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.

(Orange County Register)   We are Not facing the fiscal cliff because the rich are not paying their fair share. It's because you want too many freebies   (ocregister.com) divider line 505
    More: Unlikely, Mark Steyn, American Love, sissy, Charles Schumer, surrender monkeys, government expenditure, syndicated columnist, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

3571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 03:11:22 PM
Yes that is why the Republicans should top Obama by calling for 1 trillion dollars in new taxes, 1 trillion dollars in spending cuts to existing programs and 400 billion dollars in new stimulus spending a year for the next 10 years.
 
2012-12-03 03:11:56 PM

jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?


You don't see the benefit of driving up consumer demand?

Really?
 
2012-12-03 03:12:14 PM

Corvus: Defense contractors are the worst in the world. You have meetings about hit the right "burn rate" so you can go through all the money you can.


That's a side effect of FFP and post award auditing; if you don't hit the right burn rate, you risk significant money being zoinked from you, and your profit is a flat percentage on whatever your costs are, so you lose out on negotiated profit as well. It's generally a systemic problem when the system says it's a better move to piss away excess money than to return it.

FFP is a farking disaster anyway, and after the Druyun scandal contracting departments got a raging boner for it because it covers their ass if (when) things go wrong.
 
2012-12-03 03:12:17 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]

That is not an actual distribution of wealth in Sweden. The top 20% in Sweden controls ~70% of the wealth (compared to 84% in the US). I am not sure why people keep saying that pie chart is sweden, but I have seen it a few times.


My statistics come from a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Psychological Science written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF).

But, leaving aside for the moment the fact that I referred to the top 10% rather than to the top 20%, where did your numbers come from?
 
2012-12-03 03:12:18 PM
I'm a Democrat and all of us are on welfare. I just completed a $20,000 renovation on my house with my welfare check. God bless Obama and his handouts. If it wasn't for mooching off Romney I would live in a cardboard box. Thank goodness Romney pays 1/2 the tax rate I do because I'm nothing but a leech.
 
2012-12-03 03:12:37 PM

Jackson Herring: sprawl15: im grateful theres not enough dicks in the world for Romney to choke on, because that would be a whole lot of dicks and i don't want to see that kind of thing when I'm out eating or chopping lumber

Don't worry, the Voyager space probe has ventured beyond the solar system in search of sufficient dicks


Let the market create more dicks, I say.
 
2012-12-03 03:12:48 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.


What does the amount of money have to do with taxation? It is a representative percent of income/wealth not the fiscal note that means something. If I paid 100% of my wages in taxes, Romney could pay 1% and still pay more than I do. Would that make it 'fair' to Romney?
 
2012-12-03 03:13:03 PM

Corvus: jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?

It would create jobs. Are you seriously this clueless? You don't think increased demand makes more jobs?


Goddam, you're a farking moron. If you're going to jump into this thing, then at least read the two posts that led up to that one. Or, just keep being a moron.
 
2012-12-03 03:13:04 PM

Corvus: jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?

It would create jobs. Are you seriously this clueless? You don't think increased demand makes more jobs?


Silly farker. Only tax cuts for the job creators can create jobs. The fact that the last 30 years of tax cuts have not yet created jobs only proves that we haven't cut taxes enough yet.
 
2012-12-03 03:13:38 PM

jst3p: jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?

You don't see the benefit of driving up consumer demand?

Really?


Another one.
 
2012-12-03 03:14:32 PM

slayer199: Solving the income disparity problem is not a tax issue


It is many different issues, INCLUDING a tax issue.
 
2012-12-03 03:14:55 PM

Jackson Herring: When rich people get freebies, it's subsidies for job creators. When poor people get freebies, it's ENTITLEMENT.


Pretty much this. The rich, however, have the power to take their money overseas as punishment.
 
