant unless I can establish I'm here illegally (then the limit is waived).

Goddamn red tape.


psssst.

I've got some extra messican friends that would be willing to let you use their name to prove you're an illegal But, you'll have to get me a Deluxe Bayonet Package if I let you use my ex BFF's cousin's baby daddy's Obamaphone to order the rest of the Welfare Queen Accessories, and get my messican friends a bongo.
 
2012-11-20 03:52:42 PM  

Blues_X: Rev.K: If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


Is this code for "I agree" on Fark? I see people simply quote people with no comment from time to time. I used to think they just accidentally hit "Add Comment" before writing what they were going to say, but it happens far too often for that.
 
2012-11-20 03:53:31 PM  

udhq: Tax cuts are not budget neutral,


Correct. The Laffer Curve tells us tax cuts always yield revenue increases.

and in fact, in the US, more of our budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes than to all of our spending combined.

Not possible. All those tax cuts, breaks, and loopholes increase tax revenues by increasing taxable economic activity.

Your analysis is just way out there, bro.
 
2012-11-20 03:54:28 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.

Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.


If that's the case, then the gas you get at the gas station is a gift since it's heavily subsidized by the government as well.
 
2012-11-20 03:54:54 PM  

Ed Grubermann: So, the fine folk at Reason don't like living in a first world country?


Actually, no. They much prefer living in a third world country, so long as they constitute the .001% of the population that has all the amenities of first world living while living in secure gated communities surrounded by a sea of slums and squalor. As long as you've got yours, who cares about the rest of them? Cheap labor, throwaway sex slaves, subservient domestics and cannon fodder the lot of them. When you helicopter in and out of your compound, who cares whether the roads are usable?
 
2012-11-20 03:55:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.

So, when your employer pays part of your health insurance premium, that is a gift?

Sh*t, better talk to your accountant and pay all those back gift taxes then.


Conservatives believe that it is.
 
2012-11-20 03:55:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.

So, when your employer pays part of your health insurance premium, that is a gift?

Sh*t, better talk to your accountant and pay all those back gift taxes then.


I don't trust anyone who gives the gift of a health care subsidy. Do you know who gives gifts like that? Crazy people. Crazy as in: they will stab you in the thigh with a fork so that you get proper use out of that subsidy.
 
2012-11-20 03:56:44 PM  
www.slate.com

FARKING EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT OF YOUR VOTERS WERE WHITE. The GOP is the party of White Separatists, who have put it upon themselves to seperate from the rest of mainstream America. This "gift takers' and "parasites" rhetoric is simply a sanitized version of the same hate speech you find in any other white separatist groups. We can read between the lines and we know who you're talking about, and it's certainly not farmers receiving subsidies or Aunt Myrtle getting her social security check. Yes, we know, it's "Obamaphones" given out by "the welfare President".
 
2012-11-20 03:56:55 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: And secondly, 'gifting' tax breaks are essentially giving people back what you already took from them. Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.


You are absolutely wrong on this point.

If we were running a surplus and if we had no debt, then you could make that argument.

As it stands, any current money coming in is going towards things already paid for. A dollar not taxed is a dollar borrowed at this point, no more or less than a dollar spent.

Now, maybe if we lived in a country where the majority of the population was against the majority of spending (as opposed to merely being vaguely in favor of smaller government and having some loose issues with non-specific welfare spending) then you could make that distinction. However, the government has already given us more "gifts" (and those include both the gift of giving the American people wars vietnam through Iraq as well as giving us the gift of food stamps, highways, and everything else) than we've paid for via taxes.
 
2012-11-20 03:57:38 PM  

Tommy Moo: Blues_X: Rev.K: If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.

Is this code for "I agree" on Fark? I see people simply quote people with no comment from time to time. I used to think they just accidentally hit "Add Comment" before writing what they were going to say, but it happens far too often for that.


It is. :)
 
2012-11-20 03:57:50 PM  

udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K: FTA:

Mitt Romney's explanation of his election loss-that President Obama bought the election with "gifts" such as health insurance coverage and student loan forgiveness-may be closer to the truth than a lot of people want to believe.

Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.

Two things, if you read TFA, they said exactly that. And secondly, 'gifting' tax breaks are essentially giving people back what you already took from them. Bit of a difference from giving people health care and making others pay for it. Just sayin'.

But whatever, it was a good article. Of course Romney was technically right that Obama bought votes with healthcare etc., but that's how politics works. Kind of silly of him to whine about it.

When you cut someone's taxes, you are gifting them use of public infrastructure at a reduced cost.

Tax cuts are not budget neutral, and in fact, in the US, more of our budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes than to all of our spending combined. Think about that. We spend all of of our time arguing about the cost of services to the poor, when we spend substantially more on ensuring corporations pay little to no tax.


At a reduced cost relative to before. Whose to say the previous cost was appropriate? Think about the fact that people who pay taxes are the ones actually paying for things. When you reduce that payment, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.

If you gave your deadbeat cousin ten dollars a week for a month and then decided to ony give him $7 the next week, Is he now giving your $3 per week? No, and when you reduce taxes for people who are already bearing the preponderance of the cost of the federal govt, while reducing spending, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.
 
2012-11-20 03:59:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: If that's the case, then the gas you get at the gas station is a gift since it's heavily subsidized by the government as well.


We also use our military to support shipping routes. So anything you've ever bought has had its price reduced in a gift format.

The entire south is here as a gift of Lincoln.

Hell, the fact that I haven't raped Debeo's children because of the existence of laws is a gift of the taxpayers.

/braces for debeo to claim he'd be just fine defending himself and/or could afford private protection.
 
2012-11-20 04:00:47 PM  

Bontesla: Tommy Moo: Blues_X: Rev.K: If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.

Is this code for "I agree" on Fark? I see people simply quote people with no comment from time to time. I used to think they just accidentally hit "Add Comment" before writing what they were going to say, but it happens far too often for that.

It is. :)

 
2012-11-20 04:01:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Think about the fact that people who pay taxes are the ones actually paying for things.


So you admit that nothing the government spends on Americans could be classified as gifts?

/doesn't buy gifts for himself.
 
2012-11-20 04:02:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift.


Debeo Summa Credo: t a reduced cost relative to before. Whose to say the previous cost was appropriate? Think about the fact that people who pay taxes are the ones actually paying for things. When you reduce that payment, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.


I'll just leave these two comments to argue with each other.
 
2012-11-20 04:05:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.

So, when your employer pays part of your health insurance premium, that is a gift?

Sh*t, better talk to your accountant and pay all those back gift taxes then.


Look how clueless you are. If I agree to work for my company for a flat wage, then my boss comes in a few weeks later and says "hey, I'm going to give you health coverage as well, for no additional work!", then yeah, that's a 'gift', metaphorically. It's a giveaway with no quid pro quo. If I know going in to my employment that I get a wage and health coverage, its not a giveaway but rather a mutual agreement - I work and get pay and health benefits in exchange. See the difference.

Also, I know you don't know anything about taxes at all, but when gift taxes do apply (amounts over $13,000 per year/per person), the giver is liable for gift tax, not the receiver.
 
2012-11-20 04:07:57 PM  

HEALTHCARE IS A GIFT

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIVES

YOU STUPID 47%ers

 
2012-11-20 04:08:04 PM  
What Romney really meant to say is that Obama won the election with all the free gifts he offered to voters while Romney's gifts had to be purchased with big campaign donations from well-heeled supporters.
 
2012-11-20 04:10:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.

So, when your employer pays part of your health insurance premium, that is a gift?

Sh*t, better talk to your accountant and pay all those back gift taxes then.

Look how clueless you are. If I agree to work for my company for a flat wage, then my boss comes in a few weeks later and says "hey, I'm going to give you health coverage as well, for no additional work!", then yeah, that's a 'gift', metaphorically. It's a giveaway with no quid pro quo. If I know going in to my employment that I get a wage and health coverage, its not a giveaway but rather a mutual agreement - I work and get pay and health benefits in exchange. See the difference.

Also, I know you don't know anything about taxes at all, but when gift taxes do apply (amounts over $13,000 per year/per person), the giver is liable for gift tax, not the receiver.


1). Your boss does that in lieu of a raise. It's part of your compensation. It's not a gift. He merely thinks you were under compensated and doesn't want you to leave the company.
2). You called someone else clueless? You think health subsidies are gifts.
 
2012-11-20 04:10:34 PM  

CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!


"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.
 
2012-11-20 04:11:06 PM  

Hobodeluxe: [img7.imageshack.us image 720x960]

Hobodeluxe: That's it America. That was the last straw. I'm going Galt. You won't have Mitt Romney around to buy everything for you anymore.


ftfm


Goddamn, that was a fast slide downhill. I wonder how long it's been since he's been in public without being dressed and made up by assistants?
 
2012-11-20 04:12:04 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If I agree to work for my company for a flat wage, then my boss comes in a few weeks later and says "hey, I'm going to give you health coverage as well, for no additional work!", then yeah, that's a 'gift', metaphorically


Are raises gifts? Because I'd call that a raise.

Debeo Summa Credo: Also, I know you don't know anything about taxes at all


herr hurr herp durp.

Debeo Summa Credo: the giver is liable for gift tax, not the receiver.


Either can pay the gift tax. The government doesn't really care as long as they get their cut, though generally the giver does pay it. Also paying the medical bills of another person is exempted anyways. But all that said, you are slipping back into troll territory here, and you know goddamn well that an employer increasing your compensation is not a gift. Don't be stupid.
 
2012-11-20 04:12:45 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.

Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.

If that's the case, then the gas you get at the gas station is a gift since it's heavily subsidized by the government as well.


Is it? Then let's end that gift as well. Maybe reducing the cost of that gift can be offset by reducing some of the gas taxes I pay.

Anyway, it's interesting to hear that those subsidies are actually gifts to me and my fellow motorists. I had been misled by farklibs that they were gifts to oil companies. I'm sure they'll be very glad to hear that they are actually gifts to us!
 
2012-11-20 04:12:54 PM  

mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.


lolwut

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Toolbox.
 
2012-11-20 04:13:28 PM  

mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 
2012-11-20 04:13:55 PM  

mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.


Why do you hate the constitution and the our founders' will that a supreme court be the one to make that decision, and not you?

Do you have a letter from Franklin discussing whether CommieTaoist's opinion of the constitutionality of laws shall supercede that of the Supreme Court? No? Then fark that noise.
 
2012-11-20 04:14:32 PM  

mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.


Er. Wait. What do you think the purpose of government is?
 
2012-11-20 04:14:33 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

At a reduced cost relative to before. Whose to say the previous cost was appropriate? Think about the fact that people who pay taxes are the ones actually paying for things. When you reduce that payment, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.

If you gave your deadbeat cousin ten dollars a week for a month and then decided to ony give him $7 the next week, Is he now giving your $3 per week? No, and when you reduce taxes for people who are already bearing the preponderance of the cost of the federal govt, while reducing spending, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.


Is your deadbeat cousin giving you government services in return? No? Then your comparison is irrelevant.
 
2012-11-20 04:15:15 PM  
Whoops, make that Mike0023's opinion.
 
2012-11-20 04:15:33 PM  

mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.


Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
 
2012-11-20 04:16:03 PM  

roc6783: Is your deadbeat cousin giving you government services in return? No? Then your comparison is irrelevant.


I bet he thinks the federal government should run based on home-economics too.
 
