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
 
2012-12-03 11:32:01 AM
I just want to loot the system as much as possible before it collapses.

Is that so wrong?
 
2012-12-03 11:33:59 AM
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.
 
2012-12-03 11:34:14 AM
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.
 
2012-12-03 11:37:38 AM
When rich people get freebies, it's subsidies for job creators. When poor people get freebies, it's ENTITLEMENT.
 
2012-12-03 11:37:55 AM
Yeah, those free wars were awesome. Please sir, may I have another?
 
2012-12-03 11:39:22 AM
That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.
 
2012-12-03 11:40:49 AM
We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.
 
2012-12-03 11:40:54 AM

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.
 
2012-12-03 11:41:57 AM
...the expiry of the deferment of the implementation of the adjustment of the correction of the extension of the reduction to the proposed increase of the Alternative Minimum Growth Sustainability Reduction Rate.

Mark Steyn, you magnificent bastard
 
2012-12-03 11:43:26 AM

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.
 
2012-12-03 11:44:14 AM

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.
 
2012-12-03 11:48:32 AM
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
 
2012-12-03 11:50:44 AM
Is that why we spend half of the world's military budget?
 
2012-12-03 11:51:39 AM

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


I had no issue with Afghanistan as 9/11 was staged from there. Had we just gone there we'd likely be finished there by now. Because we were spread so thin and fought the war in the north by proxy, we ended up losing most of the Taliban leadership (as well as Bin Laden). So yeah, it's a waste at this point.
 
2012-12-03 11:53:43 AM

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!"
 
2012-12-03 11:55:08 AM

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

Is that so wrong?


Depends. Are you a Goldman Sachs trader? Because then it's just fine.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 12:02:03 PM

GAT_00: Is that why we spend half of the world's military budget?


Yes. If you want tax money spent on tax-payers is what "freebie" means.
 
2012-12-03 12:02:06 PM
What absolute bullsh*t
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 12:02:40 PM

vpb: GAT_00: Is that why we spend half of the world's military budget?

Yes. If you want tax money spent on tax-payers is what "freebie" means.


Or something.
 
2012-12-03 12:07:53 PM
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?
 
2012-12-03 12:09:26 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.


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.
 
2012-12-03 12:11:06 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2012-12-03 12:13:50 PM

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.


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.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 12:17:01 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 12:23:23 PM

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.


Any American that pays less dollars in tax than Mitt Romney should be taxed 100% of their income, and then thrown in prison until they can come up with the remainder.
 
2012-12-03 12:26:09 PM
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.
 
2012-12-03 12:39:42 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 12:44:06 PM

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

Is that so wrong?


I'm with you, dude. I just need to figure out a way to get unemployment while collecting disability, food stamps, and welfare. If anyone can help me also get into government housing I'd be willing to split my first month's food stamps.
 
2012-12-03 12:50:13 PM
Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?
 
2012-12-03 12:50:53 PM

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

Is that so wrong?

I'm with you, dude. I just need to figure out a way to get unemployment while collecting disability, food stamps, and welfare. If anyone can help me also get into government housing I'd be willing to split my first month's food stamps.


You really should consider defense contracting, especially on a cost-plus basis. It's a lot more lucrative.
 
2012-12-03 12:52:42 PM

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.

Less government spending isn't going to educate our population or fix our crumbling infrastructure.
 
2012-12-03 12:55:42 PM

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

Is that so wrong?

I'm with you, dude. I just need to figure out a way to get unemployment while collecting disability, food stamps, and welfare. If anyone can help me also get into government housing I'd be willing to split my first month's food stamps.

You really should consider defense contracting, especially on a cost-plus basis. It's a lot more lucrative.


I'm too lazy for that. I really just want to stay stoned while having plenty of time for video games. Netflix, and having unlimited funyons.
 
2012-12-03 12:55:54 PM

sigdiamond2000: 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.

Any American that pays less dollars in tax than Mitt Romney should be taxed 100% of their income, and then thrown in prison until they can come up with the remainder.


Actually, that would be called a flat or fair tax. The only variable is where you set the bar.
 
2012-12-03 12:58:22 PM

Marcus Aurelius: An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.

Less government spending isn't going to educate our population or fix our crumbling infrastructure.


Yes, and we're currently at 40% of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_20c.png
 
2012-12-03 12:58:57 PM
www.usgovernmentspending.com
 
2012-12-03 01:02:12 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]



US wealth distribution is much more closely aligned with that of a 3rd world country.
 
2012-12-03 01:02:20 PM

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


To be revised down to 9% now that the election is over.
 
2012-12-03 01:05:33 PM
I really hate how disingenuous the Republicans are. Their disingenuty creates unpleasant thoughts in my head.

We balanced the budget under Clinton and Bush Jr. Spent our surplus into oblivion. Now the Republicans are stamping their feet pouting about social spending the Democrats are pushing for. Ffs. Act like a grown ass adult.
 
2012-12-03 01:08:21 PM

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.


Exactly. And for exactly the same services, I may add.

Hey, if you don't ever have the occasion to use those federally regulated air traffic routes for your private jet, that's on you.
 
2012-12-03 01:10:50 PM

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


FreedomTM isn't a freebie.
 
2012-12-03 01:13:01 PM

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


Who are these Democrats that are not calling for spending cuts? Certainly Obama isn't one of them.
 
2012-12-03 01:14:33 PM
We're facing the fiscal cliff because Republicans are morons.
 
2012-12-03 01:14:33 PM

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



Probably closer to $6 trillion and more troops have come home to commit suicide than were killed in combat
 
2012-12-03 01:16:00 PM

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


Probably closer to $6 trillion and more troops have come home to commit suicide than were killed in combat


I didn't think anything could depress me more than Vernon's comment.

Congratulations, I guess.
 
2012-12-03 01:20:54 PM

Lando Lincoln: We're facing the fiscal cliff because Republicans are morons.


At this point the GOP has to accept that taxes will go up. There's no way around it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 01:25:37 PM

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

FreedomTM isn't a freebie.


Yes, we would all be speaking Arabic now if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
 
2012-12-03 01:27:59 PM

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

FreedomTM isn't a freebie.

Yes, we would all be speaking Arabic now if we hadn't invaded Iraq.


Exactly. And I feel a Farsi coming on....
 
2012-12-03 01:32:40 PM
FTFDerp: "...but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print?"

It's one thing to use that term on the Simpsons, it's another when you're trying to make a rational contribution to our political discourse.

EABOD & DIAF.
 
2012-12-03 01:32:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Who are these Democrats that are not calling for spending cuts? Certainly Obama isn't one of them.


On Libertarian Planet, nobody here on Earth sees the things that need doing, except the liberty-loving few who were blessed with Common Sense®. The sheeple blindly root for their side, but can't see the Truth: both sides are bad.

You just have to accept that 90% of libertarian arguments are prefaced with them being ordained with some sort of special vision that everyone else lacks. 

"Nobody is talking about spending cuts". Lol.
 
2012-12-03 01:33:33 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Imagine someone who puts less critical thinking into their article than Thomas Sowell


*shudder*
 
2012-12-03 01:36:09 PM

slayer199: Marcus Aurelius: An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.

Less government spending isn't going to educate our population or fix our crumbling infrastructure.

Yes, and we're currently at 40% of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_20c.png


That depends entirely on how you look at it.
 
2012-12-03 01:39:38 PM

Bontesla: I really hate how disingenuous the Republicans are. Their disingenuty creates unpleasant thoughts in my head.

We balanced the budget under Clinton and Bush Jr. Spent our surplus into oblivion. Now the Republicans are stamping their feet pouting about social spending the Democrats are pushing for. Ffs. Act like a grown ass adult.


That, and Obama has actually reduced the size of the federal government (not to mention the lowest spending of the last ten presidents). But they still believe some 1980s lie about tax-and-spend Democrats (instead of the reality of Clinton's balanced budget + surplus and Obama's reduction in spending), so they can label themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

Except their idea of fiscal responsibility is to keep the excess spending off the books, not to stop spending.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 01:49:54 PM

slayer199: Marcus Aurelius: An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.

Less government spending isn't going to educate our population or fix our crumbling infrastructure.

Yes, and we're currently at 40% of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_total_spending_20c.png


20% is what El Salvador spends. First world countries tend to be closer to 50%.
Link
 
2012-12-03 02:01:22 PM

tallguywithglasseson: You just have to accept that 90% of libertarian arguments are prefaced with them being ordained with some sort of special vision that everyone else lacks.


That's pretty much true because in a bi-partisan world there isn't a third way that's valid. If you're a True Believer in the one of the two parties you tend to see the world as "My party is right and the other party is wrong, and anything else is dumb." The way Democrats look at libertarianism is "Lol, Somalia.' They way Republicans look at libertarians is "Godless heathens pushing drugs and hookers." Both views are caricatures of libertarianism.

I'm pragmatic enough to realize that taxes need to be raised...but I also believe the government wastes a TON of money and we're not going to get out of it without significant spending cuts. I'm not talking about the traditional way government talks about cutting spending either (which is to say, they won't increase the budgets of departments). I'm talking about actually cutting the budgets and eliminating departments altogether (lets start with DHS). If you understand how the government spends money, there's no incentive for them to be efficient. In other words, if you run an efficient department and actually save money that means the following year you get less money (well, they obviously don't need as much).

Keep flag-waving for your party...right off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:16 PM
If you want shiny new toys and guns and ships and roads and shiat, you gotta pay for it.

I'm sure there are ways we could cut government waste that do not include gimping our economy or the services government provides to its citizens for the overall betterment of society. Why don't we make a *serious* attempt at that before biatching about who's paying what.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:41 PM
Mark Steyn

AAAAAAND I'm done reading.
 
2012-12-03 02:17:18 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.


FOOL! The middle class doesn't drive aggregate demand! The job creators do!
 
2012-12-03 02:20:03 PM
OC Register is the Moonie Times of California.
 
2012-12-03 02:20:28 PM
The fiscal cliff couldn't have anything to do with 30 years of "starve the beast", now could it?
 
2012-12-03 02:20:31 PM
As Sean Hannity said, Monaco has very low taxes and have you seen it? It's like a fairytale. Low taxes on the rich can make us the next Monaco!!!
 
2012-12-03 02:21:08 PM

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


Yeah, but only the social programs are helping the poor and middle class contribute to the economy. All the programs the Republicans are behind usually just line the pockets of executes at defense contractors and private prisons. It's not really going back into the economy after that.
 
2012-12-03 02:21:52 PM

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

FreedomTM isn't a freebie.

Yes, we would all be speaking Arabic now if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

Exactly. And I feel a Farsi coming on....


Has Red Dawn taught us nothing?
 
2012-12-03 02:24:03 PM
I really wish DC would ball up and soak the rich for everything they have.

It will be interesting to see what their plan involves next month.
 
2012-12-03 02:24:08 PM

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.


If he was a Real Patriotic American, he would get out of paying anything at all.
 
2012-12-03 02:26:25 PM
I do want freebies, but where the hell are they?
 
2012-12-03 02:27:45 PM
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?
 
2012-12-03 02:29:20 PM
"it's because we want too many freebies":

Yes! that is what we are talking about -- we need to generate more revenue so we can pay for the services people demand.

Reducing services is also part of the deal -- but PAYING for the services is the goal.

This is why the Democrats are the new party of adults, they are attempting to balance the budget honestly.

People want these services -- they are willing to sacrifice the appearance of other benefits for them -- one of
those is the appearance that low taxes on the rich increases the benefits in all lives.
 
2012-12-03 02:29:25 PM

Il Douchey: ...the expiry of the deferment of the implementation of the adjustment of the correction of the extension of the reduction to the proposed increase of the Alternative Minimum Growth Sustainability Reduction Rate.

Mark Steyn, you magnificent bastard


Magnificent isn't a word I'd associate with the gigantic douchebag that is Mark Steyn.
 
2012-12-03 02:31:28 PM
You mean tax payers should get something for their taxes?

Enlighten me on this new concept.
 
2012-12-03 02:31:59 PM
BOOM!! Love the headline subby.
 
2012-12-03 02:32:15 PM
Couldn't find "obvious" tag, subby?
 
2012-12-03 02:33:11 PM
Everyone wants freebies. The issue is some people only think the freebies that they get are valid regardless of how much the other ones may be needed or useful.
 
