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.

(NewsChannel 5 Nashville) NewsFlash Obama says fiscal cliff deal is "emerging." OK HOPE IS COMING OUT   (newschannel5.com) divider line 993
    More: NewsFlash, obama  
•       •       •

4947 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 2:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-31 11:49:18 PM
fark with the rigging all you want, the sails are tattered, you're stuck at sea.

As long as you benchmark your taxation to an illusory asset whose value is set by rates which can and will remain negative, while at the same time expanding supply of said asset.. Whatever.

There's this ting called reality, and it will intercede. The federal government having control of an income tax is insane. It creates irreparable distortions, hence the 250 is totally different over here argument.. You all deserve what's coming.
 
2012-12-31 11:52:08 PM

Frederick: SuperNinjaToad: I would call nukes more of a deterrent type weapon system. Aircraft carriers would fall close to that area as well...Everyone knows that nukes are so outrageously dangerous and a weapon of such unimaginable horror that having even just one can actually minimize the risk or war or total escalation. In some ironic and discombobulated ways having nukes is actually a good thing.

I agree with bolded.  My point is we can scale back that spending a lot and still maintain the effects.  The language we use is purposeful.  The term "Defense spending" is used because of the perception it creates.  As if cutting "defense spending" would leave us vulnerable -when it wouldnt.  I find that purposeful use intentionally misleading.

Also, I know this will be unpopular, but we loose a little bit of the integrity of saying "deterrent" when we actually used nukes (A-bombs) offensively previously.


Hey, we deterred the shiat out of those people!
 
2012-12-31 11:52:35 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: And it's also amusing how much you complain about how Democrats spend, when Republicans war profiteers wanted ANOTHER war, this time with Iran, after all the money wasted with Bush's first two wars.


FTFY
 
2012-12-31 11:58:00 PM

knowless: fark with the rigging all you want, the sails are tattered, you're stuck at sea.

As long as you benchmark your taxation to an illusory asset whose value is set by rates which can and will remain negative, while at the same time expanding supply of said asset.. Whatever.

There's this ting called reality, and it will intercede. The federal government having control of an income tax is insane. It creates irreparable distortions, hence the 250 is totally different over here argument.. You all deserve what's coming.


$250k is doing very, very well anywhere in this country and to argue otherwise simply shows a complete disconnect with the real world.
 
2012-12-31 11:59:18 PM

lohphat: Keizer_Ghidorah: And it's also amusing how much you complain about how Democrats spend, when Republicans war profiteers wanted ANOTHER war, this time with Iran, after all the money wasted with Bush's first two wars.

FTFY


Synonyms.
 
2013-01-01 12:07:20 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.


www.upsonsfarm.co.uk

//you know she smexy
 
2013-01-01 12:15:45 AM

cretinbob: tenpoundsofcheese: yes, we learned that we are not even willing to defend our embassy and ambassador in Benghazi.

[www.upsonsfarm.co.uk image 250x250]

//you know she smexy


Oh, cock.
 
2013-01-01 12:18:18 AM
The President is not wearing pants
 
2013-01-01 12:21:04 AM

vrax: knowless: fark with the rigging all you want, the sails are tattered, you're stuck at sea.

As long as you benchmark your taxation to an illusory asset whose value is set by rates which can and will remain negative, while at the same time expanding supply of said asset.. Whatever.

There's this ting called reality, and it will intercede. The federal government having control of an income tax is insane. It creates irreparable distortions, hence the 250 is totally different over here argument.. You all deserve what's coming.

$250k is doing very, very well anywhere in this country and to argue otherwise simply shows a complete disconnect with the real world.


I would say $250k in California is a lot different than $250k in Iowa.  But I agree that is where the cutoff would be better served.
 
2013-01-01 12:25:33 AM
Holy crap you farkers, I am so pleased and proud with you all. Thanks for making my first greenlight such a runaway success.
 
2013-01-01 12:35:14 AM

SuperNinjaToad: Mighty Taternuts: The whole 250k in New York City is such a bullshiat argument.

The median household income in New York City is like 66k, 1/4 of 250k. If you make 4 times the average family you can stand a 3% hit on your income above 250k.

In all fairness, I think that when people say NYC they specifically meant Manhattan and not the all the boroughs... in which case they are closer to the truth than not.
$66K in Manhattan would be quite challenging to live to say the least.


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The median income for Manhattan County is not far off of what I posted.

Where are you getting your facts? Or do you not have any?
 