2012-11-20 04:19:46 PM  

Kevin72: NateGrey: [l1.yimg.com image 310x388]

Obama Wins 8 of 10 Wealthiest Counties in US

Yes, but all the richest counties are in blue states. What, you expected a rich county in MissHippie or Oklahoma?


Which pretty much goes to show that this "takers" vs. "makers" rhetoric is merely nothing more than the same sanitized whitewashed racial politics that have always plagued this country.
 
2012-11-20 04:20:11 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: If I agree to work for my company for a flat wage, then my boss comes in a few weeks later and says "hey, I'm going to give you health coverage as well, for no additional work!", then yeah, that's a 'gift', metaphorically

Are raises gifts? Because I'd call that a raise.

Debeo Summa Credo: Also, I know you don't know anything about taxes at all

herr hurr herp durp.

Debeo Summa Credo: the giver is liable for gift tax, not the receiver.

Either can pay the gift tax. The government doesn't really care as long as they get their cut, though generally the giver does pay it. Also paying the medical bills of another person is exempted anyways. But all that said, you are slipping back into troll territory here, and you know goddamn well that an employer increasing your compensation is not a gift. Don't be stupid.


I shouldn't be stupid? I'm responding to people who think that my employer subsidizing my health insurance, as I expected as part of my initial agreement to work for my employer, is equivalent to the government providing subsidized health insurance to individuals by taking away from other individuals. You know that those aren't equivalent.

What would you call a government granting a subsidy to one class of citizen in purchasing a product, and paying for that subsidy by taxing another class of citizen, if not a "gift"? A wealth transfer? A transfer payment? It is a giveaway to one group at the expense of another group.
 
2012-11-20 04:21:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What would you call a government granting a subsidy to one class of citizen in purchasing a product, and paying for that subsidy by taxing another class of citizen, if not a "gift"? A wealth transfer? A transfer payment? It is a giveaway to one group at the expense of another group.


So the mortgage deduction is a gift?
 
2012-11-20 04:22:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: If I agree to work for my company for a flat wage, then my boss comes in a few weeks later and says "hey, I'm going to give you health coverage as well, for no additional work!", then yeah, that's a 'gift', metaphorically

Are raises gifts? Because I'd call that a raise.

Debeo Summa Credo: Also, I know you don't know anything about taxes at all

herr hurr herp durp.

Debeo Summa Credo: the giver is liable for gift tax, not the receiver.

Either can pay the gift tax. The government doesn't really care as long as they get their cut, though generally the giver does pay it. Also paying the medical bills of another person is exempted anyways. But all that said, you are slipping back into troll territory here, and you know goddamn well that an employer increasing your compensation is not a gift. Don't be stupid.

I shouldn't be stupid? I'm responding to people who think that my employer subsidizing my health insurance, as I expected as part of my initial agreement to work for my employer, is equivalent to the government providing subsidized health insurance to individuals by taking away from other individuals. You know that those aren't equivalent.

What would you call a government granting a subsidy to one class of citizen in purchasing a product, and paying for that subsidy by taxing another class of citizen, if not a "gift"? A wealth transfer? A transfer payment? It is a giveaway to one group at the expense of another group.


I wish the government would just give me the name of the person who's healthcare I'm buying so I can send them a check and cut out the middle man to save money.

What, that's not how it works you say? I'm being intellectually dishonest you say?

YOU DON'T FARKING SAY!
 
2012-11-20 04:23:43 PM  

mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.


The meaning of "general welfare" is certainly open for debate, but don't pretend it isn't in the constitution.
 
2012-11-20 04:24:16 PM  

roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

At a reduced cost relative to before. Whose to say the previous cost was appropriate? Think about the fact that people who pay taxes are the ones actually paying for things. When you reduce that payment, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.

If you gave your deadbeat cousin ten dollars a week for a month and then decided to ony give him $7 the next week, Is he now giving your $3 per week? No, and when you reduce taxes for people who are already bearing the preponderance of the cost of the federal govt, while reducing spending, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.

Is your deadbeat cousin giving you government services in return? No? Then your comparison is irrelevant.


In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?
 
2012-11-20 04:24:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So the mortgage deduction is a gift?


No, it's a bribe to get you to behave in a certain way, namely, settle the fark down and buy a goddamn house. Much the same way you buy a child a toy to get them to shut the fark up and stop embarrassing you until you can finish your errands.
 
2012-11-20 04:25:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: If I agree to work for my company for a flat wage, then my boss comes in a few weeks later and says "hey, I'm going to give you health coverage as well, for no additional work!", then yeah, that's a 'gift', metaphorically

Are raises gifts? Because I'd call that a raise.

Debeo Summa Credo: Also, I know you don't know anything about taxes at all

herr hurr herp durp.

Debeo Summa Credo: the giver is liable for gift tax, not the receiver.

Either can pay the gift tax. The government doesn't really care as long as they get their cut, though generally the giver does pay it. Also paying the medical bills of another person is exempted anyways. But all that said, you are slipping back into troll territory here, and you know goddamn well that an employer increasing your compensation is not a gift. Don't be stupid.

I shouldn't be stupid? I'm responding to people who think that my employer subsidizing my health insurance, as I expected as part of my initial agreement to work for my employer, is equivalent to the government providing subsidized health insurance to individuals by taking away from other individuals. You know that those aren't equivalent.

What would you call a government granting a subsidy to one class of citizen in purchasing a product, and paying for that subsidy by taxing another class of citizen, if not a "gift"? A wealth transfer? A transfer payment? It is a giveaway to one group at the expense of another group.


1). Bastardize the definition of gift.
2). Accuse others of being stupid for using that definition.
3). Ignore the fact that they used your definition only as an analogy to illustrate how bad your definition is.
 
2012-11-20 04:25:20 PM  

theknuckler_33: mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.

The meaning of "general welfare" is certainly open for debate, but don't pretend it isn't in the constitution.


Does general welfare let me buy Caddies for my baby momma? Cuz that's the one I want.
 
2012-11-20 04:26:05 PM  

CPennypacker: mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.

lolwut

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Toolbox.



I totally sang this in my head.

/Damn you, Schoolhouse Rock!
 
2012-11-20 04:26:23 PM  

InmanRoshi: [www.slate.com image 568x300]

FARKING EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT OF YOUR VOTERS WERE WHITE. The GOP is the party of White Separatists, who have put it upon themselves to seperate from the rest of mainstream America. This "gift takers' and "parasites" rhetoric is simply a sanitized version of the same hate speech you find in any other white separatist groups. We can read between the lines and we know who you're talking about, and it's certainly not farmers receiving subsidies or Aunt Myrtle getting her social security check. Yes, we know, it's "Obamaphones" given out by "the welfare President".


Who were the black people voting for Romney. That's some farked up shiat right there...
 
2012-11-20 04:27:44 PM  
Rev.K:

Roads are HEALTHCARE IS A GIFT

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIVES roads and build them all yourselves

YOU STUPID 1%47%ers
 
2012-11-20 04:28:42 PM  

d23: InmanRoshi: [www.slate.com image 568x300]

FARKING EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT OF YOUR VOTERS WERE WHITE. The GOP is the party of White Separatists, who have put it upon themselves to seperate from the rest of mainstream America. This "gift takers' and "parasites" rhetoric is simply a sanitized version of the same hate speech you find in any other white separatist groups. We can read between the lines and we know who you're talking about, and it's certainly not farmers receiving subsidies or Aunt Myrtle getting her social security check. Yes, we know, it's "Obamaphones" given out by "the welfare President".

Who were the black people voting for Romney. That's some farked up shiat right there...


pixel.nymag.com
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-20 04:29:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?


You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?
 
2012-11-20 04:30:12 PM  

Wadded Beef: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.


Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?
 
2012-11-20 04:31:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: What would you call a government granting a subsidy to one class of citizen in purchasing a product, and paying for that subsidy by taxing another class of citizen, if not a "gift"? A wealth transfer? A transfer payment? It is a giveaway to one group at the expense of another group.

So the mortgage deduction is a gift?


Yes, in a sense. Actually its more accurate to say it WAS a gift, in that offering the mortgage interest deduction meant everybody who wanted to buy a home after that rule was passed was able to afford more house (because they get the benefit of the MID), which increased the value of all houses.
I'm not sure of the genesis of the rule (when it came about or whether it was phased in), but it effectively gave all existing homeowners at that time a boost to the value of their homes. New and prospective homebuyers, however, didn't and don't benefit on average because the benefit of the tax deduction was offset by the now increased prices of homes.

At this point, it is a continuing gift to homebuilders, who can extract greater prices for newly built houses than they would absent the MID.
 
2012-11-20 04:31:34 PM  
not2bright:

Thank you. I can leave happy now.
 
2012-11-20 04:32:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: Wadded Beef: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.

Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?


Just so that everyone is on the same page.
Can you identify any rights that humans are entitled to?
 
2012-11-20 04:33:01 PM  

roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?


Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.
 
2012-11-20 04:33:13 PM  

mike0023: "Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government.


Then what the hell do you think the purpose or legitimate function of the government is?
 
2012-11-20 04:33:42 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: TWO Cadillacs? Damn, how much does welfare pay, anyway?

The cartoonist was careful to make her look like an older white lady, so how much would she get without any kids?

...an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.

That is EASILY enough to make monthly payments on two new Caddies!

You farking tool.


Psst. . . http://www.theonion.com/features/editorial-cartoon/
 
2012-11-20 04:34:04 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: What would you call a government granting a subsidy to one class of citizen in purchasing a product, and paying for that subsidy by taxing another class of citizen, if not a "gift"? A wealth transfer? A transfer payment? It is a giveaway to one group at the expense of another group.

So the mortgage deduction is a gift?

Yes, in a sense. Actually its more accurate to say it WAS a gift, in that offering the mortgage interest deduction meant everybody who wanted to buy a home after that rule was passed was able to afford more house (because they get the benefit of the MID), which increased the value of all houses.
I'm not sure of the genesis of the rule (when it came about or whether it was phased in), but it effectively gave all existing homeowners at that time a boost to the value of their homes. New and prospective homebuyers, however, didn't and don't benefit on average because the benefit of the tax deduction was offset by the now increased prices of homes.

At this point, it is a continuing gift to homebuilders, who can extract greater prices for newly built houses than they would absent the MID.


So wealth transfer isn't simply from the noble, oppressed wealthy to the greedy, ungrateful poor? Huh, fancy that.
 
2012-11-20 04:35:35 PM  

roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?


In my example, we both benefit the same from the $5 six pack, of course my cousin benefits from the straight wealth transfer.

But yeah, let's save the 150 posts and say that yes, the portion of the benefit of government spending that goes to the rich is far less than the portion of government revenues that they provide. And the working and poor classes proportion of benefit from government spending is far in excess of the portion of revenues that they provide. I mean, that's all obvious and not subject to debate.
 
2012-11-20 04:35:43 PM  

qorkfiend: mike0023: "Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government.

Then what the hell do you think the purpose or legitimate function of the government is?


Apparently it's to funnel money to corporate buddies. Or that's at least what it looks like right now.

None of the "people can easily kill you in the state of nature" bullshiat.
 
2012-11-20 04:35:45 PM  

lordjupiter: Shared burden safety nets we all pay into that go to the elderly, the poor, children and veterans = "gifts".
Corporate welfare and trickle down employment = "economics".

I guess "entitled" means something different when corporations and rich people do it.


Hate to be the one to break it to you and the rest of the Fark Progressives, but there is about a 100% chance that whatever you are living on is trickling down from an employer or the givernment.

