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  
•       •       •

3574 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 09:47:36 PM

Tumunga: 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.

Show us your tax forms, please. I bet you don't pay twice as much as Romney.


As was said earlier in the thread...farking percentages, how do they work?
 
2012-12-03 10:01:45 PM

brantgoose: The top 1000 US corporations have not made a single net job since before 1945.


Uh huh. Got any more? I bet you do.
 
2012-12-03 10:12:08 PM

Jackson Herring: Why do people insist on being willfully wrong about the horse tax thing jesus christ


Wrong in what way?
 
2012-12-03 10:12:24 PM

TheBigJerk: PsiChick: Imagine if we did that here. And yes, it would mean the rich paid a hell of a lot more. But it would also mean the rich, like everyone else, would have a better quality of life, and America wouldn't be the embarrassment of civilized nations.

It really wouldn't though. Right now waiting lists and medical procedures that are naturally scarce (i.e. "I need a kidney" or "only one neurosurgeon who can perform the procedure") are only affordable by the super-rich, instead of making them wait in line like everyone else.


...That would be a significant difference from America's current operating procedure?
 
2012-12-03 10:16:16 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.


www.examiner.com
 
2012-12-03 10:35:20 PM
As an unemployed, returned-to-school student, let me tell you about all the free **** I'm not getting.

Trust me, I tried to get some freebies, like help with my electricity, and they told me to go **** myself and come back when I had a past-due, shut-off notice.Then there's the free food I can't have either, unless I'm going to school full time and working full time. When I was unemployed, there was the free retraining money that I couldn't qualify for either, because everyone was unemployed.

Luckily my unemployment carried me through 2009 and 2010, or else I'd be really screwed.

I pray every day that I don't get sick, get hurt, or develop a dental problem.
 
2012-12-03 11:00:16 PM

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.


If my student loans were gone, I'd have a great spending potential. First off, upgrade from my shiatty apartment and socking money away in savings for a downpayment on a car.
 
2012-12-03 11:05:47 PM

rwhamann: doczoidberg: I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?

Seriously. The game is fixed, the deck appears to be stacked. How can a middle or lower class earner hitch a ride? Thats what I want to know.


Obviously you didn't read theTFA.
If you're lower middle class, you likely pay almost no taxes but reap more benefits than most people in the world could dream of. You're already hitching a ride, and if it's a job you're worrying about, you're not getting one because here's how it works if you're the ruling party right now:

1.) Jack up the welfare state with more and more benefits, to create a populus of voting supplicants at a cost of more than 1 trillion/year..
2.) Cry out with righteous indignation when said supplicants can't find gainful employment in an anemic economy caused in part by huge debt burden.
3.) Throw some "stimulus" and more middle class tax cuts out there and turn unemployment insurance into a guaranteed benefit to appease the supplicants through the next election cycle.
4.) Enjoy the ride while you can and craft more lies to deceive your gullible supplicants.
 
2012-12-03 11:45:00 PM

natmar_76: As an unemployed, returned-to-school student, let me tell you about all the free **** I'm not getting.

Trust me, I tried to get some freebies, like help with my electricity, and they told me to go **** myself and come back when I had a past-due, shut-off notice.Then there's the free food I can't have either, unless I'm going to school full time and working full time. When I was unemployed, there was the free retraining money that I couldn't qualify for either, because everyone was unemployed.

Luckily my unemployment carried me through 2009 and 2010, or else I'd be really screwed.

I pray every day that I don't get sick, get hurt, or develop a dental problem.


Pull your self up by your bootstraps(tm) man!

/Don't forget to pay the license fee
//Weakling
///I was at the Gym 26 min ago
 
2012-12-03 11:53:50 PM

doczoidberg: I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?


you sound like an old republican. Or a young democrat.

/six of one...
 
2012-12-04 12:03:45 AM

gittlebass: So, lets say you're in debt. Is it easier/faster to get out of debt by cutting things out of your life? or by getting another job to raise revenue?


Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't you get out of debt faster/easier still by both cutting unnecessary expenses AND getting another job to raise revenue?
 
2012-12-04 12:07:48 AM

Animatronik: rwhamann: doczoidberg: I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?

Seriously. The game is fixed, the deck appears to be stacked. How can a middle or lower class earner hitch a ride? Thats what I want to know.

Obviously you didn't read theTFA.
If you're lower middle class, you likely pay almost no taxes but reap more benefits than most people in the world could dream of. You're already hitching a ride, and if it's a job you're worrying about, you're not getting one because here's how it works if you're the ruling party right now:

1.) Jack up the welfare state with more and more benefits, to create a populus of voting supplicants at a cost of more than 1 trillion/year..
2.) Cry out with righteous indignation when said supplicants can't find gainful employment in an anemic economy caused in part by huge debt burden.
3.) Throw some "stimulus" and more middle class tax cuts out there and turn unemployment insurance into a guaranteed benefit to appease the supplicants through the next election cycle.
4.) Enjoy the ride while you can and craft more lies to deceive your gullible supplicants.


Unfortunately, we're also in an era where the promised financial boom of low taxes on the rich would translate into more jobs. The difficulty is that the jobs were overseas.

While we're on the subject of "the welfare state" you might want to look at industry subsidies that haven't translated into a plethora of jobs here. Likewise, the markets are doing pretty well--so long as you didn't invest heavily in financial fictions--not to mention the huge obligations that we have now thanks to a prison industry as well as a military industry that NEEDS more conflicts to sell their gear and goods.

The situation we face isn't black and white, and it's not "haves" and "have nots" in conflict, but rather, a listing system that has been rewarding a lot of folks for some time, and at the cost of local markets, entrepreneurship at that local level, and plummeting consumer power thanks to those "lower middle class" jobs going poof. There is a fair amount of wealth in the country, but it's not going to consumers, and rather is being hauled out of local economies and not circulating. It is a system that rewards the vultures who are now looking to haul away the rotting corpse that they've been pissing while feeding, and NOW they're suddenly disgusted that ants are starting to nip at their toes.

That folks would like to characterize the difficulties we've been building towards for some time as being simple jealousy of those who have their hands out...while themselves riffing through taxpayer pockets their own selves shows the disconnect in the discussion.

We need to get away from the skewed market model that subsidizes industries and return to a freer market. Free market as free to compete, and right now, our markets are anything but free, and shackled to large players who do NOT want competition, and they want the taxpayer feedbag to remain in place while folks gorge.
 
2012-12-04 12:19:48 AM
FTA: "According to the most recent (2009) OECD statistics: Government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00."

I'm wondering how much of that is defense spending, how much of that is Medicare and Medicaid due to the outrageous costs of health care and insurance, and so on

ALSO:

Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Percentages, how the fark do they work? Are you on some kind of special taxation system where you pay a set amount? Because I personally have to pay this thing known as a "percentage".

There's a good article on Wikipedia about it, you should check it out.

And that's how we pay for roads and bridges, wages for employees and national defense? Do we pay for them with percentages?! No, we pay for them with dollars. Dollars are what count. Romney pays more dollars for you. Gratitude wouldn't be uncalled for.


No, percentages are what count for taxation, not dollar amounts. This is why we have a progressive tax system, because anyone with two brain cells to rub together (which excludes most republicans), can see that it takes a basic number of dollars to survive, and anything above that level is cake. The more cake you have, the more you are taxed. "Gratitude" can kiss my ass, and so can Rmoney. The more wealth you have, the more dependent on the system of laws, public works, and government you are in keeping that wealth.

AND:

The The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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?


Wrong again. Money doesn't get taxed, people do. This is how the system works. I work and am paid. That money is not my employer's money being taxed, I am being taxed on the money I earn. When I pay someone to do something for me, such as a plumber, "the money" I give them is not taxed, the plumber is being taxed on their earnings as I was taxed on mine.