2013-01-01 12:36:29 AM

Betrayal_By_Tyrannosaur: Holy crap you farkers, I am so pleased and proud with you all. Thanks for making my first greenlight such a runaway success.


KILL THIS MAN before he strikes again!
 
2013-01-01 12:47:29 AM

Frederick: vrax: knowless: fark with the rigging all you want, the sails are tattered, you're stuck at sea.

As long as you benchmark your taxation to an illusory asset whose value is set by rates which can and will remain negative, while at the same time expanding supply of said asset.. Whatever.

There's this ting called reality, and it will intercede. The federal government having control of an income tax is insane. It creates irreparable distortions, hence the 250 is totally different over here argument.. You all deserve what's coming.

$250k is doing very, very well anywhere in this country and to argue otherwise simply shows a complete disconnect with the real world.

I would say $250k in California is a lot different than $250k in Iowa.  But I agree that is where the cutoff would be better served.


Median household income in San Francisco is 72k, under 1/3 of 250k. Sure it may be different in Iowa but no one making 250k in California is hurting in any way.
 
2013-01-01 12:49:39 AM
Hopefully, the next time the rich and powerful are pushing for another war of choice, they'll remember that they'll actually have to pay for it eventually.
 
2013-01-01 12:58:20 AM

Frederick: vrax: knowless: fark with the rigging all you want, the sails are tattered, you're stuck at sea.

As long as you benchmark your taxation to an illusory asset whose value is set by rates which can and will remain negative, while at the same time expanding supply of said asset.. Whatever.

There's this ting called reality, and it will intercede. The federal government having control of an income tax is insane. It creates irreparable distortions, hence the 250 is totally different over here argument.. You all deserve what's coming.

$250k is doing very, very well anywhere in this country and to argue otherwise simply shows a complete disconnect with the real world.

I would say $250k in California is a lot different than $250k in Iowa.  But I agree that is where the cutoff would be better served.


Oh, there's no doubt. In most of California $250k is doing very, very well. You might look poor in Atherton or something, but there's "doing very well" and then there's "rich".
 
2013-01-01 01:12:21 AM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Hopefully, the next time the rich and powerful are pushing for another war of choice, they'll remember that they'll actually have to pay for it eventually.


The take-away won't be that. It will be to buy your politicians lock, stock and full party enough to get what they want, not just a few of them and hope that they will lead the others.

This is just the beginning of things getting bad. We've won a short battle...one that we were almost guaranteed to win. Unless Citizens United is repealed you will see a distinct and clear vision for who gets backed by whom and these will largely lead the party.
 
2013-01-01 01:17:41 AM

Betrayal_By_Tyrannosaur: Holy crap you farkers, I am so pleased and proud with you all. Thanks for making my first greenlight such a runaway success.


I just want to tell you good luck with your future submissions. We're all counting on you.
 
2013-01-01 02:24:48 AM

Frederick: Also, I know this will be unpopular, but we loose a little bit of the integrity of saying "deterrent" when we actually used nukes (A-bombs) offensively previously.


Perhaps we can send the money we don't spend on defense to sit every person in this country down and teach them the difference between lose and loose.

/how many billions do we need for that?
 
2013-01-01 02:42:59 AM

peterthx: Frederick: Also, I know this will be unpopular, but we loose a little bit of the integrity of saying "deterrent" when we actually used nukes (A-bombs) offensively previously.

Perhaps we can send the money we don't spend on defense to sit every person in this country down and teach them the difference between lose and loose.

/how many billions do we need for that?


Whatever you do, don't hire teachers or defense contractors.
 
2013-01-01 03:29:45 AM

Wangiss: peterthx: Frederick: Also, I know this will be unpopular, but we loose a little bit of the integrity of saying "deterrent" when we actually used nukes (A-bombs) offensively previously.

Perhaps we can send the money we don't spend on defense to sit every person in this country down and teach them the difference between lose and loose.

/how many billions do we need for that?

Whatever you do, don't hire teachers or defense contractors.


I knew that would be unpopular.

\dangit stoopid
 
2013-01-01 03:43:31 AM
If the House doesn't pass the compromise, they should be forced to get gay married.

/Looking for the Morning After Bill
 
2013-01-01 04:21:16 AM

Scorpinock: If the House doesn't pass the compromise, they should be forced to get gay married.

/Looking for the Morning After Bill


That is what the sitcom about the Clintons should be called.
 
2013-01-01 06:07:10 AM

Flying Lasagna Monster: Obama's chief negotiator celebrates the fiscal cliff deal:

[www.troubleinrivercity.com image 460x347]


Applause.