Transferring a bunch of money from the private sector to the public sector won't change that.

These economic threads are like pushing water around in a balloon and arguing which plantation owner gets to control us.
 
2012-11-20 04:36:05 PM  

Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Wadded Beef: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.

Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

Just so that everyone is on the same page.
Can you identify any rights that humans are entitled to?


This is pretty thorough. I didn't see the right to the time and resources of a Dr. in there, but I may have overlooked something.
 
2012-11-20 04:36:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?


If you don't think every human being should be able to get care when they are sick, you are one truly farked up individual and I pity you.
 
2012-11-20 04:36:51 PM  

qorkfiend: mike0023: "Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government.

Then what the hell do you think the purpose or legitimate function of the government is?


Here are the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights
 
2012-11-20 04:37:15 PM  

Kevin72: NateGrey: [l1.yimg.com image 310x388]

Obama Wins 8 of 10 Wealthiest Counties in US

Yes, but all the richest counties are in blue states. What, you expected a rich county in MissHippie or Oklahoma?

/Is your Fark handle a takeoff on Nate Silver?


lolwut? So those rich people dont count because they live in blue states?

Yes, I was given one wish, I went back in time to 2006 to create this account because Nate Silver is such the rage right now.
 
2012-11-20 04:37:24 PM  

d23: InmanRoshi: [www.slate.com image 568x300]

FARKING EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT OF YOUR VOTERS WERE WHITE. The GOP is the party of White Separatists, who have put it upon themselves to seperate from the rest of mainstream America. This "gift takers' and "parasites" rhetoric is simply a sanitized version of the same hate speech you find in any other white separatist groups. We can read between the lines and we know who you're talking about, and it's certainly not farmers receiving subsidies or Aunt Myrtle getting her social security check. Yes, we know, it's "Obamaphones" given out by "the welfare President".

Who were the black people voting for Romney. That's some farked up shiat right there...


I guess the 2% of blacks who are "non-parasites" according to GOP votes.
 
2012-11-20 04:38:41 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

If you don't think every human being should be able to get care when they are sick, you are one truly farked up individual and I pity you.


So you have a claim on a portion of the life of another individual?
 
2012-11-20 04:38:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.


I am not doing this with you Silly Jesus. We already had this conversation a few weeks ago, and I was tired of your concern trolling then.
 
2012-11-20 04:39:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Wadded Beef: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.

Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

Just so that everyone is on the same page.
Can you identify any rights that humans are entitled to?

This is pretty thorough. I didn't see the right to the time and resources of a Dr. in there, but I may have overlooked something.


That's not my question.

I'll ask it again. Specifically - which rights are people entitled to?

Please list them in your response.
 
2012-11-20 04:39:36 PM  

aselene: udhq: Tax cuts are not budget neutral,

Correct. The Laffer Curve tells us tax cuts always yield revenue increases.

and in fact, in the US, more of our budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes than to all of our spending combined.

Not possible. All those tax cuts, breaks, and loopholes increase tax revenues by increasing taxable economic activity.

Your analysis is just way out there, bro.


aselene: udhq


Not sure if serious, but the 80s called, and they want their disproven economic theory back. If this was plausible, the Bush tax cuts would have created jobs, generated growth, and helped to pay down the national debt. They did the exact opposite.

What the Bush tax cuts actually did was take a huge amount of capital out of the active economy, and let it stagnate in the savings accounts of the wealthy recipients, which put our economy in the tailspin that we're still working out of.

Seriously, this argument could have been made 20 years ago (it still would have been wrong, but there would have been at least a few legitimate economists that would have backed you up), but there's just no way to square it with the reality of what actually happened in the last decade.
 
2012-11-20 04:39:39 PM  

roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?


The rich are godly. Their cars hover ABOVE the roads, they don't need healthcare, and they are like Lt. Bill Kilgore when war comes to town and can't be hit by weaponry. They also teleport their goods to other countries using the CREATIVE and SUPERIOR mind instead of using shipping ports. We are not worthy of their presence in our country.. that's for god damned sure.
 
2012-11-20 04:39:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

If you don't think every human being should be able to get care when they are sick, you are one truly farked up individual and I pity you.

So you have a claim on a portion of the life of another individual?


Do you have the right to trial by jury with legal consul?
 
2012-11-20 04:39:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.


Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?
 
2012-11-20 04:42:08 PM  

Bontesla: Debeo Summa Credo: Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.

Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.

That's a terrible definition of the word gift.
You must be a riot at parties.


Ask him if he feels that way about special tax breaks for targeted corporate entities.
 
2012-11-20 04:42:18 PM  

roc6783: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

I am not doing this with you Silly Jesus. We already had this conversation a few weeks ago, and I was tired of your concern trolling then.


So no answer. Got it.
 
2012-11-20 04:42:53 PM  

Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Wadded Beef: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.

Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

Just so that everyone is on the same page.
Can you identify any rights that humans are entitled to?

This is pretty thorough. I didn't see the right to the time and resources of a Dr. in there, but I may have overlooked something.

That's not my question.

I'll ask it again. Specifically - which rights are people entitled to?

Please list them in your response.


I linked to them.
 
2012-11-20 04:43:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: Wadded Beef: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.

Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?


Yes. Social contract. You're suggesting that one should be denied coverage? Think hard. It's a huge reason why Mittens lost.
 
2012-11-20 04:43:34 PM  

Silly Jesus: qorkfiend: mike0023: "Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government.

Then what the hell do you think the purpose or legitimate function of the government is?

Here are the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights


I've noticed that some people have poor reading comprehension. I'm not saying that you also lack this skill but I would like you to do me a favor. Could you summarize what you believe are the relevant parts?

/I just don't want to assume everyone is on the same level. It's nothing personal.
 
2012-11-20 04:43:58 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In my example, we both benefit the same from the $5 six pack, of course my cousin benefits from the straight wealth transfer.

But yeah, let's save the 150 posts and say that yes, the portion of the benefit of government spending that goes to the rich is far less than the portion of government revenues that they provide. And the working and poor classes proportion of benefit from government spending is far in excess of the portion of revenues that they provide. I mean, that's all obvious and not subject to debate.


Fine, if you insist, here is your copypasta with Silly Jesus goodness:

Silly Jesus: roc6783: Silly Jesus: Mugato: Silly Jesus: What is the actual REASON that someone who has been more successful should lose a greater portion of their money than someone who has been unsuccessful? Do you have anything other than the vague "for the good of the nation?"

Simple. The more wealth you gather, the greater reliance you have on government resources. You need the court system to protect your assets and interests, you need transportation and technology infrastructure for yourself, your products, and your employees, and you need a workforce that has basic education.

There is no realistic way that a wealthy person would be able to provide nor maintain these necessities themselves.

Actually though...it can't be that blanket. Someone who's running a huge business in multiple states...sure, your point is well taken. But, a guy who got rich trading stocks from his basement or betting on horses or something else that doesn't require the infrastructure that you describe...what about him?

Actually, it is. Take the guy who got rich trading stocks from his basement. Well, first there are all of the regulations enacted to make sure he isn't cheated on his transactions, then there is the communications infrastructure he is using to make trades, then there are all of the municipal dependencies he has living in a house with electricity, water, a way to go and get food, etc. Then take all of his dependencies, then multiply them out to all of the companies whose stock performance he is relying on to generate his money. There is no stock market without companies, and there are no companies without the services rendered by the government.

Think of the intersection of government services and wealth as an ecosystem. The higher in the food chain (richer) you are, the more dependent you are on sunlight (basic services provided by the government, paid for collectively through taxes) because if any of the levels below you collapse due to a lack of resources, you cannot function.

//Obviously I am oversimplifying the issue for brevity, but I hope my point is still clear.
 
2012-11-20 04:44:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Anyway, it's interesting to hear that those subsidies are actually gifts to me and my fellow motorists. I had been misled by farklibs that they were gifts to oil companies. I'm sure they'll be very glad to hear that they are actually gifts to us!


And just when I thought you couldn't sound more stupid...

But yes, a lot of the drilling and exploration the oil companies do here in the US is heavily subsidized by the Federal Government. That's why gas prices are so low compared to the rest of the world.
 
2012-11-20 04:45:00 PM  

aselene: udhq: Tax cuts are not budget neutral,

Correct. The Laffer Curve tells us tax cuts always yield revenue increases.

and in fact, in the US, more of our budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes than to all of our spending combined.

Not possible. All those tax cuts, breaks, and loopholes increase tax revenues by increasing taxable economic activity.

Your analysis is just way out there, bro.


Wow. I'm actually surprised you are still using this Fark handle and posting and such.
 
2012-11-20 04:45:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

If you don't think every human being should be able to get care when they are sick, you are one truly farked up individual and I pity you.

So you have a claim on a portion of the life of another individual?

Do you have the right to trial by jury with legal consul?


OK. You win.
 
2012-11-20 04:46:36 PM  
Reason should change its name to Excuses.
 
2012-11-20 04:46:41 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?


Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.
 
2012-11-20 04:46:51 PM  

Bontesla: Silly Jesus: qorkfiend: mike0023: "Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government.

Then what the hell do you think the purpose or legitimate function of the government is?

Here are the rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights

I've noticed that some people have poor reading comprehension. I'm not saying that you also lack this skill but I would like you to do me a favor. Could you summarize what you believe are the relevant parts?

/I just don't want to assume everyone is on the same level. It's nothing personal.


You have to understand that he's quite passionate about what he thinks the Constitution says.
 
2012-11-20 04:47:20 PM  

jso2897: Bontesla: Debeo Summa Credo: Mr_Fabulous: Dear Floor-Humping Mongoloids,

Affordable health care coverage is not a "gift"... It is standard practice in virtually EVERY civilized nation on earth. Preventing scumbag insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" is NOT some wild-ass radical notion. Hell, life is a pre-existing condition!

Also, it's not a "gift" because it's not free. People still pay money for private health insurance. That hasn't changed, and isn't going to.

That is all.

Do they pay other than market rates for such health insurance? Are they subsidized in any way? If either answer is 'yes', then it's a gift. That is all.

That's a terrible definition of the word gift.
You must be a riot at parties.

Ask him if he feels that way about special tax breaks for targeted corporate entities.


Hell no. He may try to gift me dental insurance.
 
2012-11-20 04:47:27 PM  

mrshowrules: aselene: posts snipped (ha!)

Wow. I'm actually surprised you are still using this Fark handle and posting and such.


Well, he's just nuts, now.
 
2012-11-20 04:48:20 PM  

roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In my example, we both benefit the same from the $5 six pack, of course my cousin benefits from the straight wealth transfer.

But yeah, let's save the 150 posts and say that yes, the portion of the benefit of government spending that goes to the rich is far less than the portion of government revenues that they provide. And the working and poor classes proportion of benefit from government spending is far in excess of the portion of revenues that they provide. I mean, that's all obvious and not subject to debate.

Fine, if you insist, here is your copypasta with Silly Jesus goodness:

Silly Jesus: roc6783: Silly Jesus: Mugato: Silly Jesus: What is the actual REASON that someone who has been more successful should lose a greater portion of their money than someone who has been unsuccessful? Do you have anything other than the vague "for the good of the nation?"

Simple. The more wealth you gather, the greater reliance you have on government resources. You need the court system to protect your assets and interests, you need transportation and technology infrastructure for yourself, your products, and your employees, and you need a workforce that has basic education.

There is no realistic way that a wealthy person would be able to provide nor maintain these necessities themselves.