2012-12-03 03:15:22 PM

Corvus: verbaltoxin: Corvus: What someone who gets hundreds of billions in government handouts might look like:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x42]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x62]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 176x30]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x22]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x39]

Not changing anytime soon either. We talk about defense cuts, but all that really means once it hits the street is a decrease in recruiting and kicking out lots of active duty military before they hit 20. DoD knows it too, which is why early retirements are now a thing. The easiest way to make cuts are to slash down on recruits, boot out the old E-6's and O-4's who aren't making rank, and get rid of some of the niceties on the base.

I know it's crazy. Everytime there is cuts in DOD it happens to troops while we still keep doing million dollar contracts that are just some admirals pet project that they have no clue about.

I worked in defense contract work. People think public employes waste money? Defense contractors are the worst in the world. You have meetings about hit the right "burn rate" so you can go through all the money you can.


As a contractor myself, my experience is different, but I admit we're cut off from the motherland here where I do what I call work. I suppose at the plant it's a very different story. I can believe it though. The military has its annual spend-offs in September every year, so they can get the same amount of dough next October.

It's confounding to think about the waste contractors generate, but still realize doing it in-house still costs more. Contracts do save the DoD money, and it's in all those things Republicans call entitlements: pensions, healthcare, wages and supplies. The art of Republicanism demands reliance on contracting. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills at the amount of right wing, gun nuts here who also draw a military pension, have VA benefits and paid for college through the GI Bill and tuition assistance. The military is a socialist system.
 
2012-12-03 03:15:25 PM

un4gvn666: Captain_Sunshine: Trivia Jockey: Shockingly (or not), history and economic theory demonstrates you can do this and still have a prosperous economy.

Absolutely. The idea that none of these conservatives will even entertain the idea that we are still on the left side of their oh-so-descriptive Laffer Curve is extremely dishonest. It's their treatment of supply-side economics as religion showing through.

Didn't someone actually play around with the numbers a couple of years ago and estimate the peak of that curve at around a 70% tax rate for the top earners? I seem to remember that, but I can't find it (and I have to get back to work).

Here you go.


Thanks! I'll read that again later.
 
2012-12-03 03:15:50 PM

jigger: Corvus: jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?

It would create jobs. Are you seriously this clueless? You don't think increased demand makes more jobs?

Goddam, you're a farking moron. If you're going to jump into this thing, then at least read the two posts that led up to that one. Or, just keep being a moron.


Consumer spending is 70% of our economy, and you don't see the benefit of increasing aggregate demand?
 
2012-12-03 03:16:14 PM
how come i had to pay for my cell phone? Damn you Obama! I even voted for you
 
2012-12-03 03:16:24 PM

eraser8: You're the jerk... jerk: eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]

That is not an actual distribution of wealth in Sweden. The top 20% in Sweden controls ~70% of the wealth (compared to 84% in the US). I am not sure why people keep saying that pie chart is sweden, but I have seen it a few times.

My statistics come from a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Psychological Science written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF).

But, leaving aside for the moment the fact that I referred to the top 10% rather than to the top 20%, where did your numbers come from?


I don't think its technically possible for the top 20% to make 20% of the income, unless everyone made exactly the same amount, then they wouldn't be the top 20%, they'd be a random 20% sampling.
 
2012-12-03 03:16:35 PM

garron: ToxicMunkee: Fine. Let's end all the "entitlement programs" and let people f*cking die. I'm sick of all of this stupid bullish*t. Who needs Death Panels when all we have to do is let people starve?

America. F*ck yeah.

This is the type of ignorant hyperbole that completely defines the left.

Conservatives are not arguing to eliminate life saving entitlements. They are arguing to eliminate stupid ones like free cell phones and food stamps and welfare programs for healthy people who simply choose not to work. And I'll go ahead and throw in tax-payer funded, multi-million dollar vacations and star-studded parties for our "first family". Where exactly is their sacrifice for the greater good?

Seems like all good socialist leaders who preach sacrifice and condemn the rich have this weakness when it comes to their own personal wealth.