2012-12-03 02:34:51 PM

doyner: vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.
FreedomTM isn't a freebie.


toppun.com
 
2012-12-03 02:35:23 PM

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


Well, to begin it does well from a PR standpoint when the lower-classes don't feel the need to rise up and behead the rich and ransack their possessions while the similarly affected groups responsible for keeping order stand back and say "they brought it upon themselves."

But it goes deeper than that. The "job creators" have spent almost ten years actively working to make their employees work harder for much less and still keep as much from them in the form of benefits as possible.

As a card-carrying member of the middle-class who does the job of three people while employed as a contractor so that my employer won't have to give me health insurance I can tell you that it wasn't always this way. There was a point in time where they understood that the longer I remained working for them the more valuable I was due to knowing the job. There was a time when that was incentivized by a pay raises at regular intervals, vacation pay, bonuses, GOOD health insurance and other amenities.

There was a time when I would bust my ass because I was treated well and fairly. I WANTED the company to succeed because I felt some sense of responsibility even if all I was getting was a fair wage. Stay late? Sure. Weekends? I'm down. An overnight? If you need me, let me know.

Now, that for a company that actively works to give me as little as he legally can with managers who specialize in trying to convince me that what I am getting is the best I could ever hope for?

Not bloody likely.
 
2012-12-03 02:35:59 PM
Can't WAIT to see that REPUBLICAN tax plan that includes not taxing the wealthy any further, giving them more tax breaks, increasing defense spending, and STILL somehow balances pays down the entire deficit in one fell swoop (because remember! A little at a time is not at all!)

Yep! Aaaaaaany day now...can't wait!
 
2012-12-03 02:36:01 PM

CPennypacker: Everyone wants freebies. The issue is some people only think the freebies that they get are valid regardless of how much the other ones may be needed or useful.


Keeping American families afloat in this "jobless recovery" is more important than corporate contractor pork.
 
2012-12-03 02:36:50 PM

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


But I thought they were going to pay for themselves in oil revenues?
 
2012-12-03 02:37:07 PM

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


Reality spent Jive with your assessment of the parties.

Also, there's no equivalency within your imagined framework anyway. Social programs= grandma can get her medicine this week even if she does eat something that isn't catfood. Homeland security, the military, and war on drugs= horrifying machinery of oppression and murder.
 
2012-12-03 02:37:08 PM
Should be a slash between balances/pays down. THAT'S how excited I am to see it, I can't even TYPE COHERENTLY!!
 
2012-12-03 02:37:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.

Forget it, he's rolling.


Are you guys serious?

Naw, you can't possibly be serious...can you?
 
2012-12-03 02:37:55 PM
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
 
2012-12-03 02:38:09 PM
I have a suspicion that regardless of the outcome of this mess, the GOP as we know it is going to fold.
 
2012-12-03 02:40:52 PM

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


"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.
 
2012-12-03 02:40:54 PM

Captain_Sunshine: Taxes need to go up for everybody, and stay there for a while.


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

The biggest lie the GOP has spread, continues to spread and will continue to spread is that "higher taxes hurts the economy and eliminates jobs".
 
2012-12-03 02:41:40 PM

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


The way Fartbongo is going we'll have another 20 of them by this time next year.
 
2012-12-03 02:42:53 PM
And by "you", he means Defense contractors and oil companies right?
 
2012-12-03 02:43:24 PM

slayer199: tallguywithglasseson: You just have to accept that 90% of libertarian arguments are prefaced with them being ordained with some sort of special vision that everyone else lacks.

That's pretty much true because in a bi-partisan world there isn't a third way that's valid. If you're a True Believer in the one of the two parties you tend to see the world as "My party is right and the other party is wrong, and anything else is dumb." The way Democrats look at libertarianism is "Lol, Somalia.' They way Republicans look at libertarians is "Godless heathens pushing drugs and hookers." Both views are caricatures of libertarianism.

I'm pragmatic enough to realize that taxes need to be raised...but I also believe the government wastes a TON of money and we're not going to get out of it without significant spending cuts. I'm not talking about the traditional way government talks about cutting spending either (which is to say, they won't increase the budgets of departments). I'm talking about actually cutting the budgets and eliminating departments altogether (lets start with DHS). If you understand how the government spends money, there's no incentive for them to be efficient. In other words, if you run an efficient department and actually save money that means the following year you get less money (well, they obviously don't need as much).

Keep flag-waving for your party...right off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.


I see you've gone in and tried to corner the market on strawman slaying. I guess that explains the user name.
 
2012-12-03 02:43:38 PM

Trivia Jockey: I have a suspicion that regardless of the outcome of this mess, the GOP as we know it is going to fold.


I doubt it. They'll still be wiping their feces all over the halls of congress for another 20 years or so until the Boomers start dying off en masse.
 
2012-12-03 02:44:01 PM

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

The way Fartbongo is going we'll have another 20 of them by this time next year.


Yeah, but it doesn't cost much to predator drone reporters and teenagers. Obama's wars aren't really *budgetary* concerns.
 
2012-12-03 02:44:07 PM
I thought the Republicans were all about the wisdom of the common man, as opposed to all those effete, over-educated types who support the Democrats.
 
2012-12-03 02:44:29 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 02:45:12 PM

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

The way Fartbongo is going we'll have another 20 of them by this time next year.


You're a tool.
 
2012-12-03 02:46:37 PM

Trivia Jockey: I have a suspicion that regardless of the outcome of this mess, the GOP as we know it is going to fold.


community.us.playstation.com
 
2012-12-03 02:48:22 PM

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).
 
2012-12-03 02:48:40 PM

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.


I agree. People should fend for themselves and not leach off their neighbors.
 
2012-12-03 02:48:46 PM
Subby, those two ideas are not exactly mutually exclusive.

Actually, I think they are one and the same. The rich people are enjoying their freebies and reduced rates.
 
2012-12-03 02:49:36 PM

Captain_Sunshine: 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?


If any politician suggested that, the Koch brothers would sh*t an ingot.
 
2012-12-03 02:49:53 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 02:50:15 PM

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,
 
2012-12-03 02:52:08 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 02:53:13 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.


If cutting the $450 million (a tiny fraction of our deficit) we spend on Public Broadcasting is a sum worth mentioning in a Presidential debate, then then the revenue gained by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire on the wealthy is fair game.

It wont solve the problem but Romney made it clear that every little bit helps.
 
2012-12-03 02:53:59 PM

Captain_Sunshine: 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).


The paper examined the Swedish economy.

Swedish Tax Rates, Labor Supply, and Tax Revenues

Charles E. Stuart
Journal of Political Economy
Vol. 89, No. 5 (Oct., 1981), pp. 1020-1038
 
2012-12-03 02:54:01 PM

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


That is a very brave card to play.
 
2012-12-03 02:54:35 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.


So food stamps and welfare are part of the "stupid" "life saving entitlements"? We have a "socialist leader", you say?

What a colossal dumbfark you are.
 
2012-12-03 02:54:54 PM

garron:
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.


Close the free cell phone loophole and welfare, and stop letting the lazy, shiftless blah president go on vacation and we will totes solve the budget crisis! Protip: You are dumb.
 
2012-12-03 02:55:09 PM

Trivia Jockey: Captain_Sunshine: 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?

If any politician suggested that, the Koch brothers would sh*t an ingot.


I think a 70% tax rate on the top margin would be perfectly reasonable, certainly until the cost of the two wars is off set. Those wars were paid on credit. The lower and middle-classes paid in blood and tears. The elite should pay in treasure especially because the war was their idea.
 
2012-12-03 02:55:26 PM

garron: Conservatives are not arguing to eliminate life saving entitlements.


No, just to privatize them.

(See: Paul Ryan and his dumbass plan for Medicare)
 
2012-12-03 02:55:36 PM
Freebies like unemployment insurance and Social Security, airports, interstate highway system...

Those kinds of freebies?
 
2012-12-03 02:55:49 PM
Let's not forget that the one sacred cow that nobody seems to be even talking about cutting is the Military, which is basically just a glorified jobs program that produces no real benefit to the nation.

I have no real philisophical problem with jobs programs - as long as they benefit the country and its citizens. If we were spending that amount to make sure health care and education are top-notch and free then I would be OK cutting elsewhere to keep it. But instead it's being poured into useless wars, pointless R&D and millions of salaried positions that benefit the country not one bit.
 
2012-12-03 02:56:07 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.


Ah, never mind my previous post. I was not aware of that one. Thanks.
 
2012-12-03 02:56:07 PM
Ok Republicans then I don't want to hear you biatching about cutting ANYTHING less then what these revenues raises.

You can no longer ask to cut things like NPR or Planned Parenthood deal?

Oh of course not you are hypocritical bastards who shift your justification based on if you like something or not.
 
2012-12-03 02:56:13 PM

Captain_Sunshine: 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).


i.imgur.com 

as you can see on this chart it is actually highest at 0%
 
2012-12-03 02:56:16 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.


Tried getting a job without a phone recently?
 
2012-12-03 02:56:25 PM

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


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 02:56:42 PM

Parthenogenetic: 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.

Ah, never mind my previous post. I was not aware of that one. Thanks.


Not a problem.
 
2012-12-03 02:57:40 PM

mrshowrules: I think a 70% tax rate on the top margin would be perfectly reasonable, certainly until the cost of the two wars is off set. Those wars were paid on credit. The lower and middle-classes paid in blood and tears. The elite should pay in treasure especially because the war was their idea.


it worked in the 1950s. the greatest generation!
 
2012-12-03 02:57:50 PM
So the right has moved on from calling my desire to have the Social Security and Medicare that I've paid for an "entitlement" and now they're calling it a "freebie".

Are they still calling the guys lining their pockets by gutting American companies and loading them with debt after off-shoring all the workers "Job Creators"?
 
2012-12-03 02:57:52 PM

sprawl15: Captain_Sunshine: 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).

[i.imgur.com image 455x270] 

as you can see on this chart it is actually highest at 0%


So THAT'S what conservative math looks like on paper! As mesmerizing as I imagined.
 
2012-12-03 02:58:08 PM

garron: 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?


How much of the budget do you think all that crap consists of in comparison to things like SS, Medicare, and Defense?

You guys worry about petty bullcrap like this while protecting and growing sacred cows like the Defense budget.

This is why I laugh my ass off when they say that Conservatives care about the budget.
 
2012-12-03 02:58:12 PM

cefm: Let's not forget that the one sacred cow that nobody seems to be even talking about cutting is the Military, which is basically just a glorified jobs program that produces no real benefit to the nation.

I have no real philisophical problem with jobs programs - as long as they benefit the country and its citizens. If we were spending that amount to make sure health care and education are top-notch and free then I would be OK cutting elsewhere to keep it. But instead it's being poured into useless wars, pointless R&D and millions of salaried positions that benefit the country not one bit.


so you would eliminate the military. Brilliant!
 
2012-12-03 02:58:15 PM

slayer199: That's pretty much true because in a bi-partisan world there isn't a third way that's valid

....

Keep flag-waving for your party...right off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.


Damn partisan politics! Support [X] political party!
Almost included this the first time: the belief that some third party will fix things and, being that it's filled with enlightened freedom-loving people, will behave unlike every other political party in history. 

Of course that's not all libertarians, a lot of them just vote Republican.
 
2012-12-03 02:59:39 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]



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.
 
2012-12-03 02:59:42 PM

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.


So after taxation they should be equal. As in both guys should have $18k in disposable income. So the tax rate for the guy making $20k should be 10% and the guy making $100k should be 82%.

Guys, why are you running away from me?

Guys?!? put that down!

Ow! stop throwing stones...

//Don't ask for equal. You won't like it.
 
2012-12-03 02:59:42 PM
Libertarianland: remember the Articles of Confederation? Wasn't that great? Let's do it again!
 
2012-12-03 03:00:29 PM

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.

gilgigamesh: Hey, if you don't ever have the occasion to use those federally regulated air traffic routes for your private jet, that's on you.


Actually you have to pay extra for that.
 
2012-12-03 03:01:00 PM
What someone who gets hundreds of billions in government handouts might look like:

upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-03 03:01:08 PM

colon_pow: cefm: Let's not forget that the one sacred cow that nobody seems to be even talking about cutting is the Military, which is basically just a glorified jobs program that produces no real benefit to the nation.