Actually though...it can't be that blanket. Someone who's running a huge business in multiple states...sure, your point is well taken. But, a guy who got rich trading stocks from his basement or betting on horses or something else that doesn't require the infrastructure that you describe...what about him?

Actually, it is. Take the guy who got rich trading stocks from his basement. Well, first there are all of the regulations enacted to make sure he isn't cheated on his transactions, then there is the communications infrastructure he is using to make trades, then there ...


Ooooh yeeeeeah. I remember now. shiat.
 
2012-11-20 04:52:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Bontesla: Silly Jesus: Wadded Beef: Silly Jesus: [www.rushimg.com image 585x250]

Seriously, this works both ways. If the libs can say (correctly, I might add) that rich guys voted for Romney in order to get his presents (tax breaks / loopholes / etc.) then why is it beyond the pale to say that folks voted for Obama in order to get his presents?

You're going to vote for the person that gives you the most stuff. Obama has promised to give a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot of stuff. Embrace the free money re-distribution philosophy, don't try to hide it. Let the unicorn money flow through you.

Motherfarker, please. If Romney won he guts health care reform and my girlfriend wouldn't be able to leave her job to start her own business because she'd be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition (not to mention a LOT of people getting denied coverage for something similar). It isn't 'stuff' she wants, she demands some basic human rights in the age of medicine (things you consider "stuff" and "free"). You're a farking idiot.

Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

Just so that everyone is on the same page.
Can you identify any rights that humans are entitled to?

This is pretty thorough. I didn't see the right to the time and resources of a Dr. in there, but I may have overlooked something.

That's not my question.

I'll ask it again. Specifically - which rights are people entitled to?

Please list them in your response.

I linked to them.


And I appreciate that but lately I have noticed a lack of agreement on rather basic things like the definition of a gift. Just to make sure I fully understand what you think are valid rights, pleas list them.

A copy and paste would be an insufficient response to this request.
 
2012-11-20 04:54:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: Healthcare is a right now? You are entitled to part of a Dr.'s life just because you exist?

If you don't think every human being should be able to get care when they are sick, you are one truly farked up individual and I pity you.

So you have a claim on a portion of the life of another individual?


You can play word games all you like. People become doctors to help sick people. Sick people need help. Doctors should be paid for their services unless they donate them (which many do). A system in which all people can get access to a defined benefit plan that pays out to their healthcare providers is hardly a "claim on a portion of the life of another individual". They'll have to make an appointment just like everyone else, they'll just have some coverage that helps them pay the expenses.

So go on with your nonsensical word games. We're talking about coverage... a plan that pays a portion of your expenses. The act of seeing a doctor and getting care is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to that.

Having a society where sick people much choose between not getting treatment, putting food on the table, or going to the ER which everyone else ends up paying for anyway, is farked up and the fact that you seem to think that is actually desirable is simply obscene.
 
2012-11-20 04:57:09 PM  

Silly Jesus:
Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.


Right, and the services are there to protect the areas that DO pay the net taxes. The cops are at Bubba's house to keep him away from Bill Gates' house.
 
2012-11-20 04:58:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?

Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.


Showing up at a disturbance is 'keeping the peace' and benefits everyone. If the folks you so derisively named had their car stolen, the police wouldn't farking do shiat. Hell, they probably wouldn't do shiat if their farking kid was missing. But if Bill Gates had a brick thrown through the back windshield of his BMW, there'd be a farking manhunt.

Oh, and I noticed you ignored everything else.
 
2012-11-20 05:01:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?

Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.


That actually isn't true, if you care. In the U, S. poor ares are as underserved by law enforcement as they are by all other services. Poorer areas have fewer police per capita, slower 911 response times, and suffer far more incidents of police misconduct. Your bourgeois subjective belief that the cops are always "down there" dealing with "those people" is just that - a subjective, and false belief. One might even say - a prejudice.
 
2012-11-20 05:03:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K: FTA:

At a reduced cost relative to before. Whose to say the previous cost was appropriate? Think about the fact that people who pay taxes are the ones actually paying for things. When you reduce that payment, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.

If you gave your deadbeat cousin ten dollars a week for a month and then decided to ony give him $7 the next week, Is he now giving your $3 per week? No, and when you reduce taxes for people who are already bearing the preponderance of the cost of the federal govt, while reducing spending, you aren't giving them anything. You are taking less.


I know you really don't want to believe this fact, but it is plain, observable reality: everyone pays taxes.

Everyone.

And if you are really intent on separating out the makers and the takers, the takers aren't the parasites you fantasize about. They are the elderly and active duty military.

The fact is, the wealthier you are, the more property you have under the protection of the U.S. legal system and national security apparatus, and don't pretend that that isn't an invaluable service. Drop Warren Buffet off in Mogadishu with $42billion in cash and see how long that lasts. Compared to him, the US government barely has to lift a finger to protect my property, or even the property of someone on welfare.

The money that is paid for that service is not "stolen" by the government, nor is it "gifted" by the wealthy. It is owed for services rendered. And when you decide to offer that protection service to people like Warren Buffet at a reduced rate, that cost must be paid by someone else. Yet for some reason, you only want to call it "redistribution of wealth" when it goes towards the maintenance of a bare-minimum standard of living for the poor.
 
2012-11-20 05:03:59 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?

Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.

That actually isn't true, if you care. In the U, S. poor ares are as underserved by law enforcement as they are by all other services. Poorer areas have fewer police per capita, slower 911 response times, and suffer far more incidents of police misconduct. Your bourgeois subjective belief that the cops are always "down there" dealing with "those people" is just that - a subjective, and false belief. One might even say - a prejudice.


Your assessment is factually incorrect. Look at the crime / police response overlay of any city and the vast majority of both crime and police responses will be in public housing and low income areas and slowly tapering off as the radius increases. Hell, I did a term paper on it.
 
2012-11-20 05:05:28 PM  

Bontesla: mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.

Er. Wait. What do you think the purpose of government is?


I consider legitimate the various functions of government enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Things like providing for national defense. And no, the "general welfare" clause does not give the government a general power to do whatever it wants.
 
2012-11-20 05:07:36 PM  

mike0023: Bontesla: mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.

Er. Wait. What do you think the purpose of government is?

I consider legitimate the various functions of government enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Things like providing for national defense. And no, the "general welfare" clause does not give the government a general power to do whatever it wants.


And you don't think providing for a national defense is addressing people's needs for defense?
 
2012-11-20 05:07:49 PM  

mike0023: Bontesla: mike0023: CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!

"Addressing people's needs" is not a legitimate function of government. At least in the U.S., where the government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But Democrats don't care about that.

Er. Wait. What do you think the purpose of government is?

I consider legitimate the various functions of government enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Things like providing for national defense. And no, the "general welfare" clause does not give the government a general power to do whatever it wants.


Okay. What is the purpose of a national defense?

Are there any other functions of government you can identify?
 
2012-11-20 05:09:34 PM  

mike0023: I consider legitimate the various functions of government enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Things like providing for national defense. And no, the "general welfare" clause does not give the government a general power to do whatever it wants.


The Supreme Court disagrees.
 
2012-11-20 05:11:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What would you call a government granting a subsidy to one class of citizen in purchasing a product, and paying for that subsidy by taxing another class of citizen, if not a "gift"? A wealth transfer? A transfer payment? It is a giveaway to one group at the expense of another group.


There you go being stupid again. Every now and then you claim you favor progressive taxation and then you say something retarded like that.

Every thing you mentioned, even if all citizens were taxed EXACTLY X% of their income, would apply to EVERY thing the government does unless the government specifically spent exactly the same amount on every citizen.

This has never happened, and will never happen. There is no structure of taxation and government actions that would result in an equal transfer money from people to the government and then services back to the people. So if you want to go down the road your going down, then government, all governments, have always been in the business of gifts, wealth transfers, whatever you want to say. Which of those terms would I call the taxing and spending by a democratically elected government? None, those are stupidly misleading names to refer to a government taxing its populace and providing services to a country.


Consider the following hypothetical: if there are 3 people in a country and person one pays a dollar in taxes, person two pays out 2, and person three pays out 3 and then the government of this hypothetical state builds infrastructure X for six dollars which returns a usage value of 3 dollars to each individual, was there a wealth transfer? Clearly person 3 paid more, but they got a return worth their money. Person 1 paid the least and got the most, but nobody actually 'lost' money in the deal. Because that is pretty much how the government of a first world nation works.

Almost EVERYONE is better off as a result of the government (I mean, there is a rapist out there who is probably pissed, and maybe a mine owner who would be better off if he was king of his own fiefdom) but not everyone pays the same in taxes. Further, among all the people who might not be benefiting from the system, the wealthiest among us are the most capable of taking their brilliance and going galt or carving out their own niche in the third world. If anyone reading this is such a person: don't let the door hit ya on the way out. Of course as we can see from the lack of people doing this, the wealthy are more than happy to be living in this country, and are smart enough to know they get a very nice return from their taxes here.
 
2012-11-20 05:12:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?

Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.

That actually isn't true, if you care. In the U, S. poor ares are as underserved by law enforcement as they are by all other services. Poorer areas have fewer police per capita, slower 911 response times, and suffer far more incidents of police misconduct. Your bourgeois subjective belief that the cops are always "down there" dealing with "those people" is just that - a subjective, and false belief. One might even say - a prejudice.

Your assessment is factually incorrect. Look at the crime / police response overlay of any city and the vast majority of both crime and police responses will be in public housing and low income areas and slowly tapering off as the radius increases. Hell, I did ...


That is not the measure of the law enforcement service that an area receives - indeed, besides socioeconomic factors, inadequate policing is one of the reasons that there is more crime in poorer areas.
How can you say that an area that has fewer police per capita, slower response times, and more police abuse is receiving better law enforcement than another area that has more of the first two things and fewer of the latter? That's like saying that a poor area whose water system is poorly maintained is getting better water service because crews are always having to repair the breaking water mains.
I think you and I may have reached the point where differences in the basic way we evaluate things is beginning to make communication difficult.
 
2012-11-20 05:15:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mike0023: I consider legitimate the various functions of government enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Things like providing for national defense. And no, the "general welfare" clause does not give the government a general power to do whatever it wants.

The Supreme Court disagrees.


He's not talking about he Supreme Court. He's talking about what the Constitution, like, actually SAYS, maaaan. He's very passionate about it.
The Constitution, actually, doesn't say one goddamn thing EXCEPT what the courts say it says.
 
2012-11-20 05:17:34 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?

Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.

That actually isn't true, if you care. In the U, S. poor ares are as underserved by law enforcement as they are by all other services. Poorer areas have fewer police per capita, slower 911 response times, and suffer far more incidents of police misconduct. Your bourgeois subjective belief that the cops are always "down there" dealing with "those people" is just that - a subjective, and false belief. One might even say - a prejudice.

Your assessment is factually incorrect. Look at the crime / police response overlay of any city and the vast majority of both crime and police responses will be in public housing and low income areas and slowly tapering off as the radius increases. ...


Yeah, we communicate differently alright. Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.
 
2012-11-20 05:18:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them


[citation needed]
 
2012-11-20 05:19:10 PM  

cchris_39: Hate to be the one to break it to you and the rest of the Fark Progressives, but there is about a 100% chance that whatever you are living on is trickling down from an employer or the givernment.

Transferring a bunch of money from the private sector to the public sector won't change that.

These economic threads are like pushing water around in a balloon and arguing which plantation owner gets to control us.


