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.

(Huffington Post)   Top 2% to GOP: Tax us, you dolts   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 286
    More: Obvious, GOP, human beings, United Technologies Corp., National Press, Pratt & Whitney, Scott DesJarlais, John Thune, aerospace industry  
•       •       •

6056 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 1:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 03:57:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: SovietCanuckistan: I bet tenpoundsofcheese only paid taxes on the first 5 pounds of cheese.

He's not here for thoughtful discussion. He's only here to libs libs libs. When challenged on anything of substance he disappears.


Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency. Funny.

Oh, and here you are posting negative and false comments about me, so why are you here?

As for thoughtful discussion, you do know that this is fark, right? we don't make news, we mock it.
 
2012-12-06 03:57:38 PM  

impaler: CorporatePerson: This. I was arguing with my cousin about taxes recently. He's a lifelong Republican and a small business owner and I was trying to get him to explain to me why he thinks letting the Bush era tax cut for top earners expire would cause prices to go up. He started off by saying "Let's say you make $250,000 a year. Obama's plan would require you to pay $16,000 extra in taxes."

What did he say when you explained 4% of $250,000 is only $10,000, and when you explained that 4% only applied to $ above $250,000?


All our correspondance is done in fb message form. He responds to me about once a week. His responses are typically 20-30 paragraphs long so I don't really get go too deep into anything. It's quite an impressive mountain of derp to scale but it's kinda cool finally being able to get a grasp on why some of my family believes what they believe.
 
2012-12-06 03:57:43 PM  

tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.


But cutting funding to PBS will fix everything. Romney said so! STOP PICKING ON THE 2% WHO HAVE 90% OF THE MONEY AND PAY LESS IN TAXES THAN THE POOR AND MIDDLE DO!!
 
2012-12-06 03:58:54 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: mrshowrules: incendi: mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?

We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?

That's my point. When the snow melts Obama can get the car out of the garage and just go to Canadian Tire and buy a $20 shovel (likely for $10) .

If the GOP wanted $60 for the shovel, they should have sold it when they had the leverage.

That is a stupid analogy.
The GOP knew they would never get the $60 (e.g. the mythical spending cuts) so why give up the shovel?


You could have had your old shovel, plus a brand new shovel and $40 extra in your pocket. All you have now is your shiatty old shovel that you still think is worth something.

Obama, now has a brand new shovel he bought it with $40 left in his pocket. Your shiatty shovel breaks in 2014. Obama's good shovel lasts until 2016 when he is moving south anyways. He sold the house to a nice lady who he works with.

/officially taking the analogy too far.
 
2012-12-06 03:59:00 PM  

jigger: JokerMattly: Congratulations, the Republicans won the house, where no one believed they would lose.
That's a new high in setting the bar low.
In other, more practical news, you lost IN the house (lost seats, lost a quarter of the Tea Party Caucus), Lost in the Senate
and lost in the Presidency.

But really, keep thinking this was a definitive win for your ideology. Really.

I swear. People can be so myopic sometimes. If you're not a member/slave of one party you must be of the other. 

The election(s) resulted in status quo ante as far as the balance of power between the two parties is concerned, so the people voted for...more of the same shiat, apparently.


Exactly. Not only did the vote for more of the same, but they specifically didn't vote for what they wanted in 2008, a Dem control of all three branches.
 
2012-12-06 03:59:07 PM  

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.

Every family in America also knows that if your spouse maxes out the credit card, you can't pay off the debt only by ceasing to use the card. You have to PAY THE FARKING BILL.


Fortunately, the national debt isn't on a damn Visa or American Express.
 
2012-12-06 04:00:13 PM  

xanadian: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

Fitting that "Rule 34" is in the URL.

/looks like it would make a damn good velvet painting
//no Elvis, though...


Rule 34 can often lead to needing brain bleach, but it can also deliver wonders.

Haldir and Eomer enjoying a field tryst (NSFW)
 
2012-12-06 04:02:09 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.


Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.
 