I have no real philisophical problem with jobs programs - as long as they benefit the country and its citizens. If we were spending that amount to make sure health care and education are top-notch and free then I would be OK cutting elsewhere to keep it. But instead it's being poured into useless wars, pointless R&D and millions of salaried positions that benefit the country not one bit.

so you would eliminate the military. Brilliant!


CUTTING THE DOD BUDGET EVEN BY $1 WOULD MEAN SURRENDERING TO CHINA!!!!!!11111!!!
 
2012-12-03 03:01:32 PM

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

Is that so wrong?


It's either wars or entitlements, and we suck at the war thing lately.
 
2012-12-03 03:01:38 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.


Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.
 
2012-12-03 03:03:00 PM

sprawl15: Captain_Sunshine: 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).

[i.imgur.com image 455x270] 

as you can see on this chart it is actually highest at 0%


Are you a troll, trying to be funny and it not working, or just dumb. I can never really tell.
 
2012-12-03 03:03:05 PM

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.


Unless RMoney releases his tax returns, we don't know if he paid a dime.
 
2012-12-03 03:03:37 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Romney pays more dollars for you. Gratitude wouldn't be uncalled for.


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
 
2012-12-03 03:04:17 PM

jigger: Yeah, then we would be on solid economic footing, just like Europe.


You're snarking a claim I did not make. Go you.
 
2012-12-03 03:04:54 PM

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
 
2012-12-03 03:05:00 PM

MadHatter500: //Don't ask for equal. You won't like it.


It's a response to the author's taxation "fairness" statistic.

And, no, I don't want it, and he wouldn't either (which I think most reasonable people probably already knew).
It's just a disingenuous argument.
 
2012-12-03 03:05:19 PM
It's not spending if the Republicans do it.
 
2012-12-03 03:05:35 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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 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.
 
2012-12-03 03:05:38 PM

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

Is that so wrong?


That's definitely what the Baby Boomers are up to. They are perpetrating the greatest dine-and-dash in the history of mankind.
 
2012-12-03 03:06:24 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 03:06:26 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.


Seriously simple way to put it:

Try to think of one true "middle class" family of 4 or 5 that you know that could afford taking a month off of work and spending the entirety of that time in Hawaii each year. Because Europeans do similar on a regular basis. All of the arguments about taxes, healthcare, and other BS are irrelevant. The only relevant thing is disposable income. Americans have significantly less on average because our system sucks more.
 
2012-12-03 03:07:14 PM

slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


TFA did raise a good point, though. In Europe, they tax and spend on very specific things--the rich pay out the ass, everyone has socialized health care, and the system works pretty damn well. People have tons of vacation time, realistic work hours, good jobs, and a better standard of living.

And their countries are completely, 100% functional.

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.
 
2012-12-03 03:07:45 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 03:08:53 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 03:09:43 PM

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?
 
2012-12-03 03:09:47 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.


You're an idiot. A) they can't do that. and B) why the hell would they?

And yes you are saying it.
 
2012-12-03 03:10:19 PM
School lunch programs and infrastructure befitting the world's richest nation, or a new yacht for Mortimer? Decisions, decisions...

Taxes are as low as they've ever been, but god forbid we raise them slightly on the richest Americans. Far better to completely gut the government, making it useless. Hey, if you're wealthy enough, you won't need them, anyway. With all the money you'll save on taxes, you won't need new roads or bridges. You can just take a helicopter around town. The pilot will be glad for the work!
 
2012-12-03 03:10:29 PM

Mrtraveler01: CUTTING THE DOD BUDGET EVEN BY $1 WOULD MEAN SURRENDERING TO CHINA!!!!!!11111!!!


Too late, we already surrendered to the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet since we didn't have as many ships as we did in 1916.
 
2012-12-03 03:10:39 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?


It would create jobs. Are you seriously this clueless? You don't think increased demand makes more jobs?
 
2012-12-03 03:10:48 PM

Skarekrough: But it goes deeper than that. The "job creators" have spent almost ten years actively working to make their employees work harder for much less and still keep as much from them in the form of benefits as possible.

As a card-carrying member of the middle-class who does the job of three people while employed as a contractor so that my employer won't have to give me health insurance I can tell you that it wasn't always this way. There was a point in time where they understood that the longer I remained working for them the more valuable I was due to knowing the job. There was a time when that was incentivized by a pay raises at regular intervals, vacation pay, bonuses, GOOD health insurance and other amenities.

There was a time when I would bust my ass because I was treated well and fairly. I WANTED the company to succeed because I felt some sense of responsibility even if all I was getting was a fair wage. Stay late? Sure. Weekends? I'm down. An overnight? If you need me, let me know.

Now, that for a company that actively works to give me as little as he legally can with managers who specialize in trying to convince me that what I am getting is the best I could ever hope for?

Not bloody likely.


I don't disagree with your assessment. Solving the income disparity problem is not a tax issue (though I don't disagree that taxes need to go up to balance the budget), though to be honest I'm not sure where we'd start resolve income disparity (though I think the tax system as a whole needs a complete overhaul).
 
2012-12-03 03:11:10 PM

PsiChick: slayer199: Again, the populace gets sidelined by argument of the rich paying their fair share rather than the real problem. The farking government spends too damn much money. And it's not a Republican or Democrat issue...it's a U.S. Government issue as BOTH sides are to blame.

/facepalm

You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?

TFA did raise a good point, though. In Europe, they tax and spend on very specific things--the rich pay out the ass, everyone has socialized health care, and the system works pretty damn well. People have tons of vacation time, realistic work hours, good jobs, and a better standard of living.

And their countries are completely, 100% functional.

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.


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 03:44:54 PM

sweetmelissa31: [i194.photobucket.com image 350x350]

[i194.photobucket.com image 400x300]


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-03 03:44:59 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!!!


oops. looks like garron just ran out of "substantive arguments".

/look it up
//and possibly study on it
///slashies come in threes
 
2012-12-03 03:45:01 PM

Tman144: 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.


Let this be a lesson to all of you: never allow your weed stash to deplete before the work week begins. Horrible things will ensue.
 
2012-12-03 03:45:23 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Couldn't be BOTH right?


Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?

And aren't we not taxing enough since our percentage of tax revenue per the GDP is at the lowest it has been in quite a while?

Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?

I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)

anyway I dont see why we cant do both....
 
2012-12-03 03:45:36 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.


OMFG!!1! IF WE RAISE TAXES WE'LL BE JUST LIKE THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE!!eleven1!!
 
2012-12-03 03:45:56 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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?


Bane Capital is an LLC so it's is a separate legal and taxable entity than Mitt Romney is.

Or are you against incorporation and limited liability?

You were wrong and you keep trying to move the goal posts. He NEVER paid taxes on that money. You said he did and you are wrong.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:15 PM
I spent Thanksgiving in the OC with relatives. Laughed my way through the Register editorials. I'm sending a case of Preparation H for Christmas.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:41 PM

ghare: 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?


Yeah, that was my reaction as well.

When your country asks you to pay taxes, the only correct response is "fark off, I'd rather pay taxes in another country than give you anything."
 
2012-12-03 03:46:58 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 do you cut it for just that subset? How large is that subset as a percentage of the whole?


Difficulty: It can't cost more to determine who they are than it saves in benefits extended.

Please show your work.
 
2012-12-03 03:47:07 PM

sprawl15: 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.


This coming from the guy who insults me in threads from out of the blue.
 
2012-12-03 03:47:44 PM

The 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.

gilgigamesh: Hey, if you don't ever have the occasion to use those federally regulated air traffic routes for your private jet, that's on you.

Actually you have to pay extra for that.


I pay more than you and you've never so much as sent me a card.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:06 PM

un4gvn666: Tman144: 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.

Let this be a lesson to all of you: never allow your weed stash to deplete before the work week begins. Horrible things will ensue.


Amen
 
2012-12-03 03:48:14 PM

graggor: Zeb Hesselgresser: Couldn't be BOTH right?

Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?

And aren't we not taxing enough since our percentage of tax revenue per the GDP is at the lowest it has been in quite a while?

Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?

I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)

anyway I dont see why we cant do both....


So, you want more taxes on people who already make so little they can't afford to pay taxes and still eat? That's not real good thinkin' there, son.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:56 PM

graggor: Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?


No, if anything we should be spending more on that. Those payments provide huge amounts of stimulus to the economy. The rest are indeed way too high.

graggor: Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?


Yes, which is why Obama proposed that exact course of action. The one Republicans believe is "not serious" and are crying their eyes out over.

graggor: I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)


This would defeat the purpose of a progressive tax system. Like it or not, progressive taxation is meant to be redistributive: it pulls money from the wealthy to provide to those below. It has always been like that, and if we want a stable, modern society, it has to stay that way.

We are all redistributionists now. All of us.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:59 PM
i got an idea, we pay the principle off and say fark the rest

if you want it, come collect I dare you
 
2012-12-03 03:49:50 PM

eraser8: 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.



I did not RTFA because I assumed it was drivel that ignored the fact that while our taxation, maybe more regressive we tend to spend that money on things that have no value (air craft carriers, bombs, etc.) so it doesn't really matter. I only responded to your comment because it was clearly wrong. Wealth distribution in the US isn't significantly different than Sweden (it is better than Denmark).
 
2012-12-03 03:50:39 PM

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


Which, if they really do create jobs, (a) they don't need subsidies, and (b) any subsidy we give them doesn't generate enough extra revenue to pay for itself. So STOP DOING IT, CONGRESS.
 
2012-12-03 03:50:49 PM

Jackson Herring: garron: healthy people who choose not to work

hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh


It wouldn't matter. We're in a period of high unemployment.

Let's say that there's 107 people and 100 jobs available.

If 7 people choose not to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
If everybody chooses to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
The only change is that in the first case the unemployed are self-selected.

If we get down to the point that everybody who wants a job has a job, we'll see serious wage inflation. Until we get that, there's no reason to worry about whether some people choose to be unemployed.
 
2012-12-03 03:50:50 PM

Jackson Herring: garron: healthy people who choose not to work

hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh


because life on welfare is SWEET!!!!
 
2012-12-03 03:52:29 PM

slayer199:
You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


Lolwut? Go on and find me a cite. Find the total income over 100K in the US, take 90% of that, and tell me its not even a trillion dollars. In an economy of $16 trillion GDP, tell me that all salary and hourly workers over $100K a year put together don't add up to even $1.2 trillion a year .

Show me that or STFU, you lying sack of right wing hyperbole
 
2012-12-03 03:52:33 PM

Corvus: 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.


No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

And I'm not ripped off when someone does a legal maneuver to get out of paying taxes. I dont have a legal claim on those dollars. I'm ripped off when someone who could be providing for themselves is instead living off the government. I'm ripped off when members of Congress grossly overpay for services that should cost pennies on the dollar.

Tax cuts, loops, and shelters don't cost the government money as long as they are legal. They (We) dont have a right to that money.
 
2012-12-03 03:53:02 PM

Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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?

Bane Capital is an LLC so it's is a separate legal and taxable entity than Mitt Romney is.

Or are you against incorporation and limited liability?

You were wrong and you keep trying to move the goal posts. He NEVER paid taxes on that money. You said he did and you are wrong.


And even if he did, money gets taxed when it changes hands.
When it goes into Bain's checkbook, it should get taxed. When Bain writes a check to one W. Mitt Romney, he should pay tax on it. When a million dollars goes from Mitt's bank account into Tagg's why shouldn't it also be taxed?
 
2012-12-03 03:53:12 PM

Corvus: This coming from the guy who insults me in threads from out of the blue.


You're acting like a 14 year old upset that his Dad likes his music.

I tend not to treat that kind of person like an adult.

There's a simple solution here.
 
2012-12-03 03:53:21 PM

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.


None of that explains why the capital gains rate was lowered to 15% by the Republicans.
 
2012-12-03 03:53:39 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Jackson Herring: garron: healthy people who choose not to work

hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh

It wouldn't matter. We're in a period of high unemployment.

Let's say that there's 107 people and 100 jobs available.

If 7 people choose not to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
If everybody chooses to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
The only change is that in the first case the unemployed are self-selected.

If we get down to the point that everybody who wants a job has a job, we'll see serious wage inflation. Until we get that, there's no reason to worry about whether some people choose to be unemployed.


It's not even that complicated. In the right-wing mind, we are both in a time of high unemployment because of P. Fart Baracka's policies, AND millions of people are also too lazy to get a job.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:01 PM

joonyer: 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.


I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:01 PM

sprawl15: 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.