While your style is a bit boring, you almost sounds sincere. 8/10.
 
2012-12-03 03:16:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: jigger: Corvus: jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?

It would create jobs. Are you seriously this clueless? You don't think increased demand makes more jobs?

Goddam, you're a farking moron. If you're going to jump into this thing, then at least read the two posts that led up to that one. Or, just keep being a moron.

Consumer spending is 70% of our economy, and you don't see the benefit of increasing aggregate demand?


You're stupid for pointing out that he said something stupid, ya see.
 
2012-12-03 03:17:19 PM

un4gvn666:

What a colossal dumbfark you are.


Ah yes. The most precious debate tool in the arsenal of the enlightened liberal is name calling. My argument is completely invalid because I'm a "colossal dumbfark".

Oh please, please - I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark. I want to be like you. Thinking is such a waste - and working!! sheesh - who needs to do that? I want Obama to give me everything for free. He's such a savior - he can even forgive my sins, heal my diseases, stop global warming and cause everybody to share all they have with each other. Only the true sinners think they deserve what they work for. They didn't build that!!

I love you Obama!! I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark anymore!! Please save me!!! Please save us ALL!!  Please forgive me for thinking!!!
 
2012-12-03 03:17:42 PM
 
2012-12-03 03:17:43 PM
The wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" - presumably 80 percent or 90 percent.

What else is there to say? Obviously that is not enough for people.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books - in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities - just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

we need to have cuts too.
 
2012-12-03 03:18:10 PM

MindStalker: eraser8: You're the jerk... jerk: eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]

That is not an actual distribution of wealth in Sweden. The top 20% in Sweden controls ~70% of the wealth (compared to 84% in the US). I am not sure why people keep saying that pie chart is sweden, but I have seen it a few times.

My statistics come from a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Psychological Science written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF).

But, leaving aside for the moment the fact that I referred to the top 10% rather than to the top 20%, where did your numbers come from?

I don't think its technically possible for the top 20% to make 20% of the income, unless everyone made exactly the same amount, then they wouldn't be the top 20%, they'd be a random 20% sampling.


I never suggested the top 20% should earn 20% of income. So, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
 
2012-12-03 03:18:32 PM

garron: un4gvn666:

What a colossal dumbfark you are.

Ah yes. The most precious debate tool in the arsenal of the enlightened liberal is name calling. My argument is completely invalid because I'm a "colossal dumbfark".

Oh please, please - I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark. I want to be like you. Thinking is such a waste - and working!! sheesh - who needs to do that? I want Obama to give me everything for free. He's such a savior - he can even forgive my sins, heal my diseases, stop global warming and cause everybody to share all they have with each other. Only the true sinners think they deserve what they work for. They didn't build that!!

I love you Obama!! I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark anymore!! Please save me!!! Please save us ALL!!  Please forgive me for thinking!!!


All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.
 
2012-12-03 03:18:35 PM
It's true, I want a lot of freebies. Free wars, free oil, free tax cuts.

Gimme.
 
2012-12-03 03:18:50 PM

sprawl15: Corvus: Defense contractors are the worst in the world. You have meetings about hit the right "burn rate" so you can go through all the money you can.

That's a side effect of FFP and post award auditing; if you don't hit the right burn rate, you risk significant money being zoinked from you, and your profit is a flat percentage on whatever your costs are, so you lose out on negotiated profit as well. It's generally a systemic problem when the system says it's a better move to piss away excess money than to return it.

FFP is a farking disaster anyway, and after the Druyun scandal contracting departments got a raging boner for it because it covers their ass if (when) things go wrong.


I am talking about the private, not the public budgeting side. What I am talking about is just for the private company not to "leave any money on the table". Trust me (which I know you won't) I have worked on the private side and have family that work on the public side that awards the contracts and others I know too. What your talking about is more on the government side.