2012-12-06 04:03:17 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jigger: JokerMattly: Congratulations, the Republicans won the house, where no one believed they would lose.
That's a new high in setting the bar low.
In other, more practical news, you lost IN the house (lost seats, lost a quarter of the Tea Party Caucus), Lost in the Senate
and lost in the Presidency.

But really, keep thinking this was a definitive win for your ideology. Really.

I swear. People can be so myopic sometimes. If you're not a member/slave of one party you must be of the other. 

The election(s) resulted in status quo ante as far as the balance of power between the two parties is concerned, so the people voted for...more of the same shiat, apparently.

Exactly. Not only did the vote for more of the same, but they specifically didn't vote for what they wanted in 2008, a Dem control of all three branches.


So electing more Dems in all three branches = "not wanting Dems in all three branches"?
 
2012-12-06 04:04:40 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.

Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.


He's a troll and possibly a mod alt, all he's doing is generating clicks for the site.
 
2012-12-06 04:05:08 PM  

jst3p: tenpoundsofcheese: tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.

It isn't about the deficit or the debt.

It is about class warfare and "fairness". It is all about feeling good about sticking it to people rather than feeling good that unemployment has improved, wages have improved or debt is a lesser burden on us or future generations.

It is the easy thing to do, rather than what needs to get done to fix the economy.

False dichotomy is false. We need to do two things: 1) Decrease spending 2) increase revenue

.


That assumes that you disagree with Krugman that deficits don't matter. Do you disagree with him on that?
 
2012-12-06 04:06:43 PM  

incendi: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.

Every family in America also knows that if your spouse maxes out the credit card, you can't pay off the debt only by ceasing to use the card. You have to PAY THE FARKING BILL.

Fortunately, the national debt isn't on a damn Visa or American Express.


Household budget analogies are dumb, but I got the urge to herp that derp bad and went for it.
 
2012-12-06 04:07:34 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.

Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.


I provided a link that proved you wrong in the original thread.
I am not going to go off topic any more in this thread except to respond to your attack.

I often have you on ignore, so I may have missed some of your "replies" before.
 
2012-12-06 04:07:36 PM  

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


images.wikia.com

AHH! AHH! AHH! AHH! AHHHH!
 
2012-12-06 04:09:34 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jst3p: tenpoundsofcheese: tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.

It isn't about the deficit or the debt.

It is about class warfare and "fairness". It is all about feeling good about sticking it to people rather than feeling good that unemployment has improved, wages have improved or debt is a lesser burden on us or future generations.

It is the easy thing to do, rather than what needs to get done to fix the economy.

False dichotomy is false. We need to do two things: 1) Decrease spending 2) increase revenue

.

That assumes that you disagree with Krugman that deficits don't matter. Do you disagree with him on that?


I do because he said it a year and a half ago. And if you read the actual quote I agreed with him that deficits didn't matter. Right then. Now is not then.

Right now, deficits don't matter - a point borne out by all the evidence. But there's a school of thought - the modern monetary theory people - who say that deficits never matter, as long as you have your own currency.

I wish I could agree with that view - and it's not a fight I especially want, since the clear and present policy danger is from the deficit peacocks of the right. But for the record, it's just not right.
 
2012-12-06 04:09:48 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.

Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.

I provided a link that proved you wrong in the original thread.
I am not going to go off topic any more in this thread except to respond to your attack.

I often have you on ignore, so I may have missed some of your "replies" before.


If I recall correctly, the link you posted proved nothing. Correction: it did prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
 
2012-12-06 04:10:35 PM  

tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.


After all of this time, I think I finally realize, you just have a factual misunderstanding of the world. This should be so easy, we can be friends after this! We don't need all of their money and we don't even need the top 2%. We only need 2/3rds of the money from the top 1% to completely solve the debt.

The average household wealth for the top 1% is around $20 million.
There are about 120 million households or 1.2 million in the top 1%.

If we took all of their money, we would gain $20 million * 1.2 million = $24 trillion

The current national debt is around $16 trillion. If we took 2/3rds of the money from everyone in the top 1%, we would have completely eliminated the debt. What's more, all of the households in that top 1% would still be worth an average of $6.7 million. I think they can get by on that. Boom, problem solved.
 