And blind.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:17 PM

BHShaman: 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?


because he still paid MORE than you did.. is that hard to understand? your $6,500 in taxes don't mean fark
 
2012-12-03 03:54:25 PM
Government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00. That's adjusted for purchasing-power parity, and, yes, no comparison is perfect, but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print?

When you spend 30X as much as them on military, you get skewed numbers like that.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:48 PM
OK thats fine. I still think taxes could go up on everyone. Maybe not the lowest group. Or even make the lowest group 5% which in effect would lower taxes on everyone on that first 30 thousand or whatever. then do the thing were you cant receive more than you paid.

Whatever.

Think everyone should have to pay more once the economy gets better. (not right now obviously with a weaker economy)

But the top can easily pay 500-5000 more and not notice it.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:52 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: I only responded to your comment because it was clearly wrong. Wealth distribution in the US isn't significantly different than Sweden (it is better than Denmark).


Well, it is different. But, you're right that I should have looked into the numbers more closely and made a distinction between wealth and income.
 
2012-12-03 03:55:45 PM

urbangirl: because life on welfare is SWEET!!!!


i194.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-03 03:55:48 PM

urbangirl: sprawl15: 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.

And blind.


I - I need my man
To feel like he's a man
To feel the need for questioning
Where he is or who he's with
He's more than my man
He's my best friend
To feel the need for checkin' in
Cause we got blind trust
Trust, trust, trust
We got blind trust
 
2012-12-03 03:55:51 PM

bradkanus: joonyer: 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.

I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.


What's not clear about that? Romney pays 13-15%. He likely paid 30%. What's so hard to understand about that?
 
2012-12-03 03:56:07 PM

PsiChick: 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.


cdn1.screenrant.com

Quinton is working on it
 
2012-12-03 03:56:45 PM
These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)
 
2012-12-03 03:57:16 PM

tbhouston: i got an idea, we pay the principle off and say fark the rest

if you want it, come collect I dare you


Interest rates on bonds are at about 0%. We are buying back our bonds and reissuing them with no interest.

So, in effect, we're already doing that.
 
2012-12-03 03:58:02 PM

sweetmelissa31: urbangirl: because life on welfare is SWEET!!!!

[i194.photobucket.com image 641x362]


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 03:58:03 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: 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.

No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

And I'm not ripped off when someone does a legal maneuver to get out of paying taxes. I dont have a legal claim on those dollars. I'm ripped off when someone who could be providing for themselves is instead living off the government. I'm ripped off when members of Congress grossly overpay for services that should cost pennies on the dollar.

Tax cuts, loops, and shelters don't cost the government money as long as they are legal. They (We) dont have a right to that money.


So if I skip out on my bill that's not ripping someone off?

Where do you think that money is going to come from? It's going to come from the money you were going to get back, the money you already paid into. You don't mind people taking the money that you paid so they can pay less?


If you don't mind why not just give back your social security and medicare so that rich people can still pay so little in taxes? It's their money right?
 
2012-12-03 03:59:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.

None of that explains why the capital gains rate was lowered to 15% by the Republicans.


Cap gains are different than income taxes all togehter and that percentage is available to you as well. I see what you are trying to argue here, but lower cap gains was supposed to inspire you to invest.
 
2012-12-03 04:00:22 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.


So then you will voluntarily give back your social security check so rich people can keep their taxes low?

Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?
 
2012-12-03 04:00:43 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]


Is there a version of that graph that explains what each color represents? As it is presented now it is a meaningless set of charts, since I have to guess at what I'm looking at.
 
2012-12-03 04:00:44 PM

Corvus: Bane Capital is an LLC so it's is a separate legal and taxable entity than Mitt Romney is.

Or are you against incorporation and limited liability?

You were wrong and you keep trying to move the goal posts. He NEVER paid taxes on that money. You said he did and you are wrong.



Ok one more time and that's it for you.

He paid taxes on those items and he paid taxes on his income. Unless you are saying that Bane Capital was set up as a church.

Tigger: I pay more than you and you've never so much as sent me a card.


Maybe, maybe not. But I'll say thank you anyway. And I wont ask for more!
 
2012-12-03 04:02:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: joonyer: 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.

I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.

What's not clear about that? Romney pays 13-15%. He likely paid 30%. What's so hard to understand about that?


You're purposely forgetting that his first sentence was a pure lie. He does not pay twice what romney pays. It's a fact. His rate compared to the rate romney pays is greater (in a basic sense) -
 
2012-12-03 04:03:24 PM

bradkanus: Cap gains are different than income taxes all togehter and that percentage is available to you as well. I see what you are trying to argue here, but lower cap gains was supposed to inspire you to invest.


Except if you are hedge fund manager like Mitt where you can get paid in assets where you get to pay capital gains on your income (or even less),

And why should we encourage investing? That has shown to lead to bubble economies. Besides most of the money is not even used for the company it is to pay off someone else who owns the stock not for new investments.

That is such a BS excuse.
 
2012-12-03 04:03:50 PM
Everything is falling to shiat because of the goddamn bush tax cuts. Don't start making shiat up.
 
2012-12-03 04:03:57 PM

manimal2878: 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]

Is there a version of that graph that explains what each color represents? As it is presented now it is a meaningless set of charts, since I have to guess at what I'm looking at.


Dude, they're not pie-graphs. They're potato-graphs. Potato-graphs don't have labels.
 
2012-12-03 04:04:05 PM

ghare: graggor: Zeb Hesselgresser: Couldn't be BOTH right?

Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?

And aren't we not taxing enough since our percentage of tax revenue per the GDP is at the lowest it has been in quite a while?

Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?

I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)

anyway I dont see why we cant do both....

So, you want more taxes on people who already make so little they can't afford to pay taxes and still eat? That's not real good thinkin' there, son.


but the English was tasty
 
2012-12-03 04:04:14 PM
I really wish someone would show me where I can get these "gifts" the right keeps talking about, because so far all I have is a lot of student loans.
 
2012-12-03 04:04:59 PM

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]


Hmmm...as much as Id like to complain about the recent nearly useless wars, my employer makes parts for a couple of those companies, so Im not gonna complain.
 
2012-12-03 04:05:49 PM

Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

So then you will voluntarily give back your social security check so rich people can keep their taxes low?

Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?


Rich people pay more in taxes than you do. Wealthy people don't. You keep mixing that up. We are talking earnings, not assets.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:01 PM

Elzar: These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)


Done. Completely balanced and no significant impact to employment or entitlements.

Thanks for the link.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:21 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: He paid taxes on those items and he paid taxes on his income. Unless you are saying that Bane Capital was set up as a church.


NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:33 PM
Source: US Dept. of Rimzzzzz
 
2012-12-03 04:06:49 PM

manimal2878: 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]

Is there a version of that graph that explains what each color represents? As it is presented now it is a meaningless set of charts, since I have to guess at what I'm looking at.


The graph comes from a paper written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF). But, with the exception of the top quintile in the USA, the pie sections aren't particularly well labeled even in the paper.

Also, it's important to point out, as You're the jerk... jerk noted, that Norton and Ariely are comparing US wealth with Swedish income. So, not exactly apples to apples.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:51 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: I really wish someone would show me where I can get these "gifts" the right keeps talking about, because so far all I have is a lot of student loans.


When Republicans talk about "gifts" they are probably referring to "rape babies".
 
2012-12-03 04:08:32 PM

Corvus: So if I skip out on my bill that's not ripping someone off?


If they said that if you did something else you didn't have to pay, then no you didn't rip anyone off. You played by the rules.

Corvus: Where do you think that money is going to come from? It's going to come from the money you were going to get back, the money you already paid into. You don't mind people taking the money that you paid so they can pay less?


The money is coming from China right now. There is no connection between what we pay and what the government spends. Zero! I wish this wasn't true but it is.

Corvus: If you don't mind why not just give back your social security and medicare so that rich people can still pay so little in taxes? It's their money right?


I'm not even 40 yet. I have never seen a dime of Social Security or Medicare and I dont plan on seeing a dime of it. It's gone. Just another tax like all the others.

Corvus: Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?


Most of those things are provided on the state level and what isn't should be.
 
2012-12-03 04:08:36 PM

Jackson Herring: Source: US Dept. of Rimzzzzz


US Dept. of They Spinnin
 
2012-12-03 04:09:50 PM

Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: He paid taxes on those items and he paid taxes on his income. Unless you are saying that Bane Capital was set up as a church.

NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.


Well he perfected this when he was in charge of Mariott's. It was illegal when he did it for them but he must have figured out how to protect his ass somehow when he tried it himself.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:17 PM

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: 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.

Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.

None of that explains why the capital gains rate was lowered to 15% by the Republicans.

Cap gains are different than income taxes all togehter and that percentage is available to you as well. I see what you are trying to argue here, but lower cap gains was supposed to inspire you to invest.


Since that theory has been proven incorrect, we should be able to raise the rates to the same as income taxes, and add Social Security / Medicare taxes too, since, well, income is income.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:43 PM

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: joonyer: 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.

I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.

What's not clear about that? Romney pays 13-15%. He likely paid 30%. What's so hard to understand about that?

You're purposely forgetting that his first sentence was a pure lie. He does not pay twice what romney pays. It's a fact. His rate compared to the rate romney pays is greater (in a basic sense) -


Everyone else was able to comprehend the original statement quite easily. You're the only one here that's pedantic enough to try to correct it. Unless of course, you were just being disingenuous? Say it ain't so.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:44 PM

bradkanus: Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

So then you will voluntarily give back your social security check so rich people can keep their taxes low?

Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?

Rich people pay more in taxes than you do. Wealthy people don't. You keep mixing that up. We are talking earnings, not assets.


No I pay a higher tax rate than people who are hedge fund managers. You are wrong. Because they can count there income as capital gains. I can't.

Even the company stock I get I have to pay income tax on while hedge fund managers get to pay capital gains on most of their income.

Really read this:

Carried interest

Hedge fund managers who are making hundreds of millions a year are paying less percent than I do. And less than many Americans.

You don't seem to get it.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:55 PM

Corvus: He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).


Money in a 401k is only tax deferred. Not tax free. He has to pay taxes when he takes the money out. What the 401k does is allow him to withdraw that money at a far lower rate.
 
2012-12-03 04:11:10 PM

Corvus: bradkanus: Cap gains are different than income taxes all togehter and that percentage is available to you as well. I see what you are trying to argue here, but lower cap gains was supposed to inspire you to invest.

Except if you are hedge fund manager like Mitt where you can get paid in assets where you get to pay capital gains on your income (or even less),

And why should we encourage investing? That has shown to lead to bubble economies. Besides most of the money is not even used for the company it is to pay off someone else who owns the stock not for new investments.

That is such a BS excuse.


Please don't pin that on me - I'm just relating what we were all told.
 
2012-12-03 04:11:14 PM

Elzar: These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)


Wow, I picked:
Eliminate Earmarks
Reduce Federal workforce by 10% and cut 250,000 government contractors.
Reduce Military to pre-Iraq War size, Reduce Navy and Air Force Fleets, Cancel or Delay some weapons programs.
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
President Obama's proposals on the taxes.
Reduce mortgage deduction for high-income households
And the bank tax.

And that virtually balanced the budget. I thought it would take a lot more than that.
 
2012-12-03 04:11:21 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: So if I skip out on my bill that's not ripping someone off?

If they said that if you did something else you didn't have to pay, then no you didn't rip anyone off. You played by the rules.


So are people on welfare right? They are playing by the rules too. Or is that magically different?
 
2012-12-03 04:12:31 PM

sprawl15: Corvus: He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

Money in a 401k is only tax deferred. Not tax free. He has to pay taxes when he takes the money out. What the 401k does is allow him to withdraw that money at a far lower rate.


Yes but we are maxed. He for all intents and purposes is not. so he gets a tax break we don't get.
 
2012-12-03 04:13:17 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: I really wish someone would show me where I can get these "gifts" the right keeps talking about, because so far all I have is a lot of student loans.


Yeah... but those loans are all yours... you get to keep them even if you go bankrupt!
 
2012-12-03 04:13:21 PM

mrshowrules: When Republicans talk about "gifts" they are probably referring to "rape babies".


is that getting rape babies or making rape babies?

cause I don't want to get me no rape babies

/I said rape thrice
 
2012-12-03 04:14:22 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: Source: US Dept. of Rimzzzzz

US Dept. of They Spinnin


oh my gosh
 
2012-12-03 04:15:16 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The money is coming from China right now. There is no connection between what we pay and what the government spends. Zero! I wish this wasn't true but it is.