You have just demonstrated exactly what's wrong with Washington.

Republicans: Led by a guy with a goofy orange tan, and sworn ideological fealty to a fat fark with permastubble and/or a Jew that died 2000 years ago. Therefore AHURHURHUR it's the libbys that are retarded! Uhhuh huhuhuhhhhuh.
 
2013-01-01 06:08:37 AM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 478x599]

/RON PAUL!1!!1!!eleventy!1!
/fiscal cliffs aren't in the Constitution


I'm a Paulaneer, but that made me larf.
 
2013-01-01 06:17:40 AM

HighOnCraic: [shop.sportsworldcards.com image 351x500]

RIP, Cliff


Awesome reference.
 
2013-01-01 07:31:34 AM
Sadly a flat tax would get rid of all of this bickering about tax hikes and would have made the fiscal cliff news warble a moot point for the most part. However the majority in this country wants to punish those above them and that's all that matters to most. Also people comparing and defending incomes from different geographical areas is mildly entertaining as a lot think their existence should translate to what everyone else has that they converse with.

I was hoping to see the country run over the fiscal cliff to see who and what would melt down and implode.
 
2013-01-01 07:51:42 AM

RabidJade: Sadly a flat tax would get rid of all of this bickering about tax hikes and would have made the fiscal cliff news warble a moot point for the most part. However the majority in this country wants to punish those above them and that's all that matters to most. Also people comparing and defending incomes from different geographical areas is mildly entertaining as a lot think their existence should translate to what everyone else has that they converse with.

I was hoping to see the country run over the fiscal cliff to see who and what would melt down and implode.


Tall poppy syndrom.
 
2013-01-01 08:54:20 AM

lenfromak: sonnyboy11: Please do not set it at $400k and up. Stay at $250k. Thx

Yeah, penalize even moderately successful people like me.


You're implying that setting the "rich" tax at $250,000 would affect you, and that you regard yourself as only "moderately successful"? The median income in this country is ~$50,000. My wife and I are both retired and living very comfortably on $70,000/year -- or we could, but we actually spend a good deal less than that since our tastes and lifestyle are not extravagant, and we have zero debt. I would say we are "moderately successful.

Anyone who can't get by on a quarter-million a year anywhere in the U.S. is definitely doing it wrong. And anyone who has as much as a half-million coming in every year couldn't possibly have earned it by honest labor. Go ahead and tax the crap out of them.
 
2013-01-01 09:02:19 AM

imontheinternet: ArtosRC: So, what, are they simply delaying an actual deal for another year, just like they did before?

Most likely.  Let the Bush tax cuts expire on $250K+, pass some token spending cuts but set them out long enough to have time to repeal or modify them, and pass a kick-the-can measure on the fiscal cliff trigger.

Plus, the debt ceiling will be breached in a few weeks anyway.


. . . and it appears to me that Obama is basically giving away what leverage he would have had when the Republicans stonewall on the debt ceiling -- and they will. Why the hell couldn't the president have stood fast. He's far too willing to compromise when the other side is playing a dishonest game..
 
2013-01-01 09:29:12 AM

vrax: knowless: fark with the rigging all you want, the sails are tattered, you're stuck at sea.

As long as you benchmark your taxation to an illusory asset whose value is set by rates which can and will remain negative, while at the same time expanding supply of said asset.. Whatever.

There's this ting called reality, and it will intercede. The federal government having control of an income tax is insane. It creates irreparable distortions, hence the 250 is totally different over here argument.. You all deserve what's coming.

$250k is doing very, very well anywhere in this country and to argue otherwise simply shows a complete disconnect with the real world.


And, as had been pointed out but still needs to be pointed out again, $250k is $250k taxable income, not total income. That means you are making maybe $300 or $350k before deductions. And also, someone making that much would not pay any more tax than you do on the "first" $250K of taxable income, they would only pay a little more on the rest. Seems reasonable to me to return to the previous rates that are far less than they used to be historically.
 
2013-01-01 10:34:29 AM

david_gaithersburg: coeyagi: shower_in_my_socks: david_gaithersburg: The cheapest house in MoCo is $350K, and that's for a tear down. So yeah, $250K is low.


And the cheapest house on Carbon Beach in Malibu is $10M. Won't somebody please think of the "lower middle-class" millionaires living on Carbon Beach? It's a stupid argument. $250k/year is a shiatload of money. I live better than most people I know, in an expensive city, and I make less than half that.

I am not entirely sure why we keep engaging this guy. His math is pretty indicative of the brainfarts of a mongoloid. Because your average mongoloid thinks that the DC region should be the litmus test for tax rates.