The exchange is taxable, not the dollar itself. This means that a dollar (using your odd logic) can be taxed over a thousand times before it is shredded, when in the real world a thousand transactions are what was taxed every time that dollar changed hands. This is also why inheritance should always be taxed, because it is an exchange. There is no "double taxation", because when the money is yours you were taxed on it, and when it belongs to your heirs they were taxed on it because it is income to them.

One more time: you were taxed once. Your heirs were taxed once. That's it.
 
2012-12-04 12:21:23 AM

PsiChick: TheBigJerk: PsiChick: Imagine if we did that here. And yes, it would mean the rich paid a hell of a lot more. But it would also mean the rich, like everyone else, would have a better quality of life, and America wouldn't be the embarrassment of civilized nations.

It really wouldn't though. Right now waiting lists and medical procedures that are naturally scarce (i.e. "I need a kidney" or "only one neurosurgeon who can perform the procedure") are only affordable by the super-rich, instead of making them wait in line like everyone else.

...That would be a significant difference from America's current operating procedure?


Yes.

Perhaps I'm not being clear? The current system is:

-Rich man has medical problem,

-Rich man buys rare and expensive treatment no one else can afford.

-Rich man gets better.

You proposed a system where:

-Rich man has medical problem.

-Rich man finds long line of people who all got there ahead of him for the same rare and expensive treatment they can also afford now.

-Rich man has to compete on an even playing field instead of skipping the field and enjoying medical care no one else gets.

Though that's just regarding medical care. The point is that a lot of things are still zero-sum, and for life to get better for the poor it has to get less good for the rich. Though not everything, there are plenty of things that the rich benefit from in a larger and healthier middle-class.

Anyway I suppose I'm just nit-picking. Point remains that we're running banana republic numbers and pretending the problem is that the poor aren't poor enough.
 
2012-12-04 12:23:39 AM

Marcus Aurelius: vartian: 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. Look, we've been told that taxing the rich won't solve all budget problems instantly, so that's clearly off the table. After all, the Republicans have already suggested debt-solving options like removing the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood.

Not to mention Pell grants, school lunches, and head start.


I'll give you one better: let's get rid of public schools altogether.

/not kidding
 
2012-12-04 12:37:08 AM

TheBigJerk: Yes.

Perhaps I'm not being clear? The current system is:

-Rich man has medical problem,

-Rich man buys rare and expensive treatment no one else can afford.

-Rich man gets better.

You proposed a system where:

-Rich man has medical problem.

-Rich man finds long line of people who all got there ahead of him for the same rare and expensive treatment they can also afford now.

-Rich man has to compete on an even playing field instead of skipping the field and enjoying medical care no one else gets.

Though that's just regarding medical care. The point is that a lot of things are still zero-sum, and for life to get better for the poor it has to get less good for the rich. Though not everything, there are plenty of things that the rich benefit from in a larger and healthier middle-class.

Anyway I suppose I'm just nit-picking. Point remains that we're running banana republic numbers and pretending the problem is that the poor aren't poor enough.


Ah, I had you backwards. My bad. :)
 
2012-12-04 12:45:06 AM

mike0023: Marcus Aurelius: vartian: 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. Look, we've been told that taxing the rich won't solve all budget problems instantly, so that's clearly off the table. After all, the Republicans have already suggested debt-solving options like removing the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood.

Not to mention Pell grants, school lunches, and head start.

I'll give you one better: let's get rid of public schools altogether.

/not kidding


How, pray tell, would you ensure that poor people get education, and that educational standards are more or less consistent between school districts?
 
2012-12-04 12:57:31 AM

Tumunga: You can't make deals, you're a nobody. Go back to suckin' on your beansprout shake,


blog.davidhoyle.com

POOF! Not only have you disappeared, but now you are a beautiful pink rose.
 
2012-12-04 01:22:08 AM
Re:Headline...

