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  
•       •       •

3575 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 03:27:46 PM  

vartian: Dusk-You-n-Me: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe

True, but Europe's spending is also progressive. Imagine if the average American middle class family paid zero or near zero for healthcare. Imagine if the average middle class family paid zero or near zero for college tuition. Imagine all that money back into their pockets, and back into our economy driving up aggregate demand.

That and we have a larger military then all of Europe.


That's right. Boehner doesn't want to give up those sweet, sweet defense contracts for his constituents. Whether or not they are militarily justified is irrelevant.
 
2012-12-03 03:27:55 PM  

sweetmelissa31: 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.


The invisible hand of the free market will continue to fart on the dicks of the socialist leeches
 
2012-12-03 03:28:12 PM  

sprawl15: 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 know that's what I was talking about. But it's not like their budgets are cut next year like on the public side.

I don't know why you are saying the same thing I said and trying to pretend I said something different.
 
2012-12-03 03:28:32 PM  

garron: healthy people who choose not to work


hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh
 
2012-12-03 03:28:44 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.


If you have 90% of the wealth and pay 90% of the taxes, that seems pretty damn fair to me.

Take taxes to Clinton levels, cut the military budget in half*. The rest will be covered by inflation and the recovering economy.

You want an easy solution? There's an easy solution.

*Half of the $1 trillion budget including the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, not half of the $700 billion on-budget military spending.
 
2012-12-03 03:28:46 PM  

fracto: 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.


ARE THERE NO PRISONS?

ARE THERE NO UNION WORKHOUSES?
 
2012-12-03 03:30:37 PM  
No, Subby, you're facing the fiscal cliff because your political system has incentivized winning over functioning.
 
2012-12-03 03:30:43 PM  
All of the worlds problems are the fault of poor people, brown people, liberals and unions. Wealthy white people are not responsible for anything.

If you disagree you're going to hell.


-every conservative ever
 
2012-12-03 03:30:45 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


Here at FARK we encourage readers to READ the post they are quoting. Have a great day.
 
2012-12-03 03:31:22 PM  

Captain_Sunshine: So -

On the one hand, we have Democrats arguing for cuts in defense spending and savings in social programs, and increased revenues through taxes, to pay for these programs and reduce the deficit up front.
On the other hand, we have Republicans arguing for savings AND cuts in social programs, more defense spending, and lower taxes, banking on economic growth in a couple of quarters to offset the lost immediate revenue and reduce the deficit after growth.

On the gripping hand, we have a cumulative failure of enjoying more government than we've paid for, for over the past thirty years. It's time to pay your bills, kids. Taxes need to go up for everybody, and stay there for a while. Or they'll have to go up even more later.

/Larry Niven is my co-pilot
//But Pournelle is my bombardier


How the hell did you get a bombadier? Will that be in my Obama gift basket?
 
2012-12-03 03:31:31 PM  

Corvus: I imagine you will move the goal posts once again.


Let me clear up. He made money. He was taxed. He then used that left over money to buy stuff. That is now his stuff. He then turned around and gave it to his kids.

None of this I have a problem with. I think you should be able to give away your stuff if you like especially to family members.

I hope that helps clear everything up, this didn't move a single thing but I just simplified it a little.
 
2012-12-03 03:31:56 PM  

fracto: 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.


Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.
 
2012-12-03 03:32:34 PM  
As long as Republicans are able to perpetuate the lie that lower taxes means a better economy and more jobs, we'll never get anywhere. This single lie is one of the biggest causes of the partisan bullsh*t that is holding our nation hostage and preventing actual recovery.
 
2012-12-03 03:32:38 PM  

sweetmelissa31: mksmith: "THEIR social programs"? Republicans get no benefits from Social Security, Medicare, college loans, food stamps, or disaster relief -- is that what you're saying? Because I have an unemployed, fundamentalist, Obama-hating sister-in-law who was delighted to get in line for food stamps when she qualified following the most recent hurricane.