So you have no problem with deficits? Or only when rich people need to help out?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Most of those things are provided on the state level and what isn't should be.


So then you have no problem with states taxing rich people? How does that have any bearing they still cost money. And no roads are paid a lot be the federal government. You seem completely clueless if you don't know that.

So will you answer my questions:

Will you voluntarily give up your government services so rich people can pay less in taxes or are you just asking for others to do so?
 
2012-12-03 04:15:24 PM

Corvus: bradkanus: Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

So then you will voluntarily give back your social security check so rich people can keep their taxes low?

Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?

Rich people pay more in taxes than you do. Wealthy people don't. You keep mixing that up. We are talking earnings, not assets.

No I pay a higher tax rate than people who are hedge fund managers. You are wrong. Because they can count there income as capital gains. I can't.

Even the company stock I get I have to pay income tax on while hedge fund managers get to pay capital gains on most of their income.

Really read this:

Carried interest

Hedge fund managers who are making hundreds of millions a year are paying less percent than I do. And less than many Americans.

You don't seem to get it.


I get it just fine. Is it fair? Nope, but our laws were written more than 100 years ago on income taxes and they don't cover what they should. No tax increase on the rich is going to reach the bulk of what hedge fund managers make.

Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?
 
2012-12-03 04:15:26 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Yeah... but those loans are all yours... you get to keep them even if you go bankrupt!


hurrah, I have a piece of the american dream!
 
2012-12-03 04:16:03 PM

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


Hundreds of thousands killed, when you actually consider brown people.
 
2012-12-03 04:16:15 PM

Phil Moskowitz: Everything is falling to shiat because of the goddamn bush tax cuts. Don't start making shiat up.


Oh, come on, two wars "off the books" were ALSO bad!
 
2012-12-03 04:16:25 PM

Corvus: sprawl15: Corvus: He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

Money in a 401k is only tax deferred. Not tax free. He has to pay taxes when he takes the money out. What the 401k does is allow him to withdraw that money at a far lower rate.

Yes but we are maxed. He for all intents and purposes is not. so he gets a tax break we don't get.


"Getting a tax break we don't get", or even "paying far lower taxes than he should" is a world of difference from "paying no taxes", which is what you're claiming. He pays taxes on any money withdrawn from the 401k, and he pays them as if it was ordinary income.
 
2012-12-03 04:16:52 PM
every day it becomes more and more obvious that Abraham Lincoln farked up and should have let the South go.
 
2012-12-03 04:17:48 PM

Lord Dimwit: 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.


You are rare. This is a reasoned approach and I agree. Cuts need to be made on both sides of the equation. Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism. But I do have to take exception to one thing you said. Republican cronies are not the only ones benefiting. Solyndra is a prime example.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:10 PM

Corvus: NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.




Hey! Be care here! He did pay taxes. Income tax was payed at one point and sales tax were paid at some point. Odds are they were depreciated on a legal GAAP schedule and there for valued at zero. But taxes were paid along the way.

Now if you say that doesn't count you really open yourself up to some nasty problems on future tax debates.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:17 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Elzar: These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)

Wow, I picked:
Eliminate Earmarks
Reduce Federal workforce by 10% and cut 250,000 government contractors.
Reduce Military to pre-Iraq War size, Reduce Navy and Air Force Fleets, Cancel or Delay some weapons programs.
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
President Obama's proposals on the taxes.
Reduce mortgage deduction for high-income households
And the bank tax.

And that virtually balanced the budget. I thought it would take a lot more than that.


If you don't increase defense spending, every year, no matter what, you're a filthy commie.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:28 PM
STFU. We all know rich people deserve special tax rates. They are special.
 
2012-12-03 04:19:14 PM
In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

China owns 8% of the country!!!

they can take alabama, mississippi, arkansas, missouri and alaska.

Enjoy china!!!
 
2012-12-03 04:20:10 PM

garron: Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism


Yes, a safety net is SOOOOO damaging.
 
2012-12-03 04:21:48 PM

graggor: In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

China owns 8% of the country!!!

they can take alabama, mississippi, arkansas, missouri and alaska Florida.

Enjoy china!!!


We can't give up Alaska. Too many natural resources.
 
2012-12-03 04:21:49 PM

garron: Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism


I know right? Look at that vile shiathole going on over there in Scandinavia.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:17 PM

pacified: STFU. We all know rich people deserve special tax rates. They are special.


Frankly, asking them to pay more just seems rude to me.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:24 PM
I am seriously gonna *SMACK* the next stupid farking idiot who talks to me about Obama's gifts and freebies.

and I'm gonna keep doing this until I get MY freebies. I aint got nothing yet.

of course, my freebie might be room and board at the local jail
farking freeloader, that's what I'll be.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:34 PM
Some Republicans have expressed concern over the amount of U.S. debt owned by China. Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a 2012 presidential hopeful, joked that when it came to the debt "Hu's your daddy," a reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Despite such joking, the truth is the bulk of the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt - $9.8 trillion in all - is owned by the American people and its government.

So we own almost 65% of the debt and China is our daddy?
 
2012-12-03 04:22:41 PM

bradkanus: I get it just fine. Is it fair? Nope, but our laws were written more than 100 years ago on income taxes and they don't cover what they should. No tax increase on the rich is going to reach the bulk of what hedge fund managers make.

Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?


WTF are you talking about? We pass budget bills every year!

So you are saying "thigns are broken so let's not ever try to fix it"? What a stupid ass statement that is. You made a comment and you were wrong. you made statement and you were wrong now you are trying to move the goal posts.
 
2012-12-03 04:23:24 PM

sprawl15: "Getting a tax break we don't get", or even "paying far lower taxes than he should" is a world of difference from "paying no taxes", which is what you're claiming. He pays taxes on any money withdrawn from the 401k, and he pays them as if it was ordinary income.


Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes on that money. My comment was correct.
 
2012-12-03 04:23:30 PM
IM sorry almost 69% of the debt. dang math in my head.
 
2012-12-03 04:23:50 PM

graggor: In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

China owns 8% of the country!!!

they can take alabama, mississippi, arkansas, missouri and alaska.

Enjoy china!!!


My employer just sent his son to a partner company in China to train, even though there are several people within the company here in the USA that could train him...apparently the Chinese are far better at it than anyone we employ. Take that as you may.
 
2012-12-03 04:24:32 PM

eraser8: Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):


Um, what do the colors represent? Without that information, this chart is very uninformative. The numbers are clearly the size of each pie slice, but what fraction of the US controls 84% of the wealth?
 
2012-12-03 04:25:29 PM

garron: Lord Dimwit: 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.

You are rare. This is a reasoned approach and I agree. Cuts need to be made on both sides of the equation. Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism. But I do have to take exception to one thing you said. Republican cronies are not the only ones benefiting. Solyndra is a prime example.


Look, no matter how much you scream and cry, Solyndra is not a scandal
 
2012-12-03 04:25:45 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]


Somehow they always leave this fact out of the equation. It's almost like they're always intellectually dishonest in their arguments in order to rationalize the exploitative wealth of the ruling class.
 
2012-12-03 04:26:28 PM

garron: Lord Dimwit: 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.

You are rare. This is a reasoned approach and I agree. Cuts need to be made on both sides of the equation. Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism. But I do have to take exception to one thing you said. Republican cronies are not the only ones benefiting. Solyndra is a prime example.


He's rare? Are you daft? Who do you talk to that says cuts don't need to be made on both sides? I engage in political discussions as often as I can, with libs and cons alike. I've never ever heard anyone say that taxes need to be raised but spending needs to remain the same.

Who says this? Do you have proof that a significant portion of the populace feels this way?
 
2012-12-03 04:26:48 PM

Corvus: So are people on welfare right? They are playing by the rules too. Or is that magically different?


We allow them to have it. I can't blame anyone for working the system! If they really do need it I want them to have it. And because of that, and I know human nature there will be some people who take it that do not need it. I can get mad about it, and sometimes I do, but at the end of the day I understand that in order for people to get the help they need we are going to have bottom feeders
.
 
2012-12-03 04:26:58 PM

bradkanus: Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?


Because the poor and middle class aren't getting screwed over enough as it is?
 
2012-12-03 04:27:22 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.



Hey! Be care here! He did pay taxes. Income tax was payed at one point and sales tax were paid at some point. Odds are they were depreciated on a legal GAAP schedule and there for valued at zero. But taxes were paid along the way.

Now if you say that doesn't count you really open yourself up to some nasty problems on future tax debates.


So you believe if something is legal it's ok to do?

So you have no problem with people who legally get more from the government through medicare or welfare?
 
2012-12-03 04:27:57 PM

eraser8: We can't give up Alaska. Too many natural resources.


I'm glad that was caught early. How about Wyoming?
 
2012-12-03 04:29:23 PM

pciszek: eraser8: Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

Um, what do the colors represent? Without that information, this chart is very uninformative. The numbers are clearly the size of each pie slice, but what fraction of the US controls 84% of the wealth?


Yeah. It's not the greatest chart...but, as I wrote earlier, it comes straight from a paper written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF). And, even there, it's not spectacular. In any case, according to the paper, "in the United States, the top wealth quintile owns 84% of the total wealth, the second highest 11%, and so on."
 
2012-12-03 04:30:35 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: So are people on welfare right? They are playing by the rules too. Or is that magically different?

We allow them to have it. I can't blame anyone for working the system! If they really do need it I want them to have it. And because of that, and I know human nature there will be some people who take it that do not need it. I can get mad about it, and sometimes I do, but at the end of the day I understand that in order for people to get the help they need we are going to have bottom feeders
.


Good so you have no problem with people on welfare taking lots of money as long at it's legal? Sorry I thought you did (because you actually said you had a problem with this earlier) but now that you have been show the hypocrisy it is you seemed to have changed your tune.

So why do you get mad a poor people who take advantage of the system but not rich people? And rich people take more money from the system. It seems like a double standard.

Believe it or not I get mad at both people taking advantage of the system. i know that might hurt your brain.
 
2012-12-03 04:31:20 PM

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".


Apparently the fellow complaining that the richest 20% of the US pays 70% of the taxes would like to tax a fixed amount per person rather than a percentage of income. If we had everyone pay the same dollar amount, total revenue would be zero (since there are some people who have nothing to confiscate, and everyone is paying the same amount, right?) so that would solve the deficit problem--no one would be willing to loan the US money anymore, so there would be no deficit spending. Or any non-deficit spending, either. On the bright side, no more wars.
 
2012-12-03 04:31:43 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: eraser8: We can't give up Alaska. Too many natural resources.

I'm glad that was caught early. How about Wyoming?


I already suggested Florida. What natural resources does it have other than derp? I can't think of any.

Or, Arizona. Yeah, Arizona would work, too.
 
2012-12-03 04:31:46 PM
Buying stock is so much harder than working 40 hours a week.
 
2012-12-03 04:34:35 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: bradkanus: Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?

Because the poor and middle class aren't getting screwed over enough as it is?


I think he meant a tax on people with tuberculosis. Incentivize people not to get it
 
2012-12-03 04:34:43 PM

Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: So are people on welfare right? They are playing by the rules too. Or is that magically different?

We allow them to have it. I can't blame anyone for working the system! If they really do need it I want them to have it. And because of that, and I know human nature there will be some people who take it that do not need it. I can get mad about it, and sometimes I do, but at the end of the day I understand that in order for people to get the help they need we are going to have bottom feeders
.

Good so you have no problem with people on welfare taking lots of money as long at it's legal? Sorry I thought you did (because you actually said you had a problem with this earlier) but now that you have been show the hypocrisy it is you seemed to have changed your tune.

So why do you get mad a poor people who take advantage of the system but not rich people? And rich people take more money from the system. It seems like a double standard.

Believe it or not I get mad at both people taking advantage of the system. i know that might hurt your brain.


I think many people don't get mad at rich folks for doing it because the rich folks are contributing a lot more to society just by being rich than a poor person is. But of course, it's still a double standard. I get mad at both of them, too.
 
2012-12-03 04:35:02 PM

eraser8: The Stealth Hippopotamus: eraser8: We can't give up Alaska. Too many natural resources.

I'm glad that was caught early. How about Wyoming?

I already suggested Florida. What natural resources does it have other than derp? I can't think of any.

Or, Arizona. Yeah, Arizona would work, too.