I can see that maybe the public side wants the private to burn all their cash so they don't get their budgets cut next year but that wasn't our reasoning. Ours was just to make more money from sucking Uncle Sugars teat.
 
2012-12-03 03:19:19 PM

vpb: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

I don't know for a fact. But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.

No he doesn't, he only pays 15% IIRC.


And he doesn't work, at all, for that money. it's all managed in a blind trust. So, exactly WHY does a guy who doesn't even work and yet "earns" $14 million a year need more tax cuts?
 
2012-12-03 03:19:21 PM

Corvus: No one know but we DO now the 100 million he gave to his kids was tax free. And the hundred's of millions in his 401k that most of us "little people" can't do.

So I guess you'd have to admit the system is broken.



Of course you can't give your kids millions of dollars, you dont have millions of dollars. jk.

Sorry but I have no problem with a man giving his kids his hard earned money. I do it all the time, it's just in the form of 10s and 20s. Why would I care! That money was taxed once when he earned it, why would it get taxed again when it was given away?

And you can have a 401k, no one is stopping you.
 
2012-12-03 03:19:21 PM
Everyone's taxes need to go up in the range of 40% just to pay for the current government.

Let's get everyone kicking in to cover the current tab, then figure out if we like the entitlements and wars we are buying.
 
2012-12-03 03:19:47 PM

jst3p: Silly farker. Only tax cuts for the job creators can create jobs. The fact that the last 30 years of tax cuts have not yet created jobs only proves that we haven't cut taxes enough yet.


*golf clap*
 
2012-12-03 03:19:49 PM

SlothB77: The wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" - presumably 80 percent or 90 percent.

What else is there to say? Obviously that is not enough for people.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books - in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities - just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

we need to have cuts too.


Who are these mythical Democrats who are calling for no cuts? Seriously. Name them.
 
2012-12-03 03:20:28 PM

SlothB77: The wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" - presumably 80 percent or 90 percent.

What else is there to say? Obviously that is not enough for people.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books - in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities - just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

we need to have cuts too.


Incrementalism is Public Enemy #1 to conservatives. If a course of action does not solve a problem 100%, it is completely useless and should be discarded.
 
2012-12-03 03:21:02 PM

un4gvn666: cameroncrazy1984: jigger: Corvus: jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?

It would create jobs. Are you seriously this clueless? You don't think increased demand makes more jobs?

Goddam, you're a farking moron. If you're going to jump into this thing, then at least read the two posts that led up to that one. Or, just keep being a moron.

Consumer spending is 70% of our economy, and you don't see the benefit of increasing aggregate demand?

You're stupid for pointing out that he said something stupid, ya see.


Jigger thinks you should study it out!
 
2012-12-03 03:21:05 PM

verbaltoxin: Europe makes use of the VAT a lot more than we do, also. It makes goods more expensive but it does feed back into social spending.

Strangely enough the European countries doing the worst, are the ones who borrowed cheaply on high risk, and created bubbles in their economies. Libertarians like to point out Greece but the fact is, Greece doesn't print its own money, and it is an example of spending run amok at the cost of production. The US isn't Greece but pointing out reality doesn't penetrate the gold bug's bubble.


Greece also considers it a social virtue to cheat tax collectors.
 
2012-12-03 03:21:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SlothB77: The wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" - presumably 80 percent or 90 percent.

What else is there to say? Obviously that is not enough for people.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books - in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities - just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

we need to have cuts too.

Who are these mythical Democrats who are calling for no cuts? Seriously. Name them.


They're the same as the Obama that was seated in an empty chair next to Clint Eastwood: "Old white man mad at what he imagines Obama to be"
 
2012-12-03 03:22:30 PM

jst3p: un4gvn666: cameroncrazy1984: jigger: Corvus: jigger: Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.

You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.

You said if the US government taxed and spent like Eurpoean governments, that would drive up aggregate demand. Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?