The difference is, Republicans deserve the benefits they get, while Democrats think they are entitled.


So Repubs are entitled, while dems only think they are?
 
2012-12-03 03:32:39 PM  
InmanRoshi

Cythraul: Koggie: Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?

"I'd like Two Unpaid Wars, please. Oh, and a side of Unregulated Banking Industry. That many calories, really? Okay, just shave off a few with a Frank / Dodd salad. Yeah, go ahead and super-size it. Thanks!"

Also a Medicare Plan D, which was not only 1 trillion/10 years payoff of taxpayer money to big pharm, but a 1 trillion/10 years money to big pharm in which the GOP didn't even give the pretense that they needed to put it on the books or pay for it in any way. They farking froze the cameras on CSPAN, because the GOP Caucus had to browbeat any GOPer who dissented with it on the floor and they didn't want it to be caught on camera. This was voted for by Jim Bunning, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Boehner,


My favorite is Med Modernization Act (D): Adding more to long term debt, in one fell swoop, than is owed to Social Security (2008 estimate: 17 trillion partD/14 trillion SS/68 trillion medicare - Dallas Fed estimate).

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[29][30] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D
 
2012-12-03 03:33:51 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.


But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.

It is only a start for you feeling better in your class warfare struggle.
 
2012-12-03 03:33:55 PM  

sprawl15: fracto: 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.

ARE THERE NO PRISONS?

ARE THERE NO UNION WORKHOUSES?



Prison solves the problem nicely. I go to jail, my (hypothetical) kids go into the system. We both get food and healthcare 100% on the governments dime, at a much higher cost than if we had gotten food stamps to begin with. Sure it will suck for us, but it is better than going without food.
 
2012-12-03 03:34:04 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: I imagine you will move the goal posts once again.

Let me clear up. He made money. He was taxed. He then used that left over money to buy stuff. That is now his stuff. He then turned around and gave it to his kids.

None of this I have a problem with. I think you should be able to give away your stuff if you like especially to family members.

I hope that helps clear everything up, this didn't move a single thing but I just simplified it a little.


No he did not.

His company had private assets. They valued those assets as close to zero he paid NO TAXES on those. He gave them to kids they paid NO TAXES. Now those "worthless assets" are worth 100 million dollars and him nor his kids paid no taxes.

Why are you against people working for their own money? And you want people to get hand outs?

I believe in people working for their money.
 
2012-12-03 03:34:06 PM  

un4gvn666:
Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.


Wouldn't that seem to prove the point?
 
2012-12-03 03:34:16 PM  
I'm as liberal as they come, and entitlements are certainly a problem. Of course, any plan that discusses only cutting those programs that help liberal and/or poor people while ignoring the things that help Republican's cronies in industry (and which, BTW, are the largest expenditures by our government) is a disingenuous plan.
 
2012-12-03 03:34:23 PM  

Corvus: Umm they were times and material contracts not fixed price.


By far the worst offenders on that kind of thing are FFP. T&M aren't much different, considering most of them are pure profit after a breakpoint (assuming the company knows how to do T&M and understands how to leverage the risk).

Corvus: I don't know why you are saying the same thing I said and trying to pretend I said something different.


I'm not pretending you said something different. I'm agreeing with you, and offering a bit of insight. Maybe you should dial your persecution complex down from 12.

Corvus: I knew you can't accept anyone saying something different than you.


Adorable.
 
2012-12-03 03:35:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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.

But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.

It is only a start for you feeling better in your class warfare struggle.


What exactly did Mitt Romney contribute to the economy last year?
 
2012-12-03 03:35:32 PM  

un4gvn666: fracto: 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.

Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.


Your numbers would support my assertion. My giving more assistance fewer people are turning to crime.
 
2012-12-03 03:35:32 PM  

fracto: sprawl15: fracto: 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.

ARE THERE NO PRISONS?

ARE THERE NO UNION WORKHOUSES?