Yup.


/I am not a part of any government program.
//Keep having kids. Once they're here no one can argue against their needs.
///Idiocracy.
 
2012-12-04 01:27:12 AM

vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.



That's nothing compared to the outrage that is a single black mother receiving a couple hundred bucks in food stamps.
 
2012-12-04 01:37:05 AM

LordJiro: mike0023:
I'll give you one better: let's get rid of public schools altogether.

/not kidding

How, pray tell, would you ensure that poor people get education, and that educational standards are more or less consistent between school districts?


Invisible hand of the free market. Once you add the profit motive into the equation everybody puts greed aside and acts in the interest of the public. It's like magic baby. Almost as effective as Jesus.
 
2012-12-04 01:41:31 AM
For the sake of argument, lets say we took all the liquid assets of every billionaire in America away from them, and that that amount added up to a trillion dollars. If we redistributed it once to everyone, equally, it would only be about 300 bucks per person.

But in doing this we would lose our ability to make new factories. Capital is necessary to run an economy. You just have to accept that fact. I'm not saying that the income distribution we have here is ideal. But we should probably stop demonizing "the rich" and come up with real solutions to real problems.

Take the proposal to tax people earning over 250k per year for example. How many people are there like that? We have about a millionaires in this country and most of them did it through saving, not earning. So how much money would we collect from that new tax? Its a smokescreen sheeple. Wake up.

The USSR isn't about to drive tanks into West Germany anytime soon, so we can shutter our bases in Iceland, Italy, and Germany.

We can afford to cut out a lot of waste here.
 
2012-12-04 01:46:42 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: For the sake of argument, lets say we took all the liquid assets of every billionaire in America away from them, and that that amount added up to a trillion dollars. If we redistributed it once to everyone, equally, it would only be about 300 bucks per person.

But in doing this we would lose our ability to make new factories.


So much easier to argue against cartoonishly hyperbolic straw man arguments than actual policy proposals amiright bro?
 
2012-12-04 01:47:09 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: Take the proposal to tax people earning over 250k per year for example. How many people are there like that? We have about a millionaires in this country and most of them did it through saving, not earning. So how much money would we collect from that new tax? Its a smokescreen sheeple. Wake up.


If it's just a smoke screen, then why is it being fought against tooth and nail for the last 4 years by the GOP?

and BTW, It's not a proposed tax increase. It's letting the temporary tax cuts expire.
 
2012-12-04 01:58:08 AM

log_jammin: Diogenes The Cynic: Take the proposal to tax people earning over 250k per year for example. How many people are there like that? We have about a millionaires in this country and most of them did it through saving, not earning. So how much money would we collect from that new tax? Its a smokescreen sheeple. Wake up.

If it's just a smoke screen, then why is it being fought against tooth and nail for the last 4 years by the GOP?

and BTW, It's not a proposed tax increase. It's letting the temporary tax cuts expire.


Either way. Its not many people, and its not that much money. We're bleeding ourselves dry with the military, interest on the debt, and social security.
 
2012-12-04 01:58:27 AM
It is interesting that nobody ever answers my question of why it has to be one or the other. Why we can't just jack taxes a little bit on the rich at the same time as cutting social and military spending just a little bit. Why does it always have to be EITHER a huge tax increase (and a tiny nibble at reducing spending as a sop to the conservatives) OR a huge slash to spending (with an itty-bitty tax increase to make the liberals happy).

Is compromise really that ugly of a word and that hard to negotiate that a moderate tax increase and a middling spending cut so as to reach parity sooner is unthinkable? Or is that merely a rhetorical question these days?
 
2012-12-04 01:59:34 AM

CorporatePerson: Diogenes The Cynic: For the sake of argument, lets say we took all the liquid assets of every billionaire in America away from them, and that that amount added up to a trillion dollars. If we redistributed it once to everyone, equally, it would only be about 300 bucks per person.