I hate to break it to you, but my paycheck is not charity from the wealthy.

Heck, the largest private employers in the world are the poor people who shop at Walmart. The Waltons got rich by realizing that they could be the middle-man between the poor people who shop at Walmart and the poor people who work there, and skim a little of the top of every transaction.

Though most deny it, every rich person in the world got that way by realizing that ALL wealth is created through labor, and behaving accordingly.
 
2012-11-20 05:19:28 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.


So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?
 
2012-11-20 05:21:13 PM  

udhq: cchris_39: Hate to be the one to break it to you and the rest of the Fark Progressives, but there is about a 100% chance that whatever you are living on is trickling down from an employer or the givernment.

Transferring a bunch of money from the private sector to the public sector won't change that.

These economic threads are like pushing water around in a balloon and arguing which plantation owner gets to control us.

I hate to break it to you, but my paycheck is not charity from the wealthy.

Heck, the largest private employers in the world are the poor people who shop at Walmart. The Waltons got rich by realizing that they could be the middle-man between the poor people who shop at Walmart and the poor people who work there, and skim a little of the top of every transaction.

Though most deny it, every rich person in the world got that way by realizing that ALL wealth is created through labor, and behaving accordingly.


I think you missed his last sentence, which basically tells me he is a Ron Paul supporter, probably didn't vote, and can't stand all us sheeple because bsrb and can't he just be left alone with his awesomeness and his pot?
 
2012-11-20 05:21:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?


The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.
 
2012-11-20 05:24:07 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.


Wow. Only poor people beat their wives?

It's been pointed out multiple times now and you are not acknowledging it: Police response to poor areas is actually a service to the non-poor areas.
 
2012-11-20 05:24:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.


Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?
 
2012-11-20 05:25:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.


That's all fine and dandy but that doesn't mean that most of the money isn't being spent protecting those areas.

If anything, it proves the opposite.
 
2012-11-20 05:31:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them

[citation needed]


How many shoplifters does it take to equal the social and economic damage caused by 1 Bernie Maddof?
 
2012-11-20 05:32:52 PM  

InmanRoshi: FARKING EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT OF YOUR VOTERS WERE WHITE


There's a joke there somewhere.
 
2012-11-20 05:35:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?

Which government services do the wealthy use at a greater rate. Difficulty: That they don't already pay for through permits / taxes / etc.

Police, the entire legal system, the tax system... hell the legislative body of our federal government! You were kidding right? You don't think wealth has been concentrated among the top 1% over the last 30 years just by gumption and elbow grease, did you?

Bill Gates has the cops at his house more frequently than Bubba and Lashanaquisha?

Police services are most heavily concentrated in the areas that don't pay any net taxes.

That actually isn't true, if you care. In the U, S. poor ares are as underserved by law enforcement as they are by all other services. Poorer areas have fewer police per capita, slower 911 response times, and suffer far more incidents of police misconduct. Your bourgeois subjective belief that the cops are always "down there" dealing with "those people" is just that - a subjective, and false belief. One might even say - a prejudice.

Your assessment is factually incorrect. Look at the crime / police response overlay of any city and the vast majority of both crime and police responses will be in public housing and low income areas and slowly tapering off as the radius in ...


No. I was talking about law enforcement as a service. I never questioned your numbers - I don't think you would deliberately lie about a matter of fact.
My position is that good law enforcement involves things like police presence, community policing, quick response times, and good oversight of police conduct. Of course it costs more to clean up the mess after the fact when a community is underserved, just as it costs more to treat people in emergency rooms than to insure them. I do not measure the allocation of police services by the total long term cost, because negligence, as in most things, costs more in the long run than allocating proper resources does to begin with. I am not questioning your "facts", but differing with your epistemological evaluation of them.
 
2012-11-20 05:36:31 PM  
This is some dumb shiat. Unless you truly believe that police don't protect property, you have to admit that the rich get far more utility out of them than the poor do.
 
2012-11-20 05:37:37 PM  

cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Wow. Only poor people beat their wives?

It's been pointed out multiple times now and you are not acknowledging it: Police response to poor areas is actually a service to the non-poor areas.


Um. So the poor wife being beaten by the poor husband is now in a rich area because the police came to the poor area potato?
 
2012-11-20 05:38:18 PM  

jso2897: Years ago, they used to be a good magazine - but they let me down, and hurt me.


i had a subscription to reason once upon a time.

/csb
 
2012-11-20 05:39:47 PM  

CPennypacker: This is some dumb shiat. Unless you truly believe that police don't protect property, you have to admit that the rich get far more utility out of them than the poor do.


Case in point
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-11-20 05:40:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?


I wasn't arguing better served (I don't think that it's automatic that they are served worse) I was merely talking about resources. If a hypothetical police department spends $1,000,000 / year on man hours, the vast majority of those man hours will be racked up in poor areas. Meanwhile, the vast majority of that $1M budget will come from wealthy areas.
 
2012-11-20 05:41:04 PM  

Silly Jesus:
Um. So the poor wife being beaten by the poor husband is now in a rich area because the police came to the poor area potato?


You wrote that domestic violence is a "poor people problem".

Oh, you're being willfully obtuse. Sorry.
 
2012-11-20 05:41:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

That's all fine and dandy but that doesn't mean that most of the money isn't being spent protecting those areas.

If anything, it proves the opposite.


Huh? I"m arguing that the police spend the most time (man hours / other various resources) in the poor areas, while the taxes for those services overwhelmingly come from the wealthier areas. The rich are paying for the police to arrest Bubba when he gets drunk and beats on Darlene once a week.
 
2012-11-20 05:43:45 PM  
It's just the areas the money is spent in that benefit from police dollars right? I mean look how much benefit all the poor people in prison are getting from those juicy prison dollars. For their benefit only according to Fark concern troll logic.
 
2012-11-20 05:43:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?

I wasn't arguing better served (I don't think that it's automatic that they are served worse) I was merely talking about resources. If a hypothetical police department spends $1,000,000 / year on man hours, the vast majority of those man hours will be racked up in poor areas. Meanwhile, the vast majority of that $1M budget will come from wealthy areas.


Right. They see to it that the most resources are devoted to protecting them and their property from the people in the poor areas, and the people in the poor areas get shiatty police service, That's what we've all been trying to tell you for the last half hour.
 
2012-11-20 05:45:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?

I wasn't arguing better served (I don't think that it's automatic that they are served worse) I was merely talking about resources. If a hypothetical police department spends $1,000,000 / year on man hours, the vast majority of those man hours will be racked up in poor areas. Meanwhile, the vast majority of that $1M budget will come from wealthy areas.


You haven't proved a thing about resources committed either. That's taking your unsourced claims about your paper as factual.
 
2012-11-20 05:45:54 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?

I wasn't arguing better served (I don't think that it's automatic that they are served worse) I was merely talking about resources. If a hypothetical police department spends $1,000,000 / year on man hours, the vast majority of those man hours will be racked up in poor areas. Meanwhile, the vast majority of that $1M budget will come from wealthy areas.

Right. They see to it that the most resources are devoted to protecting them and their property from the people in the poor areas, and the people in the poor areas get shiatty police service, That's what we've all been trying to tell you for the last half hour.


I think if he doesn't get it by now, he'll never get it.
 
2012-11-20 05:46:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Wow. Only poor people beat their wives?

It's been pointed out multiple times now and you are not acknowledging it: Police response to poor areas is actually a service to the non-poor areas.

Um. So the poor wife being beaten by the poor husband is now in a rich area because the police came to the poor area potato?


You're conflating police deployment with police protection. The wealthy consume more protection because they have more property that must be protected.

The same goes for the military.
 
2012-11-20 05:48:23 PM  
That's putting on the ritz, man!

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-20 05:51:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?

I wasn't arguing better served (I don't think that it's automatic that they are served worse) I was merely talking about resources. If a hypothetical police department spends $1,000,000 / year on man hours, the vast majority of those man hours will be racked up in poor areas. Meanwhile, the vast majority of that $1M budget will come from wealthy areas.

You haven't proved a thing about resources committed either. That's taking your unsourced claims about your paper as factual.


I wonder if he extends his philosophy that the quality of service rendered to a community can be measured solely by expenditure in a geographical area to education.
 
2012-11-20 05:51:53 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: If everybody knew it, why did almost half the people still vote for him?


Because their hatred of Obama was greater than their dislike for Romney.
 
2012-11-20 05:55:38 PM  
Bullshiat! Romeny's supporters had gifts promised to them such as repealing Obama care and likely a whole mess of things that were kept quiet.

Obama simiply pledged to do what a good leader does help his people all of this people.
 
2012-11-20 06:00:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: d23: InmanRoshi: [www.slate.com image 568x300]

FARKING EIGHTY EIGHT PERCENT OF YOUR VOTERS WERE WHITE. The GOP is the party of White Separatists, who have put it upon themselves to seperate from the rest of mainstream America. This "gift takers' and "parasites" rhetoric is simply a sanitized version of the same hate speech you find in any other white separatist groups. We can read between the lines and we know who you're talking about, and it's certainly not farmers receiving subsidies or Aunt Myrtle getting her social security check. Yes, we know, it's "Obamaphones" given out by "the welfare President".

Who were the black people voting for Romney. That's some farked up shiat right there...

[pixel.nymag.com image 560x375]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 416x431]


Figures that Allen West couldn't get organized enough to go out and vote for his own team.
 
2012-11-20 06:06:28 PM  

Smackledorfer: Do you have a letter from Franklin discussing whether [your] opinion of the constitutionality of laws shall supercede that of the Supreme Court?


Of course, if you get enough liberals on the Supreme Court, they'll find that the Constitution allows the government to do just about anything. And no, my opinion does not supercede theirs. All I can do is vote the right way and state my disagreement in public forums.
 
2012-11-20 06:12:47 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Uchiha_Cycliste: If everybody knew it, why did almost half the people still vote for him?

Because their hatred of Obama was greater than their dislike for Romney.


that's so sad. And sounds frightfully right =/, good call.
 
2012-11-20 06:14:12 PM  

mike0023: Smackledorfer: Do you have a letter from Franklin discussing whether [your] opinion of the constitutionality of laws shall supercede that of the Supreme Court?

Of course, if you get enough liberals on the Supreme Court, they'll find that the Constitution allows the government to do just about anything. And no, my opinion does not supercede theirs. All I can do is vote the right way and state my disagreement in public forums.


libs libs libs libs libs.
 
2012-11-20 06:15:45 PM  

mike0023: Smackledorfer: Do you have a letter from Franklin discussing whether [your] opinion of the constitutionality of laws shall supercede that of the Supreme Court?

Of course, if you get enough liberals on the Supreme Court, they'll find that the Constitution allows the government to do just about anything. And no, my opinion does not supercede theirs. All I can do is vote the right way and state my disagreement in public forums.


You mean vote the conservative way. Not necessarily the "right" way.
 
2012-11-20 06:21:28 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Let me get this straight: Reason believes when a majority of people voted for altruistic self interest - it's wrong because its not what the 1% rich free market people want?

Wow. If this is a sample of Reasons logic, I dare say their website name leaves them open to a false advertisement lawsuit.

Because helping out your neighbor and yourself isn't very American, is it?


They never said it's wrong. Did you read the article?
 
2012-11-20 06:28:41 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It's Fartbongo who's the liar.

I voted for him 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for my pony.


Oh, man, you should check with the SPS (Socialism Postal Service) on that, man, mine arrived on Nov 10. I've got it stationed by my door so the rainbows it farts are always arranged by my window.