2012-12-06 04:11:09 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: I provided a link that proved you wrong in the original thread.


And I replied to that link, twice, showing how it was based on faulty information.

tenpoundsofcheese: I often have you on ignore, so I may have missed some of your "replies" before.


Well then maybe don't engage me in discussion, ignore my replies and then claim some sort of victory. Twice.
 
2012-12-06 04:11:58 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah:

He's a troll and possibly a mod alt, all he's doing is generating clicks for the site.


Definitely a paid shill, I got a time out for poking fun at him.
 
2012-12-06 04:13:50 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]


No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
2012-12-06 04:14:27 PM  

Maud Dib: Keizer_Ghidorah:

He's a troll and possibly a mod alt, all he's doing is generating clicks for the site.

Definitely a paid shill, I got a time out for poking fun at him.


The mods don't like it when you make one of their revenue generators sad.
 
2012-12-06 04:15:53 PM  

DirkValentine: Diogenes: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Sexy and surreal. I like it.

What is surreal about it? Elves and dwarves are natural homosexual lovers once you get past the initial social constructs of racial/ethnic division.


Since female dwarfs have beards, how do you know for sure that picture was a homosexual encounter?
 
2012-12-06 04:16:11 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

rule34-data-000.paheal.net
 
2012-12-06 04:25:23 PM  

lennavan: After all of this time, I think I finally realize, you just have a factual misunderstanding of the world. This should be so easy, we can be friends after this! We don't need all of their money and we don't even need the top 2%. We only need 2/3rds of the money from the top 1% to completely solve the debt.

The average household wealth for the top 1% is around $20 million.
There are about 120 million households or 1.2 million in the top 1%.

If we took all of their money, we would gain $20 million * 1.2 million = $24 trillion

The current national debt is around $16 trillion. If we took 2/3rds of the money from everyone in the top 1%, we would have completely eliminated the debt. What's more, all of the households in that top 1% would still be worth an average of $6.7 million. I think they can get by on that. Boom, problem solved.


Well, to be fair he probably meant all their income, which is a bit different. I'm not running the numbers. The problem with this particular rape the rich scenario is that most of their wealth isn't money... so while they are "worth", on average, "$20,000,000", what they've actually got is a bunch of property and investments that are valued based on the current market conditions. If you tried to liquidate all of that crap at once, or even in a relatively short period of time, you'd be lucky to get half price for it over all. The world economy can't just shiat out 24 trillion cash money and keep ticking along like nothing happened.

On the other hand, his "taking all their income won't solve everything so... something something you love obama" routine is kind of tiresome, so it's enjoyable to see somebody dickwhipping him around a little.
 
2012-12-06 04:27:59 PM  

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Household budget analogies are dumb, but I got the urge to herp that derp bad and went for it.


Heh, we all get that urge sometimes. Too bad you're being upstaged by the professionals... they're herping so many derps this thread might potato.
 
2012-12-06 04:30:41 PM  

AirForceVet: Mugato: ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."

I hear that a lot and it's really a bad argument. These people are obviously saying that ending the tax cuts would help the economy and the nation. One person, no matter how rich, giving more than they have to isn't going to do anything.

/doesn't care what the 2% pays personally

I nonconcur there, Mugato, about not caring with the 2% pay. I found it offensive that Mitt Romney paid less of a percentage of his income that I do.

While I understand why President Obama is only seeking to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more at this time, I would like to see the 2003 Bush tax cuts expire for all of us. They should have never been passed, especially after starting a second war by invading Iraq. 

/Very unpatriotic, IMHO.
//Totally self-serving for the party and its base; not America.


No, raising taxes on the middle class will harm the economy because we spend all of our tax breaks. The rich sock it away. Raising taxes on us would destroy demand and slow the economy.
 
2012-12-06 04:30:54 PM  

incendi: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Household budget analogies are dumb, but I got the urge to herp that derp bad and went for it.

Heh, we all get that urge sometimes. Too bad you're being upstaged by the professionals... they're herping so many derps this thread might potato Tebow.


ftfy

It is easy to get caught up, I slipped and responded to tenpoundsofderp.
 