Prison solves the problem nicely. I go to jail, my (hypothetical) kids go into the system. We both get food and healthcare 100% on the governments dime, at a much higher cost than if we had gotten food stamps to begin with. Sure it will suck for us, but it is better than going without food.


we should have child labor, but only for children of prisoners
 
2012-12-03 03:36:05 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.


What, exactly, does a blind trust contribute to the economy?
 
2012-12-03 03:36:11 PM  
why cant it be both things at the same time?
 
2012-12-03 03:36:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.

What, exactly, does a blind trust contribute to the economy?


Trust.
 
2012-12-03 03:36:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: un4gvn666:
Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.

Wouldn't that seem to prove the point?


Prove the point that welfare recipients are more likely to resort to crime than to just live off of welfare and food stamps when provided to them? No, it would not prove that point. At all.
 
2012-12-03 03:37:23 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Let me clear up. He made money. He was taxed.


He was NOT taxed. You keep pretending this is true is wrong. He used a scheme of declaring the assets as "worthless" when they were not so he didn't have to pay taxes on it.

Also he got to have his other income taxed as if it was capital gains even though he wasn't risking his own money. He gets to pay a lower percent on his taxes than I do and on top of that he gets to funnel more money to his 401k and children tax free with no limit unlike anyone else can.
 
2012-12-03 03:37:26 PM  

Jackson Herring: Lionel Mandrake: Naw, you can't possibly be serious...can you?

[i.imgur.com image 639x463]


Oh FFS. Libertarian Legolas again?

Fine.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i41.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-03 03:37:33 PM  
assets.sbnation.com

RIP FREE BEES
 
2012-12-03 03:37:43 PM  

fracto: un4gvn666: fracto: 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.

Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.

Your numbers would support my assertion. My giving more assistance fewer people are turning to crime.


Ok, WHOA, I had a severe reading-comprehension-brain fart there. I misread your post. Yes, I agree with you. I thought you were arguing the other way.

My apologies.
 
2012-12-03 03:37:51 PM  

InmanRoshi: 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.


That's why I never accept Greece as a statistic relevant to the USA. We all have a very clear work ethic and find cheating on taxes childish. It'd be like if someone claimed America was going to turn into feudal Japan. We just don't have the right cultural conditions for that to happen.
 
2012-12-03 03:38:13 PM  

sprawl15: fracto: sprawl15: fracto: 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.

ARE THERE NO PRISONS?

ARE THERE NO UNION WORKHOUSES?


Prison solves the problem nicely. I go to jail, my (hypothetical) kids go into the system. We both get food and healthcare 100% on the governments dime, at a much higher cost than if we had gotten food stamps to begin with. Sure it will suck for us, but it is better than going without food.

we should have child labor, but only for children of prisoners



What I'm hearing is that my kids will learn a trade while I'm away. Sounds like a plan. Be careful though, they are likely to take your job. You'd be amazed at how much work you can get out of a kid for $5 a week. Cleaning the house, doing dishes, mowing lawns, these kids don't care.
 
2012-12-03 03:38:47 PM  
Couldn't be BOTH right?
 
2012-12-03 03:39:25 PM  

PsiChick: InmanRoshi: 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.

That's why I never accept Greece as a statistic relevant to the USA. We all have a very clear work ethic and find cheating on taxes childish. It'd be like if someone claimed America was going to turn into feudal Japan. We just don't have the right cultural conditions for that to happen.


Well, at this rate the US is going to be totally Sharia in five years at most.

/just so there's still time to vote Republican
 
2012-12-03 03:39:43 PM  

InmanRoshi: 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.


So, they're going to flee Greece for places with even higher tax rates?
 
2012-12-03 03:39:51 PM  

jigger: Why would you want to drive up aggregate demand? What do you believe that would accomplish?


A few others already covered it, but increasing demand creates jobs. Fix UE you'll fix the deficit and the debt, not the other way around. A balanced budget is the result of a robust economy, not the cause.
 
2012-12-03 03:40:03 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: I imagine you will move the goal posts once again.