Bonus: That's where our old people live. Medicare and Social Security problems solved!
 
2012-12-03 04:35:08 PM

Corvus: So you have no problem with people who legally get more from the government through medicare or welfare?


As long as it is corporate welfare I am fine with it... but if it is money for poor people to buy groceries, we gotta put a stop to that!
 
2012-12-03 04:35:29 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Elzar: These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)

Wow, I picked:
Eliminate Earmarks
Reduce Federal workforce by 10% and cut 250,000 government contractors.
Reduce Military to pre-Iraq War size, Reduce Navy and Air Force Fleets, Cancel or Delay some weapons programs.
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
President Obama's proposals on the taxes.
Reduce mortgage deduction for high-income households
And the bank tax.

And that virtually balanced the budget. I thought it would take a lot more than that.


Yeah it doesn't take much and instead we get this fiscal cliff Bukake Theatre. Throw in a few more things like rolling back tax rates to clinton levels, raise eligibility for SS and Medicare and we are not only balanced, but we are motherfarking paying down the deficit in a meaningful way...
 
2012-12-03 04:38:03 PM

Corvus: bradkanus: I get it just fine. Is it fair? Nope, but our laws were written more than 100 years ago on income taxes and they don't cover what they should. No tax increase on the rich is going to reach the bulk of what hedge fund managers make.

Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?

WTF are you talking about? We pass budget bills every year!

So you are saying "thigns are broken so let's not ever try to fix it"? What a stupid ass statement that is. You made a comment and you were wrong. you made statement and you were wrong now you are trying to move the goal posts.


How is it wrong to agree with you? I'm just giving your dumb ass a history lesson why we tax income and not assets. You can't change the 16th amendment in a budget bill, dipshiat. You don't understand why hedge fund managers can pay a lesser ratethan you and I explained that to you.

You don't know enough about the tax system to be arguing with me about it.
 
2012-12-03 04:39:12 PM

urbangirl: Captain_Sunshine: So -

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?


The "gripping hand" reference is from a set of books by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. And Pournelle tends to be the more bombastic of the two.

And the "Obama gift basket" is pretty classless, really.
 
2012-12-03 04:40:31 PM

sprawl15:

[i.imgur.com image 455x270] 

as you can see on this chart it is actually highest at 0%


That can't be the Laffer curve--the Laffer curve always has completely unlabeled axes.
 
MFK
2012-12-03 04:41:22 PM

The 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.

gilgigamesh: Hey, if you don't ever have the occasion to use those federally regulated air traffic routes for your private jet, that's on you.

Actually you have to pay extra for that.


hey, If people like Romney would stop taking such a huge share of the pie, perhaps they wouldn't have to pay such a huge share of the taxes. But seriously. Cry me a farking river. I have to pay at least 25% of ALL my money in taxes and farks like Romney and their accountants' tricks pay a fraction of that percentage.

These guys are not entitled to such fortunes, they are allowed by the society they exist in to amass such fortunes. They might want to remember that when they start talking about dismantling the social safety nets because they are greedy.
 
2012-12-03 04:45:23 PM

bradkanus: You don't know enough about the tax system to be arguing with me about it.


LMAO. Yeah dude, you're a regular font of intellectualism.
 
2012-12-03 04:46:09 PM

Corvus: So you believe if something is legal it's ok to do?

So you have no problem with people who legally get more from the government through medicare or welfare?



People will always get more or less. My mother paid in her entire life and died of a heart attack at 65 before she ever got dime of ss or disability. I dont think that there is a way to be completely even with every single person out there.

And yes I have a problem with it. I have some wonderful ideas on how, what and when taxes are collected. But that's not the discussion here and I dont want to kitchen sink this thread. I'm trying (and sometimes failing) to stay on topic here.
 
2012-12-03 04:46:12 PM

bradkanus: I'm just giving your dumb ass a history lesson why we tax income and not assets.


Capital gains are....what is that word you used? Oh yes. Income.

Now explain why that income is taxed at half the rate of earned income.
 
2012-12-03 04:49:51 PM
Services to the poor and middle class="gifts"

Regressive tax breaks for the wealthy=tribute to job creators
 
2012-12-03 04:50:51 PM
While I am a democrat, i still think the size of the entitlement programs are too big. yes i understand they are largely important, but they are also largely bloated as alot of US programs are (*cough* Defense *cough*)

I wish that congress had more economists because the lack of them really bothers me.
 
2012-12-03 04:52:48 PM

Uglybarnacle: While I am a democrat, i still think the size of the entitlement programs are too big. yes i understand they are largely important, but they are also largely bloated as alot of US programs are (*cough* Defense *cough*)

I wish that congress had more economists because the lack of them really bothers me.


I'd settle for more English majors provided that they were smarter than the mooks we have now in large part
 
2012-12-03 04:55:34 PM

Corvus: Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes on that money.


So what? You're equating tax deferred with tax free when they're a world of farking difference.
 
2012-12-03 04:56:18 PM

skullkrusher: Uglybarnacle: While I am a democrat, i still think the size of the entitlement programs are too big. yes i understand they are largely important, but they are also largely bloated as alot of US programs are (*cough* Defense *cough*)

I wish that congress had more economists because the lack of them really bothers me.

I'd settle for more English majors provided that they were smarter than the mooks we have now in large part


For the 1000th time: members of Congress are not dumb, generally speaking (well, maybe Hank Johnson)...they're just really, really unethical.
 
2012-12-03 04:57:22 PM

eraser8: pciszek: eraser8: Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

Um, what do the colors represent? Without that information, this chart is very uninformative. The numbers are clearly the size of each pie slice, but what fraction of the US controls 84% of the wealth?

Yeah. It's not the greatest chart...but, as I wrote earlier, it comes straight from a paper written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF). And, even there, it's not spectacular. In any case, according to the paper, "in the United States, the top wealth quintile owns 84% of the total wealth, the second highest 11%, and so on."


It still doesn't work. According to what you just said, the cyan must represent the top quintile and the off-white the next quintile. But the pie chart for Equalden shows the off-white pie piece twice as big as the cyan one. By definition, each quintile contains the same number of people. If the top quintile has 18% of the wealth and the next quintile has 36%, then each person in the second quintile is twice as wealthy as each person in the top quintile, in which case, they should be the top quintile. I will attempt to repeat the chart for easy reference:
apt46.net 
In short, the fraction of the wealth controlled by each quintile must be greater than the fraction controlled by the quintile beneath it, and the top quintile must control at least 20% of the wealth, or the math doesn't work.
 
2012-12-03 04:57:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: I'm just giving your dumb ass a history lesson why we tax income and not assets.

Capital gains are....what is that word you used? Oh yes. Income.

Now explain why that income is taxed at half the rate of earned income.


I have no idea other than what I remember the rhetoric being at teh time - encourage investment. Again, I'm not defending the cap gains tax rate. I will point out that the 15% applies to everyone.
 
2012-12-03 04:58:23 PM

Corvus: Good so you have no problem with people on welfare taking lots of money as long at it's legal? Sorry I thought you did (because you actually said you had a problem with this earlier) but now that you have been show the hypocrisy it is you seemed to have changed your tune.


no. I said right there that I do get mad about it. I hate human nature some times and this includes people take welfare money they dont need and shouldn't have. They have no right to that money. They are getting charity and should be thankful that other people have provided it for them.

Corvus: So why do you get mad a poor people who take advantage of the system but not rich people? And rich people take more money from the system. It seems like a double standard.


But them taking money isn't theirs isn't the same as someone who has found a way to shelter their money from the revenuers. Your money is yours up until the IRS can prove it isn't. We the people have no right to your money.

MFK: hey, If people like Romney would stop taking such a huge share of the pie, perhaps they wouldn't have to pay such a huge share of the taxes. But seriously. Cry me a farking river. I have to pay at least 25% of ALL my money in taxes and farks like Romney and their accountants' tricks pay a fraction of that percentage.


Romney is taking any part of any pie. He's paid in more than he could take out. And as far as your 25%, I would rather have 15% of Romney's paycheck than 25% of yours. Remember percentages don't pay bills, dollars do. And Romney has done more to help our government cover it's bills than all of us combined.

And he give 10% to charity. I'll stack that up against anyone on capital hill!!
 
2012-12-03 04:58:52 PM

Marcus Aurelius: An industrialized nation's government needs about 20% of GDP to function well, and if I am not mistaken we're well below that. Taxation is also at near historic lows.


First, comparisons from the US to other systems are often flawed in that in the US, state and local government spending accounts for a large percentage of total taxes and spending. Certain people (some already in this thread) love to compare US Federal spending to spending by European governments that don't have a similar system. It makes it look like the US has far lower taxes and government spending relative to other similar nations. And while it's true that we are lower, it's not by as much as those skewed numbers would have you think. So while the federal government's taxes as a % of GDP is under 20%, total tax burden is closer to 27%. Which is still lower than the average European country, but not as much as it is if you look at just federal spending.

But regardless, if you're goal is to make total government spending in the US look like some of the more socialized (I don't mean to use the term pejoratively) systems in Europe, well frankly we're already there. The US spends about 39% of GDP on government. That's more than Switzerland (32%), in the same ballpark as Norway and Spain (40.2 & 41.1) and below, but not way below, the Germany, the UK, and Sweden (43.7, 47.3, & 52.0).

One reason our spending is in the same ballpark as those countries, but our social services are (arguably) not, is that we spend such a larger portion of GDP on defense. So one obvious solution is to cut defense spending and insist that our allies in Europe start paying for their fair share. Right now, most of Europe doesn't have to worry about large defense budgets because they know they can rely on ours in times of need. That needs to end.

Of course, in the US the problem is that our revenue (27%) is well below our spending (39%). But unfortunately, even if we raised income taxes on those individuals making more than $200k and families making more than $250k to levels that would maximize revenue that wouldn't come close to closing the 12% gap in GDP (and note, there's little doubt that we are below the revenue maximizing point currently, but note also that the 'Laffer Curve' does exist, the only debate is over where the revenue maximizing point is, not if there is one). Current estimates are that taxing 'the rich' at a revenue optimizing rate would generate about $400B a year. But that's only about 1/3rd of the current deficit. And keep in mind that no one (not even President Obama) is proposing raising taxes that much.

The rest of that gap must be made up by either spending cuts or taxes on the rest of the population. Even cutting the defense budget in half, which is something that has virtually 0 political support, would raise only roughly another $400B. That still leaves another $400B that needs to come from higher taxes on the rest of us, or from entitlement spending.

So if we want to maintain current levels of spending (or even raise them to be more like other advanced countries) we only need to raise spending by at most a couple of percent. However, we'll also need massive cuts to defense spending, and those cuts will likely have devastating short term effects on the economy, as it will require a massive shift in resources out of one sector of the economy (defense contractors) and into others. Even with revenue maximizing tax increases on the wealthy *and* massive defense cuts, we'll still need to either raise taxes on the rest of the population or make major cuts to entitlement spending.
 
2012-12-03 04:59:51 PM

garron: Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work.


How many recipients of "welfare programs and food stamps" are "healthy people who choose not to work", and how many *do* work at places like Walmart that are too damn tightfisted to pay their staff enough to live on?
 
2012-12-03 05:00:33 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Romney isnt taking any part of any pie.


isnt.....
 
2012-12-03 05:01:13 PM

pciszek: It still doesn't work. According to what you just said, the cyan must represent the top quintile and the off-white the next quintile. But the pie chart for Equalden shows the off-white pie piece twice as big as the cyan one. By definition, each quintile contains the same number of people.


Yes. As was pointed out earlier, Norton and Ariely made the mistake of confusing US wealth distribution with Swedish income distribution. So, the comparison isn't apples to apples. You're the jerk... jerk first brought this to my attention.  And, I accepted it.
 
2012-12-03 05:01:34 PM

bradkanus: I have no idea other than what I remember the rhetoric being at teh time - encourage investment. Again, I'm not defending the cap gains tax rate. I will point out that the 15% applies to everyone.


Which is a big part of the problem. The capital gains tax is regressive.
 
2012-12-03 05:03:59 PM

joonyer: I think many people don't get mad at rich folks for doing it because the rich folks are contributing a lot more to society just by being rich than a poor person is.


Just once, I would like to see this claim carefully examined, with numbers. If the "job creators" are creating jobs elsewhere rather than here, then they are not contributing to American society. If they are also receiving massive government handouts in the form of government contracts or corporations paying negative income tax, then they are leeching on American society.
 