2012-12-06 04:41:07 PM  

Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

I'd phase out elimination of mortgage tax deduction over much longer period.

If you phase it out over only 5 to 10 years you will immediately reduce the market value of homes, farking over people who own homes as well as restarting the financial crisis.

Also, both Obama and Boehner have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes (ir welfare)and reducing corp rates.

That's fine, we can haggle. But I think you can institute a cap and a no second mortgage rule much sooner, as well as not letting the deduction being taken on new purchases. I know they have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes, but it remains to be seen what we'll actually get out of it.


Okay, as part of my haggling we can't immediately eliminate it for new purchases. That's what will cause the huge drop in house prices (without the deduction people won't be able to afford nearly as much), and recreate the recession.

I tend to agree that it was bad policy to begin with a mortgage interest deduction, but now that we have it it's going to take a while to get rid of it without causing more problems.
 
2012-12-06 04:42:58 PM  
Top 2% to GOP: Tax us, you dolts because we're tired of everyone hating us, and we can afford to pay a little more if it gets us better PR

FTFY, subby.

BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.
 
2012-12-06 04:45:07 PM  

incendi: On the other hand, his "taking all their income won't solve everything so... something something you love obama" routine is kind of tiresome, so it's enjoyable to see somebody dickwhipping him around a little.


That was the point. The logic behind the talking point is fundamentally stupid, "this only helps a little so we shouldn't bother." The logic behind the talking also incorrect, it helps quite a bit more than a little. The difference between GOP and Obama's plan is $800 billion. That's hardly something to sneeze at.

But directly addressing his talking point clearly demonstrates how stupid he and it is. He said all their money, top 2% and won't make a dent. I demonstrated we only need 2/3 of their worth, only the top 1% and we fix the debt entirely. Talk about an ass whoopin.

The top 1% make an average of ~$1 million a year. So if we tax their income at 100%, that's 1 trillion dollars a year. I think that constitutes a "dent." But let's not be mean, let's just tax it at 90%. Even rich dudes gotta eat. $900 billion dollars a year. I just solved the projected 2013 budget deficit. No cuts needed. Any and all cuts can go directly to paying down the debt and I only needed income, the top 1% and 90% taxes, not 100%.

tomwfox.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-06 04:50:39 PM  

lennavan: incendi: On the other hand, his "taking all their income won't solve everything so... something something you love obama" routine is kind of tiresome, so it's enjoyable to see somebody dickwhipping him around a little.

That was the point. The logic behind the talking point is fundamentally stupid, "this only helps a little so we shouldn't bother." The logic behind the talking also incorrect, it helps quite a bit more than a little. The difference between GOP and Obama's plan is $800 billion. That's hardly something to sneeze at.

But directly addressing his talking point clearly demonstrates how stupid he and it is. He said all their money, top 2% and won't make a dent. I demonstrated we only need 2/3 of their worth, only the top 1% and we fix the debt entirely. Talk about an ass whoopin.

The top 1% make an average of ~$1 million a year. So if we tax their income at 100%, that's 1 trillion dollars a year. I think that constitutes a "dent." But let's not be mean, let's just tax it at 90%. Even rich dudes gotta eat. $900 billion dollars a year. I just solved the projected 2013 budget deficit. No cuts needed. Any and all cuts can go directly to paying down the debt and I only needed income, the top 1% and 90% taxes, not 100%.

[tomwfox.files.wordpress.com image 578x504]


The problem is he has no idea what he is talking about. He is repeating a talking point with no understanding of the underlying principals or facts. Here is what will happen tonight:

"Hey Honey how was work?"

"Pretty good. You know how I like to debate on fark? I made a great point and then some stupid libtard used bullshiat leftist spin and lies to try and make it seem like I was wrong! Goddamn Fartbongo supporters! What's on Fox News?"
 
2012-12-06 04:53:30 PM  

Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.


I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?
 
2012-12-06 04:58:41 PM  

lennavan: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

Kinda makes you wonder why so many stupid people take a second job, right? All they need to do is stop buying plasma TVs.