.
I love fark. Yeah my math sucks. I retired at 42, came out of retirement to lead the finical workings of an global company. They wanted me because my math sucks. LOL!


If you seriously think 250,000 is low middle income and that the tax rates shouldn't be based on that figure because of that assessment, your math sucks and I hope your company goes under because of their crappy hiring practices.
 
2013-01-01 11:21:57 AM

Brostorm: cchris_39: scubamage: There you go. My finances. I have nothing to hide.

Ok why not.

245 here. Basically you, 20 years from now.

3k house payment, titer up ancillary expenses associated with that.
2 kids in college. Financial aid? No, you're paying full freight. 50k a year there. And all of those wonderful education credits are completely phased out.
Most of your other deductions are phased out or down to the minimum allowed.
Another 50k in federal income taxes.
Another 12k in FICA and Medicare.
4 car payments.
Car insurance for 2 college age boys isn't cheap. Neither is life insurance for 50+ Mom & Dad.

Weddings are coming next (at least they aren't girls).

So is retirement.

It's a good living and I'm grateful for it, but you're not getting rich at this level.

You realize you live a life of luxury 98% of the country cant touch right? Did I just get trolled?


No. But, it does show us that no matter how much the wealthy scream about monetary responsibility they aren't nearly as "responsible" as they would like the world to think. This guy is paying for new cars and insurance for his adult children who are attending school. Also, life insurance? Why? These adults should already be well prepared for life on their own. He is also paying 20.4% in taxes (assuming his income is 245,000 even), which is lower than most people earning 1/5 of what he is. I would say my income is middle-class (but being a farmer, most "income" goes right back into the land) but I don't have nearly the same financial woes this guy has, most of which is self-inflicted. He should see a financial advisor.
 
2013-01-01 11:33:02 AM

coeyagi: david_gaithersburg: coeyagi: shower_in_my_socks: david_gaithersburg: The cheapest house in MoCo is $350K, and that's for a tear down. So yeah, $250K is low.


And the cheapest house on Carbon Beach in Malibu is $10M. Won't somebody please think of the "lower middle-class" millionaires living on Carbon Beach? It's a stupid argument. $250k/year is a shiatload of money. I live better than most people I know, in an expensive city, and I make less than half that.

I am not entirely sure why we keep engaging this guy. His math is pretty indicative of the brainfarts of a mongoloid. Because your average mongoloid thinks that the DC region should be the litmus test for tax rates.

.
I love fark. Yeah my math sucks. I retired at 42, came out of retirement to lead the finical workings of an global company. They wanted me because my math sucks. LOL!

If you seriously think 250,000 is low middle income and that the tax rates shouldn't be based on that figure because of that assessment, your math sucks and I hope your company goes under because of their crappy hiring practices.



This whole farking "$150k or $250k isn't a lot of monety in DC because of cost of living" bullshiat is a myth. It gets repeated all the time but it's just not true.

Right wing logic: minimum wage is too high, food stamps are a luxury, but $250K is barely "middle income".

It's like a wide open firehose of bullshiat.
 
2013-01-01 12:24:21 PM

lordjupiter: Right wing logic: minimum wage is too high, food stamps are a luxury, but $250K is barely "middle income".


Also, teachers earn too much, unions are destroying business, and Mitt Romney is a job excretor.
 
2013-01-01 12:53:12 PM
So for every "promised" tax cut of $1 we are taxed $41 dollars. Nah - we don't have a spending problem.
 
2013-01-01 01:38:45 PM

lordjupiter: coeyagi: david_gaithersburg: coeyagi: shower_in_my_socks: david_gaithersburg: The cheapest house in MoCo is $350K, and that's for a tear down. So yeah, $250K is low.


And the cheapest house on Carbon Beach in Malibu is $10M. Won't somebody please think of the "lower middle-class" millionaires living on Carbon Beach? It's a stupid argument. $250k/year is a shiatload of money. I live better than most people I know, in an expensive city, and I make less than half that.

I am not entirely sure why we keep engaging this guy. His math is pretty indicative of the brainfarts of a mongoloid. Because your average mongoloid thinks that the DC region should be the litmus test for tax rates.

.
I love fark. Yeah my math sucks. I retired at 42, came out of retirement to lead the finical workings of an global company. They wanted me because my math sucks. LOL!

If you seriously think 250,000 is low middle income and that the tax rates shouldn't be based on that figure because of that assessment, your math sucks and I hope your company goes under because of their crappy hiring practices.