2012-12-03 05:07:12 PM

eraser8: skullkrusher: Uglybarnacle: While I am a democrat, i still think the size of the entitlement programs are too big. yes i understand they are largely important, but they are also largely bloated as alot of US programs are (*cough* Defense *cough*)

I wish that congress had more economists because the lack of them really bothers me.

I'd settle for more English majors provided that they were smarter than the mooks we have now in large part

For the 1000th time: members of Congress are not dumb, generally speaking (well, maybe Hank Johnson)...they're just really, really unethical.


difference without distinction. If their lack of ethics makes them support stupid ideas, I don't really care if it is scumminess or stupidity behind it
 
2012-12-03 05:08:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: bradkanus: I have no idea other than what I remember the rhetoric being at teh time - encourage investment. Again, I'm not defending the cap gains tax rate. I will point out that the 15% applies to everyone.

Which is a big part of the problem. The capital gains tax is regressive.


it's progressive. You can certainly argue that it causes our overall federal income tax system to become regressive after a point, you would be correct. However, the cap gains tax itself is progressive
 
2012-12-03 05:09:17 PM

pciszek: eraser8:
In short, the fraction of the wealth controlled by each quintile must be greater than the fraction controlled by the quintile beneath it, and the top quintile must control at least 20% of the wealth, or the math doesn't work.


Isn't this weighted by the size of each group?
 
2012-12-03 05:12:46 PM

SixOfDLoC: pciszek: eraser8:
In short, the fraction of the wealth controlled by each quintile must be greater than the fraction controlled by the quintile beneath it, and the top quintile must control at least 20% of the wealth, or the math doesn't work.

Isn't this weighted by the size of each group?


the size of each group is equal
 
2012-12-03 05:23:05 PM

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: I'm just giving your dumb ass a history lesson why we tax income and not assets.

Capital gains are....what is that word you used? Oh yes. Income.

Now explain why that income is taxed at half the rate of earned income.

I have no idea other than what I remember the rhetoric being at teh time - encourage investment. Again, I'm not defending the cap gains tax rate. I will point out that the 15% applies to everyone.


So you decided to argue about something else entirely?
 
2012-12-03 05:26:40 PM

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

Is that so wrong?


You are not a CEO of a international mega corporation.
 
2012-12-03 05:26:55 PM
Have you even seen what rich people spend money on? Fast cars and shiat. Big houses, with multiple hot tubs. The latest, most expensive HDTV.

What they fark are they so passionately complaining about? There comes a point, let's say around 2 million a year income, that you really, really don't need any more money for yourself. You're just pissing it away on diamond encrusted toilet seats and whale penis leather toilet paper (whale penis leather is a real thing, btw, look it up).

The point is, there is only so much money to go around, and lots of people don't have enough of it. And then the people who have far, far too much of it, cry like little babies at the mention that they might want to give some more of it up.

I know you might say 'they worked really hard for their money', well so does a farking toilet cleaner, or a supermarket clerk, or any other depressing dead end worker, so maybe instead of buying that gold plated xbox for your shiatty kids, consider paying your workers a dollar more an hour so that they don't have to go to the food bank at Christmas, you tight-assed arrogant farking assholes.
 
2012-12-03 05:29:35 PM

epoc_tnac: Have you even seen what rich people spend money on? Fast cars and shiat. Big houses, with multiple hot tubs. The latest, most expensive HDTV.

What they fark are they so passionately complaining about? There comes a point, let's say around 2 million a year income, that you really, really don't need any more money for yourself. You're just pissing it away on diamond encrusted toilet seats and whale penis leather toilet paper (whale penis leather is a real thing, btw, look it up).

The point is, there is only so much money to go around, and lots of people don't have enough of it. And then the people who have far, far too much of it, cry like little babies at the mention that they might want to give some more of it up.

I know you might say 'they worked really hard for their money', well so does a farking toilet cleaner, or a supermarket clerk, or any other depressing dead end worker, so maybe instead of buying that gold plated xbox for your shiatty kids, consider paying your workers a dollar more an hour so that they don't have to go to the food bank at Christmas, you tight-assed arrogant farking assholes.


Every time we have our septic tank pumped, I think to myself "no matter how much we're paying that man, he's not making enough."

But yes, anyone who says that the rich deserve their money need to look at Paris Hilton. She has done nothing for her money but be born to the right parents. Hereditary nobility is something we should not encourage in this country.
 
2012-12-03 05:31:52 PM

Lord Dimwit: But yes, anyone who says that the rich deserve their money need to look at Paris Hilton. She has done nothing for her money but be born to the right parents. Hereditary nobility is something we should not encourage in this country.


That or Mitt Romney, the guy who had everything handed to him because of his dad and was still biatching that the government treated people like him unfairly when it comes to taxes. 

Do you think Mitt Romney would've been in that same spot if his parents were some middle class family in Boston?
 
2012-12-03 05:34:30 PM

qorkfiend: ghare: 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?

Yeah, that was my reaction as well.

When your country asks you to pay taxes, the only correct response is "fark off, I'd rather pay taxes in another country than give you anything."


I think the issue is "Holy shart, I've been blatantly cheating on my taxes for the past 20 years. If they start auditing and prosecuting tax cheats, I'm getting the fark out of here before I get a phone call."

But specifically when it comes to doctors fleeing, as that's one of the biggest concerns, as the EU takes away more autonomy from Greece and starts (attempting) to implement a different culture in return for the bailouts. Most doctors in Greece are self employed and most under-declare their earnings to keep from paying taxes (a lot of plastic surgeons in Greece living in amazing houses reporting to just make the $35k a year). The second is the culture of 'fakelaki' (bribery envelopes) which are ubiquitous in Greece, and doctors typically take them from their patients in exchange for better or faster treatment. So yeah, once you take away the the lifestyle they're accustomed to of paying no taxes and the money they're accustomed to being paid under the table, many might say "If I'm going to have to work and pay taxes like every other doctor in the world, I might as well do it in a country where unemployment isn't 26%".
 
2012-12-03 05:47:49 PM

pciszek: If they are also receiving massive government handouts in the form of government contracts or corporations paying negative income tax, then they are leeching on American society.


I'd also like to know the rate of underemployment in the forms of government subsidizes employees take in.
 
2012-12-03 05:56:23 PM
I love how when government wastes money on defense contractors, FTC investigations protecting shareholders, and SEC protections for the rich, it's necessary, but if I want the government to do something with my money that might be useful to me, it's a "freebie" or a "gift," and I'm a "taker" not a "make." Talk to me about freebies when Mitt Romney's tax rate is as high as mine... until then, shove it.
 
2012-12-03 06:01:18 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?


They think he's a contributor because he gets jobs shipped to china, then gets crappy lead laden products shipped to Wal-Mart for less money. To some of us though... ya know, those who understand math, this is not something that we should celebrate. Though we were established by a bunch of venture capitalists, our nation succeeded based on hard work, we shouldn't give a pass to the investor class while continually waging war against the working class. Dems should just tack riders onto every department closure Republicans want... you want to get rid of the EPA, then we'll also scrap the SEC... you try to do away with OSHA, we scrap the FTC... make gambling in the stock market every bit as risky as doing actual work and the "creator" class will see what it's really like in the jungle they've created.
 
2012-12-03 06:03:52 PM

firefly212: I love how when government wastes money on defense contractors, FTC investigations protecting shareholders, and SEC protections for the rich, it's necessary, but if I want the government to do something with my money that might be useful to me, it's a "freebie" or a "gift," and I'm a "taker" not a "make." Talk to me about freebies when Mitt Romney's tax rate is as high as mine... until then, shove it.


Doublespeak of the highest order. And it works. 

/keep big government freebies out of my medicare
 
2012-12-03 06:03:55 PM
" Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans, Americans are taxed like Puerto Ricans but vote like Scandinavians." The insulting Genius that is Mark Steyn
 
2012-12-03 06:09:45 PM

epoc_tnac: firefly212: I love how when government wastes money on defense contractors, FTC investigations protecting shareholders, and SEC protections for the rich, it's necessary, but if I want the government to do something with my money that might be useful to me, it's a "freebie" or a "gift," and I'm a "taker" not a "make." Talk to me about freebies when Mitt Romney's tax rate is as high as mine... until then, shove it.

Doublespeak of the highest order. And it works. 

/keep big government freebies out of my medicare


It's just surreal, people who get 80k tax breaks chiding people struggling to get enough food to survive over how they're taking advantage of the system. Orwell lives.
 
2012-12-03 06:10:32 PM
80k tax breaks ^for dancing horses
 
2012-12-03 06:12:48 PM
Everyone who makes more money than me is racist and deserves to be taxed for all of their income and possessions. That's what fair means, you racist.

/This is what Fark Libs actually believe
 
2012-12-03 06:13:08 PM

pciszek: eraser8: pciszek: eraser8: Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

Um, what do the colors represent? Without that information, this chart is very uninformative. The numbers are clearly the size of each pie slice, but what fraction of the US controls 84% of the wealth?

Yeah. It's not the greatest chart...but, as I wrote earlier, it comes straight from a paper written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF). And, even there, it's not spectacular. In any case, according to the paper, "in the United States, the top wealth quintile owns 84% of the total wealth, the second highest 11%, and so on."

It still doesn't work. According to what you just said, the cyan must represent the top quintile and the off-white the next quintile. But the pie chart for Equalden shows the off-white pie piece twice as big as the cyan one. By definition, each quintile contains the same number of people. If the top quintile has 18% of the wealth and the next quintile has 36%, then each person in the second quintile is twice as wealthy as each person in the top quintile, in which case, they should be the top quintile. I will attempt to repeat the chart for easy reference:
[apt46.net image 615x396] 
In short, the fraction of the wealth controlled by each quintile must be greater than the fraction controlled by the quintile beneath it, and the top quintile must control at least 20% of the wealth, or the math doesn't work.


Dude, I already said it was a potato-chart.
 
2012-12-03 06:13:36 PM

bradkanus: Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?


i.qkme.me
 
2012-12-03 06:17:06 PM

skullkrusher: I think he meant a tax on people with tuberculosis. Incentivize people not to get it


Mediocre minds occasionally produce similar results...or something.
 
2012-12-03 06:17:51 PM

beta_plus: Everyone who makes more money than me is racist and deserves to be taxed for all of their income and possessions. That's what fair means, you racist.

/This is what Fark Libs actually believe


Wow, and I thought all the gay drama queens would be liberal. Thanks, Mr. Boehner for personally visiting this thread.
 
2012-12-03 06:21:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: Do you think Mitt Romney would've been in that same spot if his parents were some middle class family in Boston?


Mitt Romney is a cheap rich miserable little hustler who could squeeze a nickle until Jefferson chokes. He would have been a cheap rich miserable little hustler with or without his dad to start him along.

The guy learned early on that the best way to make money is to keep as much of dollar that goes through your fingers as you can, and then find ways to get as much money as possible to go through your fingers. Without his dad, he wouldn't have had as much money, but he'd still be a cheap taker bastard who leached off the real producers his whole life.
 
2012-12-03 06:21:54 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-03 06:29:47 PM

Captain_Sunshine: urbangirl: Captain_Sunshine: So -

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?

The "gripping hand" reference is from a set of books by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. And Pournelle tends to be the more bombastic of the two.

And the "Obama gift basket" is pretty classless, really.


I've met both of these guys in LA at a book festival. They're kind of like geriatric Penn and Teller.
 
2012-12-03 06:29:51 PM
bundlebit.com
 
2012-12-03 06:31:43 PM

beta_plus: Everyone who makes more money than me is racist and deserves to be taxed for all of their income and possessions. That's what fair means, you racist.

/This is what Fark Libs actually believe


Man that strawman sure must be tasty. What do you put on it, A1 or Heinz 57?
 
2012-12-03 06:35:18 PM
I was reading a Free Republic thread the other day and makers and takers. They were talking about what a bunch of parasites the 47% who don't pay income taxes are, and proposed mandatory military service as a solution.

Apparently it never occurred to them that there are veterans in that 47% because the job creators don't feel like hiring them.
 
2012-12-03 06:39:55 PM

Fart_Machine: I've met both of these guys in LA at a book festival. They're kind of like geriatric Penn and Teller.


That's really funny.

Which is which?
 