Funny story; first time I ever heard about plasma TVs when I was a kid my brain kept going to biological plasma membranes and I confused myself pretty terribly.

[/threadjack]
 
2012-12-06 05:00:32 PM  

incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?


Would be more accurate to say "As long as person A is different than person B, person A is going to be vilified".

This is true with differences is wealth, skin color, sexual orientation, age, physical abilities / disabilities etc. You'll have to pardon me for feeling least sorry for those vilified for being wealthy.
 
2012-12-06 05:00:52 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 600x650]


I suppose as long as we avoid any "my precious" puns I'll simply sit here and bear it.

\possibly not the best phrasing.
 
2012-12-06 05:01:11 PM  

incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?


He's just stating a fact. Tangential though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".
 
2012-12-06 05:03:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".


The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.
 
2012-12-06 05:05:14 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 600x650]

I suppose as long as we avoid any "my precious" puns I'll simply sit here and bear it.

\possibly not the best phrasing.


Don't be afraid. Elven love is a tender and passionate thing.

rule34-data-000.paheal.net
 
2012-12-06 05:06:35 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.


Olay, I suppose it is irrelevant. But which fark posts are not? We ain't solving shiat here.
 
2012-12-06 05:07:36 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.


I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.
 
2012-12-06 05:09:18 PM  
Someone needs to make a Libertarian Legolas meme pointing out that all this homo-erotic elven fan-fic is a case of legal theft.
 
2012-12-06 05:12:15 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.

I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.


I know.

A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"
 
2012-12-06 05:13:32 PM  

jst3p: Keizer_Ghidorah: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.

I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.

I know.

A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"


More like "Liberals stole half my water!!!".
 
2012-12-06 05:17:41 PM  

jst3p: A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"


Democrats are kept up at night thinking somewhere there is someone who deserves help that is not getting it.

Republicans are kept up at night thinking somewhere there is someone who does not deserve help that is getting it.
 
2012-12-06 05:24:12 PM  

jst3p: Keizer_Ghidorah: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.

I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.

I know.

A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"


Actually, since we're being silly with oversimplified analogies, conservatives know that liberals stole half their water. And the liberals are looking at the conservative's half glass and whining "you still have half a glass of water, why don't you pay your 'fair share'"?!
 
2012-12-06 05:46:50 PM  
This thread went all this time without eyebleach?
 
2012-12-06 05:53:14 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: This thread went all this time without eyebleach?


Not everyone thinks sexy men loving each other is an eye bleach-worthy thing.
 
2012-12-06 05:57:31 PM  

jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.


That's right. The ONLY way is to cut expenses, not increase your income. If you have 5000 in bills every month, and 4000 in income, the ONLY solution is to cut your expenses. If your boss offers you a raise, tell him to forget it.
 
2012-12-06 05:58:15 PM  
The majority of rich people who stand by tax cuts for the rich aren't rich at all... Just displaced millionaires, someone threw this out there I love it so much.
 
2012-12-06 05:58:49 PM  

lennavan: The top 1% make an average of ~$1 million a year. So if we tax their income at 100%, that's 1 trillion dollars a year. I think that constitutes a "dent." But let's not be mean, let's just tax it at 90%. Even rich dudes gotta eat. $900 billion dollars a year. I just solved the projected 2013 budget deficit. No cuts needed. Any and all cuts can go directly to paying down the debt and I only needed income, the top 1% and 90% taxes, not 100%.


You can tax people all you want. You cannot guarantee that they will pay it. i.e. France/Greece

Just like you can tax the 2% all you want and feel awesome about it until you realize that each and every one of these people has art foundations set up whereby they take their personal fortune, donate it to the art foundation and shelter the money away, or set up companies in non-RTW states, or purchase properties with dummy corps, or derive their income from capital gains or start their own Churches

This notion that we have a biggest-pecker competition on who can pay more taxes is nonsense. If you told Fred Smith you'd be taking 75% of his assets and 90% of his income, he'd personally fly a FedEx jet to Costa Rica.
 
Displayed 50 of 286 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report