It would create jobs. Are you seriously this clueless? You don't think increased demand makes more jobs?

Goddam, you're a farking moron. If you're going to jump into this thing, then at least read the two posts that led up to that one. Or, just keep being a moron.

Consumer spending is 70% of our economy, and you don't see the benefit of increasing aggregate demand?

You're stupid for pointing out that he said something stupid, ya see.

Jigger thinks you should study it out!


Why won't anyone analyze the damn statisticals and harmonize their respective quirks? WHY, DAMNIT?
 
2012-12-03 03:22:36 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.


You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html
 
2012-12-03 03:22:43 PM

verbaltoxin: It's confounding to think about the waste contractors generate, but still realize doing it in-house still costs more. Contracts do save the DoD money,


I had a manager that would give me 2 hours of work to do every week. I keep telling him I didn't have enough to do but he wouldn't give me more because we had to burn through it and I was getting paid good money MUCH MUCH about 30% more than if I worked for the government with better benefits. Plus the company I worked for must have been taking at least what I made on top of that. And 90% of the things I worked on the government never even used. How the hell can that be cheaper?
 
2012-12-03 03:23:30 PM

un4gvn666:

All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.


Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work. There was no need to back that up since it was in the original statement. Maybe you missed that part.
 
2012-12-03 03:23:47 PM
Yes, all that glorious free stuff, like that Social Security and Medicare that I pay for. And all those roads, street lights, bridges, air traffic control systems, and our military.

By the way...how much have we spent on Afghanistan and Iraq? (I'm okay with the Afghanistan spending, but we should have been out of there awhile ago, and the job would have gotten done sooner if we hadn't sent a huge chunk of our military into Iraq for a snipe hunt.)
 
2012-12-03 03:25:01 PM

bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html


Why does Romney get to pay 13% while the rest of us have to pay 30? Especially considering that he does no work.
 
2012-12-03 03:25:06 PM

Corvus: What I am talking about is just for the private company not to "leave any money on the table".


I'm talking about the private side. Burndown charts, etc., to ensure the company's books match what was bid. If you save money by doing your work smarter after negotiation, that money (and your profits on that money) get taken from you if it comes up in post award audit.

If a company bids a million dollars to do task X, FFP FAR part 15, with 10% of that as profit, they are supposed to do it for exactly $900k. If halfway through they find they can save $100k of costs, they can either give it back to the government and lose out on an additional $10k of profit, or they can burn that money down in other places and piss it away. Either way, the company is not allowed, per Federal Acquisition Regulations, to keep that money, so the obvious incentive is to keep the profit on it by hiring more gardeners or dildo polishers or whatever. Burndown charts are used to keep track of well you're meeting your spending goals.

I'm not talking one bit about government incentive to spend all the budgeted money. Solely about companies pissing money away post negotiation.
 
2012-12-03 03:25:18 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Sorry but I have no problem with a man giving his kids his hard earned money. I do it all the time, it's just in the form of 10s and 20s. Why would I care! That money was taxed once when he earned it, why would it get taxed again when it was given away?


actually No it wasn't. He counted them as assets that were worthless and then gave him to his kids so he and they both paid zero taxes on it.

I imagine you will move the goal posts once again.
 
2012-12-03 03:25:30 PM

un4gvn666: garron: un4gvn666:

What a colossal dumbfark you are.

Ah yes. The most precious debate tool in the arsenal of the enlightened liberal is name calling. My argument is completely invalid because I'm a "colossal dumbfark".

Oh please, please - I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark. I want to be like you. Thinking is such a waste - and working!! sheesh - who needs to do that? I want Obama to give me everything for free. He's such a savior - he can even forgive my sins, heal my diseases, stop global warming and cause everybody to share all they have with each other. Only the true sinners think they deserve what they work for. They didn't build that!!

I love you Obama!! I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark anymore!! Please save me!!! Please save us ALL!!  Please forgive me for thinking!!!