This whole farking "$150k or $250k isn't a lot of monety in DC because of cost of living" bullshiat is a myth. It gets repeated all the time but it's just not true.

Right wing logic: minimum wage is too high, food stamps are a luxury, but $250K is barely "middle income".

It's like a wide open firehose of bullshiat.


I'd say $150k is middle income, $250k not at all. Until recently I was living in near ghetto in MD making close to $100k
 
2013-01-01 03:14:46 PM

The Larch: lordjupiter: Right wing logic: minimum wage is too high, food stamps are a luxury, but $250K is barely "middle income".

Also, teachers earn too much, unions are destroying business, and Mitt Romney is a job excretor.


And NPR and Planned Parenthood make a meaningful contribution to the deficit. And the rich (sorry. "job creators") will go elsewhere if we raise taxes on them. Even though the USA has the lowest effective tax rate of any first world nation.
 
2013-01-01 03:16:22 PM

mksmith: And anyone who has as much as a half-million coming in every year couldn't possibly have earned it by honest labor.


Seriously though? I hate the bullshiat "job creator" nonsense, but this is quite literally hating someone because they make a certain amount of money.

Which is idiotic. The rich are not hated because they are rich, they're hated because they game the system and whine when called out on it.
 
2013-01-01 08:38:32 PM
And by the way: fark you, asswipe. Don't you have bigger fish to fry instead of using your powers only on people who disagree with you -- conveniently neglecting all the shiat that comes from right-wingers -- because a person had the temerity to justifiably call some deserving farktard (who his poor little feelings hurt in the process and ran to you like a little biatch) an idiot, you right-wing shiat-sucking stupe?
 
2013-01-01 09:18:45 PM

MindStalker: lordjupiter: coeyagi: david_gaithersburg: coeyagi: shower_in_my_socks: david_gaithersburg: The cheapest house in MoCo is $350K, and that's for a tear down. So yeah, $250K is low.


And the cheapest house on Carbon Beach in Malibu is $10M. Won't somebody please think of the "lower middle-class" millionaires living on Carbon Beach? It's a stupid argument. $250k/year is a shiatload of money. I live better than most people I know, in an expensive city, and I make less than half that.

I am not entirely sure why we keep engaging this guy. His math is pretty indicative of the brainfarts of a mongoloid. Because your average mongoloid thinks that the DC region should be the litmus test for tax rates.

.
I love fark. Yeah my math sucks. I retired at 42, came out of retirement to lead the finical workings of an global company. They wanted me because my math sucks. LOL!

If you seriously think 250,000 is low middle income and that the tax rates shouldn't be based on that figure because of that assessment, your math sucks and I hope your company goes under because of their crappy hiring practices.


This whole farking "$150k or $250k isn't a lot of monety in DC because of cost of living" bullshiat is a myth. It gets repeated all the time but it's just not true.

Right wing logic: minimum wage is too high, food stamps are a luxury, but $250K is barely "middle income".

It's like a wide open firehose of bullshiat.

I'd say $150k is middle income, $250k not at all. Until recently I was living in near ghetto in MD making close to $100k



Then you need to manage your finances better. The median income for an entire household in MD 2007-2011 per the census was a little over $72K. That's less than half of what you're claiming is "middle income". Per capita is a bit above $35K, which is roughly 1/4th of what you say is middle income.

And even if you go for DC at 6th in the country in terms of cost of living, the median household income is still about $86K.

Based on the costs of goods and services in this country, and the average incomes for most people, there is no bullshiatting us that $150,000 isn't a comfortable amount of money well above what someone needs to get by. It all depends on how you spend and manage it. If you buy a shiatload of new cars and take trips to Europe with 5 kids and all kinds of crazy shiat, OBVIOUSLY you're cutting your budget closer because you're buying more top end, extravagant things.

And that makes one "upper class", not middle income.
 
2013-01-01 09:24:45 PM

James F. Campbell: And by the way: fark you, asswipe. Don't you have bigger fish to fry instead of using your powers only on people who disagree with you -- conveniently neglecting all the shiat that comes from right-wingers -- because a person had the temerity to justifiably call some deserving farktard (who his poor little feelings hurt in the process and ran to you like a little biatch) an idiot, you right-wing shiat-sucking stupe?


you mad?
 
2013-01-02 02:03:44 PM
HOPE IS COMING OUT?

blogs.villagevoice.com
 
2013-01-02 04:43:15 PM

HighOnCraic: HOPE IS COMING OUT?


Thread winner
 
Displayed 43 of 993 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report