//Seriously, though, Reason's logic is that promising to implement programs that help improve the country, primarily by providing companies a better work-force, are bribery but promising to outright ignore the needs of 47% of citizens in favor of those that give you money isn't?
 
2012-11-20 06:28:51 PM  

cchris_39: lordjupiter: Shared burden safety nets we all pay into that go to the elderly, the poor, children and veterans = "gifts".
Corporate welfare and trickle down employment = "economics".

I guess "entitled" means something different when corporations and rich people do it.

Hate to be the one to break it to you and the rest of the Fark Progressives, but there is about a 100% chance that whatever you are living on is trickling down from an employer or the givernment.

Transferring a bunch of money from the private sector to the public sector won't change that.

These economic threads are like pushing water around in a balloon and arguing which plantation owner gets to control us.


Like I said...
 
2012-11-20 06:29:39 PM  

InmanRoshi: Kevin72: NateGrey: [l1.yimg.com image 310x388]

Obama Wins 8 of 10 Wealthiest Counties in US

Yes, but all the richest counties are in blue states. What, you expected a rich county in MissHippie or Oklahoma?

Which pretty much goes to show that this "takers" vs. "makers" rhetoric is merely nothing more than the same sanitized whitewashed racial politics that have always plagued this country.


Santitzed and "Hannitized" to quote someone who recently has fallen behind Rachel Maddow in the ratings.
 
2012-11-20 06:39:16 PM  
Well if hey, they some how got a job, earned their own money

Dem-o-rats will surly oppose that

they might come over, other wise he is right.
 
2012-11-20 06:39:58 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?

I wasn't arguing better served (I don't think that it's automatic that they are served worse) I was merely talking about resources. If a hypothetical police department spends $1,000,000 / year on man hours, the vast majority of those man hours will be racked up in poor areas. Meanwhile, the vast majority of that $1M budget will come from wealthy areas.

Right. They see to it that the most resources are devoted to protecting them and their property from the people in the poor areas, and the people in the poor areas get shiatty police service, That's what we've all been trying to tell you for the last half hour.


Crime is overwhelmingly committed against others of the same socioeconomic status. The poors aren't trying to steal from the mansion, they are stealing from the other poors.
 
2012-11-20 06:42:56 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Proving that there is more crime among the poor does not indicate that they are better served by law enforcement.

Do domestic violence and theft have a higher arrest and conviction rate when the victims have a lower income?

I wasn't arguing better served (I don't think that it's automatic that they are served worse) I was merely talking about resources. If a hypothetical police department spends $1,000,000 / year on man hours, the vast majority of those man hours will be racked up in poor areas. Meanwhile, the vast majority of that $1M budget will come from wealthy areas.

You haven't proved a thing about resources committed either. That's taking your unsourced claims about your paper as factual.


Hell, read the police blotter in most any town. Call up your local department and ask. Most sizable ones have a statistician of sorts. That's where I got most of my information. Take a map of the low income areas...take a transparency with the locations of crimes...lay one on top of the other and 90% of the points match up perfectly with the other 10% being outliers and thinning out as the distance from the poors increased (walking distance / maximum running distance with a tv / fewer liquor stores / etc.)
 
2012-11-20 06:44:33 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Wow. Only poor people beat their wives?

It's been pointed out multiple times now and you are not acknowledging it: Police response to poor areas is actually a service to the non-poor areas.

Um. So the poor wife being beaten by the poor husband is now in a rich area because the police came to the poor area potato?

You're conflating police deployment with police protection. The wealthy consume more protection because they have more property that must be protected.

The same goes for the military.


What rich property is being protected when the police spend all night in the projects breaking up fights and drug deals, domestic situations and robberies? Are you suggesting that they only stay there and fight amongst themselves because the police convinced them that taking the bus to the rich areas was too hard?
 
2012-11-20 06:45:35 PM  

mike0023: Smackledorfer: Do you have a letter from Franklin discussing whether [your] opinion of the constitutionality of laws shall supercede that of the Supreme Court?

Of course, if you get enough liberals on the Supreme Court, they'll find that the Constitution allows the government to do just about anything. And no, my opinion does not supercede theirs. All I can do is vote the right way and state my disagreement in public forums.


1) You mean liberals like Chief Justice Marshall writing for a unanimous Court in 1816, upholding the power of the federal government to enact a national bank?

Link 

What's interesting about this "liberal activist opinion," the first ever construing the scope of the enumerated powers, is that it doesn't even bother to specify which power the national bank falls under. Rather, it simply lists any of several it could plausibly fall under.

I know I know. You know more about the Constitution than 200 years of legal scholars writing from and about the Supreme Court bench.

2) It isn't enough to say that the federal government is one of enumerated powers. Every serious person is aware of that. The issue is "what is the scope of the enumerated powers?" That's the question judges and scholars have grappled for the duration of the republic.
 
2012-11-20 06:47:24 PM  
When are they going to deliver my tax-free ObamaTurkey? I'm Waiting!
 
2012-11-20 06:55:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mike0023: Smackledorfer: Do you have a letter from Franklin discussing whether [your] opinion of the constitutionality of laws shall supercede that of the Supreme Court?

Of course, if you get enough liberals on the Supreme Court, they'll find that the Constitution allows the government to do just about anything. And no, my opinion does not supercede theirs. All I can do is vote the right way and state my disagreement in public forums.

You mean vote the conservative way. Not necessarily the "right" way.


To be perfectly clear, the "conservative way" is really the "wrong way." The two principle founding advocates of so-called "strict constructionism," James Madison and Thomas Jefferson,

1) were outnumbered by people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton who disagreed with them, and

2) effectively ceded the issue during their presidencies. Madison when he enacted a national bank, even though no such expressly enumerated power exists in the Constitution, and Jefferson when he made the Louisiana Purchase, even though no such power to purchase land is expressly enumerated either.

It is only for about a 40 year period of American history, from the 1890's until the New Deal, that the right's beloved laissez-faire construction was falsely read into the Constitution by extreme right ideologues packed onto the Supreme Court. Contrary to popular perception, the New Deal did not break with traditional constitutional interpretation vis a vis judicial deference to the legislature: rather, it returned to it.
 
2012-11-20 06:56:50 PM  

KarmicDisaster: When are they going to deliver my tax-free ObamaTurkey? I'm Waiting!


Did you call for it on your free Obama Phone?
 
2012-11-20 07:00:39 PM  
President Obama offered me a gift.

He offered me the same rights as my neighbors, in accordance with the "Equal Protection" clause of the Constitution.

Gov. Romney claimed that he isn't smart enough to understand why I would want such a thing; Gov. Romney promised to limit the rights that I have to some subset of the rights that my neighbors enjoy.

I would still be expected to pay the same tax rate as my neighbors.

Yes, I voted for President Obama in exchange for this gift.
 
2012-11-20 07:10:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Wow. Only poor people beat their wives?

It's been pointed out multiple times now and you are not acknowledging it: Police response to poor areas is actually a service to the non-poor areas.

Um. So the poor wife being beaten by the poor husband is now in a rich area because the police came to the poor area potato?

You're conflating police deployment with police protection. The wealthy consume more protection because they have more property that must be protected.

The same goes for the military.

What rich property is being protected when the police spend all night in the projects breaking up fights and drug deals, domestic situations and robberies? Are you suggesting that they only stay there and fight amongst themselves because the police convinced them that taking the bus to the rich areas was too hard?


Reading not your thing, huh? Deployment =/= protection. The location of police deployments are not an indicator of police protection.

To demonstrate this, let's try an experiment: I'll report a property crime in a gated suburb, you report one in public housing, and we'll see who receives the most police protection.
 
2012-11-20 07:13:31 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Wow. Only poor people beat their wives?

It's been pointed out multiple times now and you are not acknowledging it: Police response to poor areas is actually a service to the non-poor areas.

Um. So the poor wife being beaten by the poor husband is now in a rich area because the police came to the poor area potato?

You're conflating police deployment with police protection. The wealthy consume more protection because they have more property that must be protected.

The same goes for the military.

What rich property is being protected when the police spend all night in the projects breaking up fights and drug deals, domestic situations and robberies? Are you suggesting that they only stay there and fight amongst themselves because the police convinced them that taking the bus to the rich areas was too hard?

Reading not your thing, huh? Deployment =/= protection. The location of police deployments are not an indicator of police protection.

To demonstrate this, let's try an experiment: I'll report a property crime in a gated suburb, you report one in public housing, and we'll see who receives the most police protection.


How are you defining protection?

Secondly, even if what you're getting at were proven true (that police respond more thoroughly and faster to a rich neighborhood) once you account for the fact that 90% of their time is NOT spent in that rich neighborhood (private alarm companies / fences / guards / gated communities / etc. tend to make burglaries at their homes very rare) you're still committing the vast majority of police services and protection to the poors...paid for by the rich.
 
2012-11-20 07:16:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them.

So how then is law enforcement a greater benefit to the poor?

The wife who's husband comes home drunk and beats her. The person in the projects whose 2 xboxes and 3 flatscreens (was actually in last week's paper) are stolen by the juvenile delinquents next door. You know, poor people problems.

Wow. Only poor people beat their wives?

It's been pointed out multiple times now and you are not acknowledging it: Police response to poor areas is actually a service to the non-poor areas.

Um. So the poor wife being beaten by the poor husband is now in a rich area because the police came to the poor area potato?

You're conflating police deployment with police protection. The wealthy consume more protection because they have more property that must be protected.

The same goes for the military.

What rich property is being protected when the police spend all night in the projects breaking up fights and drug deals, domestic situations and robberies? Are you suggesting that they only stay there and fight amongst themselves because the police convinced them that taking the bus to the rich areas was too hard?

Reading not your thing, huh? Deployment =/= protection. The location of police deployments are not an indicator of police protection.

To demonstrate this, let's try an experiment: I'll report a property crime in a gated suburb, you report one in public housing, and we'll see who receives the most police protection.

How are you defining protection?

Secondly, even if what you're getting at were proven true (that police respond more thoroughly and faster to a rich neighborhood) once you account for the fac ...


You're right, the rich have privatized their own safety! Lets end the police department. The rich will be fine!
 
2012-11-20 07:18:42 PM  
Will this be anything like those gift checks G.W. sent each and every one of us during his terms?
 
2012-11-20 07:20:04 PM  

CPennypacker: You're right, the rich have privatized their own safety! Lets end the police department. The rich will be fine!


Yeah, I don't know why all the affluent suburbs near me in St. Louis need all those police officers and police cars anyway. 

Seems like a waste of money if it's not going toward protecting those suburbs doesn't it?
 
2012-11-20 07:25:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: CPennypacker: This is some dumb shiat. Unless you truly believe that police don't protect property, you have to admit that the rich get far more utility out of them than the poor do.

Case in point
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x416]


img252.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-20 07:28:37 PM  
Of course people are going to vote for their own self-interests! DUH!
The question is what constitutes "Self-interest".
 
2012-11-20 07:34:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Anyway, it's interesting to hear that those subsidies are actually gifts to me and my fellow motorists. I had been misled by farklibs that they were gifts to oil companies. I'm sure they'll be very glad to hear that they are actually gifts to us!

And just when I thought you couldn't sound more stupid...

But yes, a lot of the drilling and exploration the oil companies do here in the US is heavily subsidized by the Federal Government. That's why gas prices are so low compared to the rest of the world.