All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.


Food stamps are unnecessary. Either way my family isn't going to go hungry.

While I am being facetious, there are many people for whom this will be true. If the option is to scrape by on a tiny amount of help from the government or turn to illegal activities, many people will suffer through it. If the option is starvation or crime, crime will increase. Even if we were able to stop each of these people before they hurt someone the cost of law enforcement and taking their kids into the system would be higher than the cost of food stamps.
 
2012-12-03 03:25:41 PM

garron: un4gvn666:

All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.

Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work. There was no need to back that up since it was in the original statement. Maybe you missed that part.


How many people on welfare "choose" not to work? Surely you must have some proof, some statistics, something.
 
2012-12-03 03:25:51 PM

eraser8: You're the jerk... jerk: eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]

That is not an actual distribution of wealth in Sweden. The top 20% in Sweden controls ~70% of the wealth (compared to 84% in the US). I am not sure why people keep saying that pie chart is sweden, but I have seen it a few times.

My statistics come from a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Psychological Science written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF).eraser8: You're the jerk... jerk: eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]

That is not an actual distribution of wealth in Sweden. The top 20% in Sweden controls ~70% of the wealth (compared to 84% in the US). I am not sure why people keep saying that pie chart is sweden, but I have seen it a few times.

My statistics come from a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Psychological Science written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF).

But, leaving aside for the moment the fact that I referred to the top 10% rather than to the top 20%, where did your numbers come from?



But, leaving aside for the moment the fact that I referred to the top 10% rather than to the top 20%, where did your numbers come from?


Read your study. On page 10 you can see the flaw. They compared the income distribution of Sweden to the wealth distribution of the US. Not really a fair comparison. Find an income graph of the US and compare that to the US

Here is someone else comparing the two

To answer your question on 10 vs 20%, look at your own chart. The top quint in the US has 84%, In order for the top 10% to control 80% of the wealth the 11-20% would have to control less than 4%, making them less wealthy than the 20-40%ers.
 
2012-12-03 03:26:13 PM

un4gvn666: SlothB77: The wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" - presumably 80 percent or 90 percent.

What else is there to say? Obviously that is not enough for people.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books - in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities - just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

we need to have cuts too.

Incrementalism is Public Enemy #1 to conservatives. If a course of action does not solve a problem 100%, it is completely useless and should be discarded.


Correct. We should do absolutely nothing until we come up with a single solution that solves all the problems, and then do only that one thing. I see no problem with this.
 
2012-12-03 03:26:37 PM

PsiChick: verbaltoxin: Europe makes use of the VAT a lot more than we do, also. It makes goods more expensive but it does feed back into social spending.

Strangely enough the European countries doing the worst, are the ones who borrowed cheaply on high risk, and created bubbles in their economies. Libertarians like to point out Greece but the fact is, Greece doesn't print its own money, and it is an example of spending run amok at the cost of production. The US isn't Greece but pointing out reality doesn't penetrate the gold bug's bubble.

Greece also considers it a social virtue to cheat tax collectors.


Yep. Cheating and not paying your taxes is such an accepted practice in Greece, they're afraid that they'll see a mass exodus of doctors and other white collar professionals if they ever start cracking down on tax fraud (as the EU has been pressuring them to do) and requiring them to pay rates competitive with the rest of the industrialized world.
 
2012-12-03 03:26:39 PM

sprawl15: I'm talking about the private side. Burndown charts, etc., to ensure the company's books match what was bid.


Umm they were times and material contracts not fixed price.

I knew you can't accept anyone saying something different than you.
 
2012-12-03 03:26:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: garron: un4gvn666:

All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.

Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work. There was no need to back that up since it was in the original statement. Maybe you missed that part.

How many people on welfare "choose" not to work? Surely you must have some proof, some statistics, something.


To be fair, forwarded chain e-mails from his crazy uncle are a kind of proof.
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report