2012-12-03 06:42:26 PM
So in reading this thread my only question that comes up is how can I quit my job and get on this awesome welfare and food stamps and live my life happily?

I know I've looked at such benefits for friends but not being nearly destitute or pregnant makes it hard for benefits!
 
2012-12-03 06:43:34 PM

bradkanus: You don't know enough about the tax system to be arguing with me about it.


Unfortunately, lack of knowledge has never stopped Corvus from arguing with anyone about anything. He wears his lack of knowledge like a badge of honor.
 
2012-12-03 06:48:35 PM
did someone say freebies?

i134.photobucket.comheight="150"> 

drtfa
 
2012-12-03 06:49:51 PM

firefly212: 80k tax breaks ^for dancing horses


Not actually true.
 
2012-12-03 06:52:10 PM

sprawl15: firefly212: 80k tax breaks ^for dancing horses

Not actually true.


She's not going to fark you. What stake could you possibly have in defending her?
 
2012-12-03 06:55:43 PM

whidbey: What stake could you possibly have in defending her?


The self respect that comes from opinions not based on lies.
 
2012-12-03 06:55:47 PM

slayer199: That's the thing NEITHER side is talking about. Substantial reduction of spending. The Dems don't want to give up their social programs and the Republicans don't want to scale back on the military, Homeland Security or the War on Drugs.


They shouldn't have to. But keep pretending that both parties are the problem here, and not just the far-right nutcases in Congress--who happen to be Republican.
 
2012-12-03 07:00:15 PM

sprawl15: whidbey: What stake could you possibly have in defending her?

The self respect that comes from opinions not based on lies.


What lies? It's an easy Google. You're very likely splitting hairs about something.

You're not going to deny that the Romneys took out a 78K deduction for their horse.
 
2012-12-03 07:00:39 PM

bossuniversalAA: did someone say freebies?

[i134.photobucket.com image 250x150]height="150"> 

drtfa


Giving money to rich people creates jobs!

...or something
 
2012-12-03 07:01:40 PM
Why do people insist on being willfully wrong about the horse tax thing jesus christ
 
2012-12-03 07:02:56 PM

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


So they didn't claim the deduction?
 
2012-12-03 07:07:29 PM

whidbey: You're not going to deny that the Romneys took out a 78K deduction for their horse.


Yes, I am. They didn't take a deduction, they declared it as an unallowable loss on a passive activity. That can only be counted against gains on passive activities, and not against general earnings. If Rafalca won $78k at a horse dancing competition, they could have written that off, but if they found a duffel bag with $78k in it on the way home they couldn't have written that off.

As it happens, they did actually apply some of that $78k against passive activity gains, letting them write off fifty dollars of income.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 07:25:49 PM

joonyer: I think many people don't get mad at rich folks for doing it because the rich folks are contributing a lot more to society just by being rich than a poor person is. But of course, it's still a double standard. I get mad at both of them, too.


Most rich people make their money because of government services that helped them get rich.

I think some people are more superficial so they don't see the benefits that the rich get and pretend they don't get them.
 
2012-12-03 07:30:33 PM
Cost of Iraq War to date: (over) $809,139,016,472 (costofwar.com)
Cost of Afghanistan War to date: (over) $590,141,342,791 (costofwar.com)
Cost of Plan D, the Medicare giveaway nobody asked George W. Bush, Jr. for: $1,000,000,000,000
ost to the U.S. Treasury from Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Five Percent
First decade of Bush tax cuts, 2001 - 2010: $955 billion
Obama extension, 2011 - 2012: $229 billion
Proposed extension, 2013 - 2021: $2.02 trillion
Total cost, 2001 - 2021: $3.2 trillion

Total: over TRILLION. Enough to give the 99% who really create jobs and boost the economy a complete 100% tax holiday until the recession ends or Obama is booted out of office, which ever comes last.

Remember, the economy of the USA has been borne on the backs of the US consumer and taxpaper, not the super rich. The top 1000 US corporations have not made a single net job since before 1945. The US rich and corporations have not been the driving force of the economy--it is the wage and salary earnenrs who pulled the economy out of every recession, depression and slump in history. It is their work which makes all property and all income. It is their spending which drives the Consumer Society. Even though they pay disproportionately higher taxes (because capital gains are four times the salaries of the rich and taxed at a much lower rae, while corporate taxes are half of income taxes) these people, namely you and everybody you know, are America. The 400 SOBs (the 0.001%) and their families who own 25% of the wealth don't do a heck of a lot except collect passive income.

Republican rhetoric is not just Bullshiat. It is HITLERIAN BIG LIES.
 
2012-12-03 07:34:05 PM
A couple of typos there. Sorry.

However, while I have a chance I point out that the tax cuts did not just go to the top 5% but almost entirely to the top 20%. Also, the numbers are in trillions, that these sums equal THE ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT EVEN AFTER BUSH EXPLODED IT, and that consequently this number is so big that if dollars were electrons, you'd be zapped by it.
 
2012-12-03 07:37:29 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.


They are still paying for those services through taxation.
 
2012-12-03 07:38:39 PM

sprawl15: whidbey: You're not going to deny that the Romneys took out a 78K deduction for their horse.

Yes, I am. They didn't take a deduction, they declared it as an unallowable loss on a passive activity.


whidbey: You're very likely splitting hairs about something.


Did I call that one or what?
 
2012-12-03 07:41:54 PM

whidbey: Did I call that one or what?


hahaha holy shiat
 
2012-12-03 07:43:27 PM

whidbey: sprawl15: whidbey: You're not going to deny that the Romneys took out a 78K deduction for their horse.

Yes, I am. They didn't take a deduction, they declared it as an unallowable loss on a passive activity.

whidbey: You're very likely splitting hairs about something.

Did I call that one or what?


Well done.
 
2012-12-03 07:43:57 PM

reimanr06: They are still paying for those services through taxation.


Yes.
 
2012-12-03 07:44:50 PM

whidbey: Did I call that one or what?


It's not splitting hairs one bit. It's not like "oh, this was a CREDIT, not a DEDUCTION, oh oh ho!" They literally gain zero direct benefit from declaring those losses. If they declared eleventy billion dollars spent on Raflca's favorite douche loofa's, they wouldn't save a penny on their taxes.
 
2012-12-03 07:46:28 PM
Look man, an apple and an orange are the same. Stop splitting hairs
 
2012-12-03 07:51:14 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 07:55:15 PM

sprawl15: whidbey: Did I call that one or what?

It's not splitting hairs one bit. It's not like "oh, this was a CREDIT, not a DEDUCTION, oh oh ho!" They literally gain zero direct benefit from declaring those losses. If they declared eleventy billion dollars spent on Raflca's favorite douche loofa's, they wouldn't save a penny on their taxes.


Not true,
"PALs not allowed in the current year are carried forward to following years until they are allowed either against passive activity income, allowed against the special allowance if applicable, or accounted when the taxpayer sells or exchanges the entire interest in the passive activity in a fully taxable transaction to an unrelated party."
https://www.taxbrain.com/kb/default.asp?a=177

Romney's tax lawyers didn't go through all that trouble to save $50.
 
2012-12-03 08:01:28 PM

Tman144: Not true,


That's why I used the word 'direct', because declaring losses alone provides nothing.

Tman144: Romney's tax lawyers didn't go through all that trouble to save $50.


They didn't even mention Rob Rom in the 2011 tax returns, IIRC.
 
2012-12-03 08:03:07 PM
We are Not facing the fiscal cliff because the rich are not paying their fair share. It's because you want too many freebies


yea, that's it. i'm that godamned stupid.
 
2012-12-03 08:04:21 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 only pays half to counterbalance the fact that you get too many freebies. see how it works in Psychopath Land?
 
2012-12-03 08:08:22 PM
Middle eastern guys running around in the desert yelling "death to america" are not my enemy. they are a nuisance and their capabilities are quite limited. they just got lucky on 9/11.

Republicans are my real enemy because the damage they do to this Nation would make any terrorist salivate with envy.
 
2012-12-03 08:11:04 PM

udhq: Services to the poor and middle class="gifts"

Regressive tax breaks for the wealthy=tribute to job creators



yea, and they've been doing so very well these last 10 years. where are the jobs that they supposedly create?
 
2012-12-03 08:19:59 PM

sprawl15: Tman144: Romney's tax lawyers didn't go through all that trouble to save $50.

They didn't even mention Rob Rom in the 2011 tax returns, IIRC.




Of course not, they knew they were going to let "you people" see that one. It will show up again, just not where we can see it. "Romney's tax lawyers didn't go through all that trouble to save $50." sums it up.
 
2012-12-03 08:33:33 PM
Ah, the author uses bad statistics in order to make his argument for "severely redistributive."
 
2012-12-03 08:34:49 PM

sweetmelissa31: 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.

If he was a Real Patriotic American, he would get out of paying anything at all.


I can't wait to become a Real Patriotic American...
 
2012-12-03 08:37:04 PM

Granny_Panties: 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.


You must be from Texas, no?
 
2012-12-03 08:43:54 PM

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.
 
2012-12-03 08:52:28 PM

whidbey: sprawl15: whidbey: What stake could you possibly have in defending her?

The self respect that comes from opinions not based on lies.

What lies? It's an easy Google. You're very likely splitting hairs about something.

You're not going to deny that the Romneys took out a 78K deduction for their horse.


Pardon, I rounded, I meant no deception by rounding 78k to 80k.
 
2012-12-03 08:54:32 PM

Captain_Sunshine: Fart_Machine: I've met both of these guys in LA at a book festival. They're kind of like geriatric Penn and Teller.

That's really funny.

Which is which?


Niven said about two words and just nodded politely while Pournelle went on a tear about Stanislaw Lem, the whole SFWA debacle, and how he was a jerk (I have no idea how we got on that subject). Anyway I didn't want to be rude to the guy; it's like talking to your grandfather who just won't stop ranting and I didn't know how to break up the monologue. Finally some woman came up to the table and asked them to sign a used book which caused Pournelle to be distracted and complain about how they don't get royalties off the used book market but he couldn't begrudge the market for giving authors more exposure.

At that point I snuck away to where Jim Butcher was doing a signing.
 
2012-12-03 09:26:19 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.


Show us your tax forms, please. I bet you don't pay twice as much as Romney.
 
2012-12-03 09:31:19 PM
Dear You People,

What do we care about "infrastructure"? We take private jets and helicopters. We have our own generators. We have better internet than you can possibly imagine. And we don't care if the rest of you become poor because it just reminds us of our lovely vacation home on that island where everyone is poor. Sure our compound is surrounded by barbed wire and paid guards, but that is just one of the signs of an exclusive compound. So, teachers, police, firemen, roads, potable water? Those are just freebies for the people we don't care about. I mean, if you were stupid enough to let us siphon trillions from your economy, do you really deserve something like electricity?

With lowest regards,

A certain type of wealthy person
 
2012-12-03 09:37:45 PM

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?


You can't make deals, you're a nobody. Go back to suckin' on your beansprout shake, while living your worthless life, and leave the deal makin' to people qualified to make deals.
 
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...
 
2012-12-04 02:00:23 PM

Apik0r0s: 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.


I heard that a black woman from New Orleans bought a high-end designer hardback with a FEMA cash card after hurricane Katrina. Why do we still have FEMA? We should shut down the government and let private industry do disaster relief.
 
2012-12-04 02:01:10 PM

The Larch: Apik0r0s: 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.

I heard that a black woman from New Orleans bought a high-end designer hardback handbag with a FEMA cash card after hurricane Katrina. Why do we still have FEMA? We should shut down the government and let private industry do disaster relief.


What the heck is a hardback?
 
2012-12-04 05:14:19 PM

The Larch: The Larch: Apik0r0s: 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.

I heard that a black woman from New Orleans bought a high-end designer hardback handbag with a FEMA cash card after hurricane Katrina. Why do we still have FEMA? We should shut down the government and let private industry do disaster relief.

What the heck is a hardback?


Tortoise-shell handbag.
 
2012-12-05 10:25:43 AM

The Larch: What the heck is a hardback?


I dunno, but it could be my penis.
 
2012-12-05 05:30:22 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: I really wish someone would show me where I can get these "gifts" the right keeps talking about, because so far all I have is a lot of student loans.


In their minds, your gift is probably that you are not locked in a work house being forced to pay it off the load at a dollar a day.

Consider where TFA comes from. Isn't that B1 Bob's old district?
 
Displayed 505 of 505 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report