Not at all. Our gas prices are low because we don't tax fuel nearly as much as many other countries. It has very little if anything to do with subsidies, because as you know, oil is a fungible commodity and can be shipped elsewhere once it's out of the ground. In effect, US subsidies of oil exploration would be subsidizing global fuel users, not just American users.

So, looks like once again you are wrong. Keep trying.
 
2012-11-20 07:38:51 PM  

wongway: Well if hey, they some how got a job, earned their own money

Dem-o-rats will surly oppose that

they might come over, other wise he is right.


By your lack of logic, the States with lowest unemployment would have voted for Romney and the States with highest unemployment would have voted for Obama. That is the opposite of reality.
 
2012-11-20 07:42:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: In effect, US subsidies of oil exploration would be subsidizing global fuel users, not just American users.


No, the subsidies benefit the companies themselves not consumers, regardless of where they are in the world.
 
2012-11-20 07:43:58 PM  

wongway: Dem-o-rats


Oh, look, winterwhile got a new alt.

*chug*
*favorited!*
 
2012-11-20 07:44:04 PM  

wongway: KarmicDisaster: When are they going to deliver my tax-free ObamaTurkey? I'm Waiting!

Did you call for it on your free Obama Phone?


Oh hey, it's winterwhile's new account. What happened to your old account, buddy?
 
2012-11-20 07:45:58 PM  

roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

In both instances he goes and buys a $5 six pack ("government services") for us to split. Before I was paying for it all, plus giving him $5 to put in his pocket. This week I'm still paying for all the government services but only giving him $2. There you go, now it's relevant. Has he given me $3 this week?

You are really going to try and make a straight-faced argument that the more wealth you have, the LESS you benefit from government services? Can't we just skip to the part where we all agree that is not at all reality and save an hour and a hundred posts?


Okay, you guys have convinced me. The rich clearly get a greater benefit out of public spending than the poor, a disproportionate benefit relative to the taxes they pay. This regressive distribution of resources is an affront to the ideals of the republic!

Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.
 
2012-11-20 07:46:03 PM  

Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: In effect, US subsidies of oil exploration would be subsidizing global fuel users, not just American users.

No, the subsidies benefit the companies themselves not consumers, regardless of where they are in the world.


He was right, taxes were the big thing impacting prices, not subsides.

So that means we can get rid of the subsides to oil companies since it doesn't impact prices right?
 
2012-11-20 07:48:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.


Probably doesn't need to be that deep of a cut but if you increase taxes in addition to that, you got a deal!
 
2012-11-20 07:50:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: In effect, US subsidies of oil exploration would be subsidizing global fuel users, not just American users.

No, the subsidies benefit the companies themselves not consumers, regardless of where they are in the world.

He was right, taxes were the big thing impacting prices, not subsides.

So that means we can get rid of the subsides to oil companies since it doesn't impact prices right?


Yes, by all means. Also raise gas taxes while you're at it.
 
2012-11-20 07:51:18 PM  
Are we still blowing rich people in here?
 
2012-11-20 07:51:49 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: In effect, US subsidies of oil exploration would be subsidizing global fuel users, not just American users.

No, the subsidies benefit the companies themselves not consumers, regardless of where they are in the world.

He was right, taxes were the big thing impacting prices, not subsides.

So that means we can get rid of the subsides to oil companies since it doesn't impact prices right?

Yes, by all means. Also raise gas taxes while you're at it.


But raising gas taxes also raises gas prices.

You want to raise gas prices?
 
2012-11-20 08:12:16 PM  

CommieTaoist: How dare the president do his job by helping to address the needs of the majority of the American people instead of only the rich, this is an outrage!


The Phillip Ruddock Blues
A government will only stop
You getting what you can
It just distorts the market if
You help your fellow man
 
2012-11-20 08:12:22 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: A simple "Mr. President if all the millionaires and billionaires are taxed at 100% you'd only pay for the government for a quarter.


This myth keeps getting repeated, and it continues to not be true.
 
2012-11-20 08:14:31 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus:

How are you defining protection?

Secondly, even if what you're getting at were proven true (that police respond more thoroughly and faster to a rich neighborhood) once you account for the fact that 90% of their time is NOT spent in that rich neighborhood (private alarm companies / fences / guards / gated communities / etc. tend to make burglaries at their homes very rare) you're still committing the vast majority of police services and protection to the poors...paid for by the rich.


Think about it this way: who is more dependent on the social order maintained by the police? Who derives more benefit from that social order? Who would stand to lose the most if the government was dissolved and suddenly there was no one to enforce the rule of law and, by extension, property rights?

If we decided to end welfare tomorrow, the poor would lose very little. Instead of a fairly meager direct benefit, they would most likely leave the mainstream economy for things like small-scale agriculture and petty criminal enterprise. Not a huge hit to their quality of life. But even if we leave out the possibility of widespread class-based redistribution of wealth by violence, a'la the French Revolution, the wealthy still lose much more than the poor by way of the markets tanking and the American consumer base plummeting.
 
2012-11-20 08:22:10 PM  
sometimes my penis just aches.
 
2012-11-20 08:34:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: In effect, US subsidies of oil exploration would be subsidizing global fuel users, not just American users.

No, the subsidies benefit the companies themselves not consumers, regardless of where they are in the world.

He was right, taxes were the big thing impacting prices, not subsides.

So that means we can get rid of the subsides to oil companies since it doesn't impact prices right?

Yes, by all means. Also raise gas taxes while you're at it.

But raising gas taxes also raises gas prices.

You want to raise gas prices?


I wouldn't object to it. Gas taxes are an efficient way of encouraging conservation. If the regressivity bothers you, I'd suggest some sort of credit back to offset the impact to lower income drivers.
 
2012-11-20 08:42:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.

Probably doesn't need to be that deep of a cut but if you increase taxes in addition to that, you got a deal!


Read it again. We're reducing taxes in proportion to current contribution with the revenue raised by our across the board spending cut. But since the benefit to the rich of government spending is in excess of their contribution in taxes (according to farklib consensus), they'll make out worse on the deal. Heh heh fark you richies!!!
 
2012-11-20 08:45:17 PM  

udhq: Think about it this way: who is more dependent on the social order maintained by the police?


There's also all the things the poor don't really benefit from, like the regulatory power of the SEC and FTC. But if you have money in the markets? They're a very good thing.
 
2012-11-20 08:46:11 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.

Probably doesn't need to be that deep of a cut but if you increase taxes in addition to that, you got a deal!

Read it again. We're reducing taxes in proportion to current contribution with the revenue raised by our across the board spending cut. But since the benefit to the rich of government spending is in excess of their contribution in taxes (according to farklib consensus), they'll make out worse on the deal. Heh heh fark you richies!!!


Good luck designing new products when your workforce is uneducated. Or can't get to work. Good luck shipping your products when the roads fall apart and we don't fix them. Good luck with that nice mansion when there's nobody to protect it.

You insufferable, intellectually dishonest twit.
 
2012-11-20 08:46:46 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


Done. In. 1.

Fark you Republicans. Time to get over it and move on.
 
2012-11-20 08:47:05 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus:

How are you defining protection?

Secondly, even if what you're getting at were proven true (that police respond more thoroughly and faster to a rich neighborhood) once you account for the fact that 90% of their time is NOT spent in that rich neighborhood (private alarm companies / fences / guards / gated communities / etc. tend to make burglaries at their homes very rare) you're still committing the vast majority of police services and protection to the poors...paid for by the rich.

Think about it this way: who is more dependent on the social order maintained by the police? Who derives more benefit from that social order? Who would stand to lose the most if the government was dissolved and suddenly there was no one to enforce the rule of law and, by extension, property rights?

If we decided to end welfare tomorrow, the poor would lose very little. Instead of a fairly meager direct benefit, they would most likely leave the mainstream economy for things like small-scale agriculture and petty criminal enterprise. Not a huge hit to their quality of life. But even if we leave out the possibility of widespread class-based redistribution of wealth by violence, a'la the French Revolution, the wealthy still lose much more than the poor by way of the markets tanking and the American consumer base plummeting.


Also cops spend more time in commercial and industrial areas protecting the interests of the rich, cops spend a lot more time patrolling the rich neighborhoods, cops actually spend MOST of their time out of the residential areas and out where the rich mingle with the "commoners" and need protection.

Then there's everything else. The roads that make it cheaper to carry their goods, the public education that gives them workers who already know how to read without expensive and extensive job training, similarly the ability to pay someone chicken feed despite having a high school education because so many have a high school education, a large population providing him with a customer base, and unwashed masses to make his dick feel big when he waves it over them.
 
2012-11-20 08:49:45 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus:

How are you defining protection?

Secondly, even if what you're getting at were proven true (that police respond more thoroughly and faster to a rich neighborhood) once you account for the fact that 90% of their time is NOT spent in that rich neighborhood (private alarm companies / fences / guards / gated communities / etc. tend to make burglaries at their homes very rare) you're still committing the vast majority of police services and protection to the poors...paid for by the rich.

Think about it this way: who is more dependent on the social order maintained by the police? Who derives more benefit from that social order? Who would stand to lose the most if the government was dissolved and suddenly there was no one to enforce the rule of law and, by extension, property rights?

If we decided to end welfare tomorrow, the poor would lose very little. Instead of a fairly meager direct benefit, they would most likely leave the mainstream economy for things like small-scale agriculture and petty criminal enterprise. Not a huge hit to their quality of life. But even if we leave out the possibility of widespread class-based redistribution of wealth by violence, a'la the French Revolution, the wealthy still lose much more than the poor by way of the markets tanking and the American consumer base plummeting.


OK, your point is perfectly valid during the incredibly unlikely event of complete anarchy in the U.S.

i.qkme.me
 
2012-11-20 08:50:55 PM  

WhyteRaven74: udhq: Think about it this way: who is more dependent on the social order maintained by the police?

There's also all the things the poor don't really benefit from, like the regulatory power of the SEC and FTC. But if you have money in the markets? They're a very good thing.


Because the markets only impact those with money in them.

notsureifseriousorjustmildlyretarded.jpg
 
2012-11-20 08:52:54 PM  

TheBigJerk: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus:

How are you defining protection?

Secondly, even if what you're getting at were proven true (that police respond more thoroughly and faster to a rich neighborhood) once you account for the fact that 90% of their time is NOT spent in that rich neighborhood (private alarm companies / fences / guards / gated communities / etc. tend to make burglaries at their homes very rare) you're still committing the vast majority of police services and protection to the poors...paid for by the rich.

Think about it this way: who is more dependent on the social order maintained by the police? Who derives more benefit from that social order? Who would stand to lose the most if the government was dissolved and suddenly there was no one to enforce the rule of law and, by extension, property rights?

If we decided to end welfare tomorrow, the poor would lose very little. Instead of a fairly meager direct benefit, they would most likely leave the mainstream economy for things like small-scale agriculture and petty criminal enterprise. Not a huge hit to their quality of life. But even if we leave out the possibility of widespread class-based redistribution of wealth by violence, a'la the French Revolution, the wealthy still lose much more than the poor by way of the markets tanking and the American consumer base plummeting.

Also cops spend more time in commercial and industrial areas protecting the interests of the rich, cops spend a lot more time patrolling the rich neighborhoods, cops actually spend MOST of their time out of the residential areas and out where the rich mingle with the "commoners" and need protection.

Then there's everything else. The roads that make it cheaper to carry their goods, the public education that gives them workers who already know how to read without expensive and extensive job training, similarly the ability to pay someone chick ...


whitedsepulchres.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-20 08:53:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: Because the markets only impact those with money in them.