Let me clear up. He made money. He was taxed. He then used that left over money to buy stuff. That is now his stuff. He then turned around and gave it to his kids.

None of this I have a problem with. I think you should be able to give away your stuff if you like especially to family members.

I hope that helps clear everything up, this didn't move a single thing but I just simplified it a little.


Wow you have such no clue on how you are being ripped off. You should just voluntarily donate you social security and medicare you paid for to hand over to rich people since you are so for it.
 
2012-12-03 03:40:57 PM  

Corvus: No he did not.

His company had private assets. They valued those assets as close to zero he paid NO TAXES on those. He gave them to kids they paid NO TAXES. Now those "worthless assets" are worth 100 million dollars and him nor his kids paid no taxes.

Why are you against people working for their own money? And you want people to get hand outs?

I believe in people working for their money.



you just keep kicking the can farther down the road. His company that he had that was his. Right?
 
2012-12-03 03:40:58 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: 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


You're right that Norton and Ariely seem to have compared Swedish income distribution to American wealth distribution...although you had to get into the weeds of the paper to discover that fact.

Nevertheless, it's not all that relevant to my point.

TFA noted that the USA is much more redistributionist in its tax structure. My point is that could largely be attributed to the fact that the USA is much more unequal in its income and wealth distribution. That is, the USA doesn't tax the top quintiles because it's US policy to soak the rich; the top quintiles are taxed highly because that's where the overwhelming amount of money is. The implication is that if income and wealth were more evenly distributed, taxation would be, too.
 
2012-12-03 03:41:51 PM  
i194.photobucket.com

i194.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-03 03:41:59 PM  

un4gvn666: Prove the point that welfare recipients are more likely to resort to crime than to just live off of welfare and food stamps when provided to them? No, it would not prove that point. At all.



That wasn't the point. The point was that by removing the safety net people will become desperate and a parent will do what is needed to feed their kids. If that means taking from others, then that will be the case. By providing a robust safety net we prevent people in horrible situations from turning to desperate measures.
 
2012-12-03 03:42:17 PM  

un4gvn666: fracto: un4gvn666: fracto: 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.

Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.

Your numbers would support my assertion. My giving more assistance fewer people are turning to crime.

Ok, WHOA, I had a severe reading-comprehension-brain fart there. I misread your post. Yes, I agree with you. I thought you were arguing the other way.

My apologies.



Thank God, I thought I was going crazy.
 
2012-12-03 03:42:42 PM  

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]


To answer your earlier question:
According to Credit Suisse the top 10% in Norway controls 50.5% of the wealth.

I am not sure how to compare these data sources, as this source disagrees with the other on Sweden's distribution and likely the US distribution.
 
2012-12-03 03:43:19 PM  
Right. This whole fiscal cliff thing would go away if we'd all just agree to let our infrastructure collapse and eliminate all semblance of ordered society. DUH GUYZ!
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 03:43:48 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!!!


In other words: I will ignore all counterpoints and focus on how I was insulted. This proves I'm right!

Calling you a colossal dumbfark wasn't exactly kind, but you're making it harder to disagree with.
 
2012-12-03 03:43:49 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: physt: Unless RMoney releases his tax returns, we don't know if he paid a dime.

I'm fairly sure that someone is checking into that right now. I'm not say that the current administration is petty but I'm not not saying it.


I just can't take someone seriously if they don't know the difference between absolute and proportional.
 
2012-12-03 03:44:30 PM  

un4gvn666: fracto: un4gvn666: fracto: 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.

Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.

Your numbers would support my assertion. My giving more assistance fewer people are turning to crime.

Ok, WHOA, I had a severe reading-comprehension-brain fart there. I misread your post. Yes, I agree with you. I thought you were arguing the other way.

My apologies.



No worries. We've all been there.
 
2012-12-03 03:44:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.

It is only a start for you feeling better in your class warfare struggle.

What exactly did Mitt Romney contribute to the economy last year?



He contributed millions of dollars to the government. The government then spent that money, thereby helping the economy.
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report