But in doing this we would lose our ability to make new factories.

So much easier to argue against cartoonishly hyperbolic straw man arguments than actual policy proposals amiright bro?


How about cutting our most of our foreign military bases since we can be pretty sure the USSR isn't about to attack us?

Or raising the age of social security?
 
2012-12-04 01:59:54 AM
Yes, there's not enough income redistribution. I mean socialism. I mean, uh, whatever's PC to say.

Not everyone in the top 10% is named Walton. And by the way: F the Walton family.
 
2012-12-04 02:02:23 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: Either way. Its not many people, and its not that much money.


again, if it's not that much, why is it being fought against so hard?

Diogenes The Cynic: We're bleeding ourselves dry with the military, interest on the debt, and social security.


funny how we could afford all those things back when the tax rates were a tad higher.
 
2012-12-04 02:04:10 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: Or raising the age of social security?


why should a 65 year old man have to keep working his construction job during 110 degree summers, so the Mitt Romney doesn't see a tax increase?
 
2012-12-04 02:04:50 AM

log_jammin: Diogenes The Cynic: Either way. Its not many people, and its not that much money.

again, if it's not that much, why is it being fought against so hard?

Diogenes The Cynic: We're bleeding ourselves dry with the military, interest on the debt, and social security.

funny how we could afford all those things back when the tax rates were a tad higher.


Because there are people like me who see fleecing people richer than they as being envy driven.

No. We could never afford the military, social security, or interest on the debt. Learn to math.

Our unfunded liabilities are somewhere north of 50 trillion.
 
2012-12-04 02:05:44 AM

Gyrfalcon: It is interesting that nobody ever answers my question of why it has to be one or the other. Why we can't just jack taxes a little bit on the rich at the same time as cutting social and military spending just a little bit.


But why do we have to cut any social spending? Are you saying people don't really need the services?
 
2012-12-04 02:07:07 AM

log_jammin: Diogenes The Cynic: Or raising the age of social security?

why should a 65 year old man have to keep working his construction job during 110 degree summers, so the Mitt Romney doesn't see a tax increase?


False dilemma is false dilemma.

Also, no one touches on this but why is retirement age the same for men and women? Its seriously gendered to fark over the majority of guys.
 
2012-12-04 02:09:26 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: Because there are people like me who see fleecing people richer than they as being envy driven.


that's an interesting word. " fleecing ". You really believe we are " fleecing " the rich in this country? really?

Diogenes The Cynic: No. We could never afford the military, social security, or interest on the debt. Learn to math.


never huh? Ok. lets see some math then.
 
2012-12-04 02:10:39 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: False dilemma is false dilemma.


It's not a false dilemma, it's precisely what you are purposing.
 
2012-12-04 02:28:40 AM

log_jammin: why should a 65 year old man have to keep working his construction job during 110 degree summers, so the Mitt Romney doesn't see a tax increase?


Because taxing 100% of Mitt Romney's wealth would be wrong.
 
2012-12-04 02:34:03 AM

log_jammin: Diogenes The Cynic: Because there are people like me who see fleecing people richer than they as being envy driven.

that's an interesting word. " fleecing ". You really believe we are " fleecing " the rich in this country? really?

Diogenes The Cynic: No. We could never afford the military, social security, or interest on the debt. Learn to math.

never huh? Ok. lets see some math then.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/social-security-hole-overwhe l ms-taxes-cuts.html

See the link above? Thats the proof that its not easy to balance a triangle with the pointy side down. If any of us did it it would be a Ponzi scheme.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Interest on the debt will grow as the debt grows. The debt in of itself isn't nearly as bad as losing entire percentages of our taxed money just for it to go to the bankers.

I don't feel the need to elaborate on how big the military is. Just to note that we have double as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined.
 
2012-12-04 02:48:12 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: See the link above?


yup. and "Ponzi scheme" is all I need to read in the article. (hint: raise the cut off amount for FICA takes to something like 150K a year.)