What the markets do doesn't much matter if you don't have money in them.
 
2012-11-20 08:54:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jso2897: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them...

Right. They see to it that the most resources are devoted to protecting them and their property from the people in the poor areas, and the people in the poor areas get shiatty police service, That's what we've all been trying to tell you for the last half hour.

I think if he doesn't get it by now, he'll never get it.


Maybe pose it this way: if the police were to be removed from a city/area, who would have more at stake? Sure, Darlene would still have a black eye, but fast forward 3 months, and Houston K Langford VI's jaguar would be on fire, and his wife would have had her purse stolen whilst shopping downtown, his kids would be beaten up in school, and our dear Houston would be quickly selling his estate and vacating the area post haste, preferably to an area that has more law & order, and hopefully less of those people. Bubba and Darlene will still be there years from now, living the same life they've been living.
 
2012-11-20 09:02:37 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: Because the markets only impact those with money in them.

What the markets do doesn't much matter if you don't have money in them.


Ummm...
 
2012-11-20 09:04:16 PM  

natewill: Mrtraveler01: jso2897: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Are you disagreeing with the basic Criminal Justice 101 fact that poorer folks commit more crime than middle and upper class folks? Even if you want to throw in white collar crime, the poor crime (think shoplifters as an easy one) still vastly outnumber them...

Right. They see to it that the most resources are devoted to protecting them and their property from the people in the poor areas, and the people in the poor areas get shiatty police service, That's what we've all been trying to tell you for the last half hour.

I think if he doesn't get it by now, he'll never get it.

Maybe pose it this way: if the police were to be removed from a city/area, who would have more at stake? Sure, Darlene would still have a black eye, but fast forward 3 months, and Houston K Langford VI's jaguar would be on fire, and his wife would have had her purse stolen whilst shopping downtown, his kids would be beaten up in school, and our dear Houston would be quickly selling his estate and vacating the area post haste, preferably to an area that has more law & order, and hopefully less of those people. Bubba and Darlene will still be there years from now, living the same life they've been living.


The only way that you can make your argument work is if you create a far fetched reality for it to work in.

Also, the evil rich can and do hire private security / invest in fences and gates and alarm systems etc.
 
2012-11-20 09:04:50 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: cheesepreeness: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus:

How are you defining protection?

Secondly, even if what you're getting at were proven true (that police respond more thoroughly and faster to a rich neighborhood) once you account for the fact that 90% of their time is NOT spent in that rich neighborhood (private alarm companies / fences / guards / gated communities / etc. tend to make burglaries at their homes very rare) you're still committing the vast majority of police services and protection to the poors...paid for by the rich.

Think about it this way: who is more dependent on the social order maintained by the police? Who derives more benefit from that social order? Who would stand to lose the most if the government was dissolved and suddenly there was no one to enforce the rule of law and, by extension, property rights?

If we decided to end welfare tomorrow, the poor would lose very little. Instead of a fairly meager direct benefit, they would most likely leave the mainstream economy for things like small-scale agriculture and petty criminal enterprise. Not a huge hit to their quality of life. But even if we leave out the possibility of widespread class-based redistribution of wealth by violence, a'la the French Revolution, the wealthy still lose much more than the poor by way of the markets tanking and the American consumer base plummeting.

OK, your point is perfectly valid during the incredibly unlikely event of complete anarchy in the U.S.

[i.qkme.me image 514x383]


The fact that we can take for granted that complete anarchy is incredibly unlikely is a credit to our government and our public infrastructure.

There were a handful of former soviet states that went from developed, global superpower to total anarchy overnight. It can and does happen.
 
2012-11-20 09:45:53 PM  

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.

Probably doesn't need to be that deep of a cut but if you increase taxes in addition to that, you got a deal!

Read it again. We're reducing taxes in proportion to current contribution with the revenue raised by our across the board spending cut. But since the benefit to the rich of government spending is in excess of their contribution in taxes (according to farklib consensus), they'll make out worse on the deal. Heh heh fark you richies!!!

Good luck designing new products when your workforce is uneducated. Or can't get to work. Good luck shipping your products when the roads fall apart and we don't fix them. Good luck with that nice mansion when there's nobody to protect it.

You insufferable, intellectually dishonest twit.


You're forgetting about the robots. Silly lib!
 
2012-11-20 10:48:02 PM  
I've said this before when those remarks first came out: Romney was right. He just said it in a very condescending way. Romney had nothing to offer minorities and young voters. Obama did. He didn't adapt to changing demographics. All Romney did was say how awful Obama is without offering any solutions other than "get rid of everything Obama's done". He had no solutions. Obama actually did things. Obama walked the walk. Romney could only talk the talk.
 
2012-11-20 10:49:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.

Probably doesn't need to be that deep of a cut but if you increase taxes in addition to that, you got a deal!

Read it again. We're reducing taxes in proportion to current contribution with the revenue raised by our across the board spending cut. But since the benefit to the rich of government spending is in excess of their contribution in taxes (according to farklib consensus), they'll make out worse on the deal. Heh heh fark you richies!!!

Good luck designing new products when your workforce is uneducated. Or can't get to work. Good luck shipping your products when the roads fall apart and we don't fix them. Good luck with that nice mansion when there's nobody to protect it.

You insufferable, intellectually dishonest twit.

You're forgetting about the robots. Silly lib!


You need educated people to program the robots. You need roads to transport the robots. And when the robots break, you need to transport parts to fix them.
 
2012-11-20 10:49:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

Okay, you guys have convinced me. The rich clearly get a greater benefit out of public spending than the poor, a disproportionate benefit relative to the taxes they pay. This regressive distribution of resources is an affront to the ideals of the republic!

Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.


Was this supposed to be directed at my post? Nothing you said even addresses any of it.
 
2012-11-20 10:54:43 PM  

roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: roc6783: Debeo Summa Credo: udhq: Debeo Summa Credo: Rev.K:

***snip***

Okay, you guys have convinced me. The rich clearly get a greater benefit out of public spending than the poor, a disproportionate benefit relative to the taxes they pay. This regressive distribution of resources is an affront to the ideals of the republic!

Might I suggest a solution for this horrible injustice: perhaps a 40% or greater across the board cut in all government spending. Every program gets 40% lopped off the top. Take the savings and pass them back to the taxpayers in proportion to their previous tax liability. Since we know that the rich benefit unfairly from current spending relative to their tax burden, such a cut in spending and taxes will reverse will result in a more progressive society than the status quo.

Was this supposed to be directed at my post? Nothing you said even addresses any of it.


Not to mention that the "solution" would ALSO disproportionately affect the poor as they need the government programs they use more for survival than the wealthy do to get wealthier.
 
2012-11-20 11:04:28 PM  
So, pandering to a majority of voters is successful in an election? go figure.....
 
2012-11-21 12:26:59 AM  
All lies! Everyone knows that only the conservitards vote in their own self interest and when we do, it's usually not really in our on best self interest at least not south of the Mason-Dixie.

News flash: no matter how altruistic one may appear, people activities are generally directed by self interest. Whether it's approving of a social safety net from one will eventually benefit (positive reenforcement), or sitting on a jury deciding the fate of a defendant who had posed a threat to society at large (negative outcome avoidance), ultimately our choices are made by by weighing the cost/ benefits to our own person.
 
2012-11-21 12:41:04 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Let me put it more plainly for you:

Your candidate was a giant lying sack of shiat, and everybody knew it. Everybody.


Are we back on that again? I thought it was because Anonymous cock-blocked Dick Chainey's magic Democratic Vote sucking machine making it possible for your vote to be heard.

Oddly enough- for every explaination we have for losing the vote, you seemed to be somehow compelled to try to one up us by offering your own excuses for our loss. Maybe it's time you just get over it already- no matter the impotent frothing and gnashing of teeth, how many salty tears of victory are shed, and the interminable butthurt that apears to have resulted from your victory-- the defeat is ours!
 
2012-11-21 01:32:55 AM  

Rev.K: Okay, Reason. If you want to go here and make this argument, you're going to have to admit that "gifts" would also include tax breaks for the rich, which is exactly what Romney was promising.


Yeah, that "one man, one vote" thing really threw a wrench in his campaign strategy.
 
2012-11-21 01:37:05 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Some of the best unintentional comedy on the internet manifests itself as articles on Reason.


I was just gonna say "That website sucks" but I think you expressed it better.
 
2012-11-21 03:05:26 AM  
Do the rich benefit more from societal infrastructure than the poor?

Good one!

Wait, people are actually asking that question in earnest?

Oh, it's Silly Jesus again.

He just likes winding people up is all.

I've come to the conclusion he just likes playing Devil's Advocate a lot and doesn't believe half the crap he posts.

Could be wrong, of course.

fta: At least two important points are being missed in the discussion of Romney's remarks. First, there's a double standard at work. When reporters suggest that donors to Republican causes are motivated by self-interested desire to keep their taxes low and their businesses unhampered by environmental or labor regulations, that's groundbreaking investigative journalism. (See, for example, The New Yorker magazine's Jane Mayer on Charles and David Koch.) Yet when Romney suggests that Democratic voters might have been motivated by self-interest, his comments are condemned.

Reason appears to have missed the subtle but still important difference that Obama's "gifts" were to the benefit of a majority of Americans and Mitt's promises extended to the MIC and the 2%.

It's the difference between "make sure everybody gets a fair shake" and "fark you, I got mine".
 
2012-11-21 07:22:44 AM  
I read as far as "reason.com."
 
2012-11-21 11:53:52 AM  

Ennuipoet: Has anyone received their Obama Gift yet? Is he waiting for Christmas? I keep checking the mailbox, but so far...nothing.


I got my pony, but I'm also on welfare so... you know... I get all sorts of things rich people don't.
 
2012-11-21 03:41:48 PM  

lohphat: Philip Francis Queeg: CPennypacker: This is some dumb shiat. Unless you truly believe that police don't protect property, you have to admit that the rich get far more utility out of them than the poor do.

Case in point
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x416]

[img252.imageshack.us image 400x709]


The CEO on top of that pyramid resembles Dick Cheney...( just 'sayin)
 
2012-11-21 05:18:14 PM  
Meh. I'm waiting for next week's insightful article on how the Bible tells us Blacks should be enslaved again.
 
2012-11-21 06:40:46 PM  

quatchi: Do the rich benefit more from societal infrastructure than the poor?

Good one!

Wait, people are actually asking that question in earnest?

Oh, it's Silly Jesus again.

He just likes winding people up is all.

I've come to the conclusion he just likes playing Devil's Advocate a lot and doesn't believe half the crap he posts.


Could be wrong, of course.

fta: At least two important points are being missed in the discussion of Romney's remarks. First, there's a double standard at work. When reporters suggest that donors to Republican causes are motivated by self-interested desire to keep their taxes low and their businesses unhampered by environmental or labor regulations, that's groundbreaking investigative journalism. (See, for example, The New Yorker magazine's Jane Mayer on Charles and David Koch.) Yet when Romney suggests that Democratic voters might have been motivated by self-interest, his comments are condemned.

Reason appears to have missed the subtle but still important difference that Obama's "gifts" were to the benefit of a majority of Americans and Mitt's promises extended to the MIC and the 2%.

It's the difference between "make sure everybody gets a fair shake" and "fark you, I got mine".


www.phlashers.com
 
2012-11-23 01:34:07 PM  
No.
 
Displayed 397 of 397 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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