Diogenes The Cynic: Interest on the debt will grow as the debt grows.


I'm fully aware of this. your point?

Diogenes The Cynic: I don't feel the need to elaborate on how big the military is. Just to note that we have double as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined.


I don't either, which is why I heven't argued about it.
 
2012-12-04 02:48:41 AM

Diogenes The Cynic: log_jammin: Diogenes The Cynic: Either way. Its not many people, and its not that much money.

again, if it's not that much, why is it being fought against so hard?

Diogenes The Cynic: We're bleeding ourselves dry with the military, interest on the debt, and social security.

funny how we could afford all those things back when the tax rates were a tad higher.

Because there are people like me who see fleecing people richer than they as being envy driven.

No. We could never afford the military, social security, or interest on the debt. Learn to math.

Our unfunded liabilities are somewhere north of 50 trillion.


By "fleecing" do you mean "subsidize my industries and support an infrastructure that allows folks to continue to make ever larger amounts of money that will be then shipped out of local economies to prevent leaking of cash into said local economies"?

Because that's pretty much the model now. Folks aren't proposing even going back to the Reagan era rates, and not back to the "bad old days" when there was a 90% rate which oddly enough, saw a LOT of prosperity amongst a lot of those pesky "working class" folks who managed to build a middle class that actually supported a consumer economy and drove those pesky industries that folks feel are so beset upon to the top of the food chain.

Fleecing and returning tax rates back to the original proposed limits on the tax breaks are not quite the same, and THIS is really the false dilemma. Not overburdening the wealth "creators"--who actually don't create wealth, but rather harvest wealth by aggregating the end flow collections. Wealth has never trickled down, but flowed through the economy from the lowest to the highest rungs. From peasants working their fields--actually creating very real wealth in the form of crops by their labor, and maintaining the value of lands--to a service/consumer economy where millions of consumers pour dollars into the economy to be then whisked away--sometimes returned in wages, sometimes circulated a bit before banks, utility companies, and larger retail or industry concerns then take said cash to either turn those dollars into investments, or pour a jigger or ten into their own accounts, or the accounts of good friends.

Let's end the myth of wealth flowing down. It has never done that. It flows towards aggregates--like banking concerns, large corporate entities, or even those pesky nobility--but that is the way wealth works. It tends to congregate in only a few hands after sifting through the hands of folks on the lowest rungs--many of them to be sure--and returned in small percentages.

This isn't going to really change, but we do need to slow the aggregation of wealth a bit. Let it roll around in local and national economies for a bit longer. THAT is really the issue. Not a vast sea of folks with their hands out, but rather a vast sea of folks who see their dollars whisked out of their local area without much chance of being traded back and forth for a while, before taking the trip upstream. THAT is really the issue--faster and faster shipping out of cash from local economies, and folks are complaining that they can't just take the dollars from the rubes directly, and end the charade of government entirely.

Yes. Some people have a problem with the blatant corporatism that we are seeing, and that has nothing to do with "envy" as much as recognizing a broken economic function, and folks cheering that break.
 
2012-12-04 03:21:36 AM
Mark Steyn is the douchiest douche that ever douched.
 
2012-12-04 03:27:57 AM

whidbey: Gyrfalcon: It is interesting that nobody ever answers my question of why it has to be one or the other. Why we can't just jack taxes a little bit on the rich at the same time as cutting social and military spending just a little bit.

But why do we have to cut any social spending? Are you saying people don't really need the services?


No no, I'm merely offering to trim a little from some places where there might be some waste (see above, military spending) in the spirit of compromise.

Because obviously THAT'S MUCH TOO HARD.
 
2012-12-04 03:58:44 AM
We've never faced the fiscal cliff. We've cheated it. We've tricked our way out of it and patted ourselves on the back for our ingenuity. We know nothing.
 
2012-12-04 07:01:42 AM
Dear politicians:

Freebies? That's what you're worried about? I might figure out how to get something from the government for nothing? It might raise your taxes by a buck or two next year? F*ck you. What I want from you, politician, is to to the f*king job we sent you to Washing to do. I want you to crawl out of bet with Big Money, Big Religion, and Big Corruption. I want you to make decisions and to vote in the best interest of the country. Not just the 1% of the richest of us, but the whole 100%. For most of you, that means I want you to f*ck off and get out of the way to make room for better people than you. I want the marketing, the bullshiat, and the corporate-funded campaigns to disappear. I want to hear your honest plans and your honest ideas about our collective future, presented in a manner that allows for informed decisions about our vote, absent the deafening noise and the lies and the f*cking power ties. Freebies my ass. Do what we pay you for you arrogant overpaid sh*tbirds.
 
2012-12-04 07:15:48 AM

I_Am_Weasel: tallguywithglasseson: 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. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share...

I'll make a deal with you, conservative writer.

If the income and wealth disparity in the U.S. reach the same levels as Norway, I'll support a Norwegian-style tax code.

Deal?

It's a thought provoking point he has. Suppose we've two people, one making $100,000 and the other is $20,000. If was tax them both 10%, that would be $10,000 and $2,000 respectively. In this scenario, the 'rich' guy is paying 83% of the taxes, and is therefore pay well more than his fair share under what I would assume would be Steyn's "logic". Imagine someone who puts less critical thinking into their article than Thomas Sowell, who is, coincidentally, just behind Steyn at the top of the Top 50 Conservative Writers on that there derplog.


The problem i see is that the number of people making $20,000 outnumber the ones making $100,000. (Assuming we're talking about ordinary income here, btw...not capital gains, etc). So let's assume a 10:1 ratio there:

10x$20,000 = $200,000 * 0.10 = $20,000 tax revenue
1x$100,000 = $100,000 * 0.10 = $10,000 tax revenue.

Suddenly your $100,000 earner is making only 33% of the total tax payments.
 
2012-12-04 08:03:37 AM

LordJiro: Tumunga: 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.

Show us your tax forms, please. I bet you don't pay twice as much as Romney.

As was said earlier in the thread...farking percentages, how do they work?


Ok, percentage this: the percentage of the total tax revenue taken by the US government compared to your tax burden, verses the total tax revenue taken by the US government compared to what Romney paid in tax. Yeah, farking percentages.

And as a citizen of Realville, farking cash in hand is all that matters.
 
2012-12-04 08:05:03 AM

Dahnkster: Tumunga


oh, check out the butthurt.
 
2012-12-04 09:58:04 AM
Unfortunately, the irony of this coming from the Orange County Register isn't lost on me or many others subbs...

A bunch of self entitled racist windbags who cart out Obama Bucks as not racist at all while living off the tourist and tax dollars of the communities surrounding them.
 
2012-12-04 10:17:44 AM

fusillade762: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 404x256]


Simple buttkissing. Everyone wants money, and the hope is that by catering to the rich they will spread some of it around.
 
2012-12-04 12:32:51 PM

Ready-set: Yes, there's not enough income redistribution. I mean socialism. I mean, uh, whatever's PC to say.

Not everyone in the top 10% is named Walton. And by the way: F the Walton family.


Why is it income redistribution is evil when poor people get healthcare, but not when the rich pay themselves bonuses out of the pension funds the poor people have earned?
 
2012-12-04 12:46:32 PM

firefly212: Ready-set: Yes, there's not enough income redistribution. I mean socialism. I mean, uh, whatever's PC to say.

Not everyone in the top 10% is named Walton. And by the way: F the Walton family.

Why is it income redistribution is evil when poor people get healthcare, but not when the rich pay themselves bonuses out of the pension funds the poor people have earned?


...or gain a subsidy directly from the government, or essentially dollars that they can keep from a temporary tax decrease. Or no bid contracts. Or free advertising or promotion for said industry...
 
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