Is Everyone Who Voted Obama Happy Now? (2723 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.73 on 155 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Anthony Locascio (View user info) at 2009-02-26 13:32:17 EST
1 Trillion in new taxes.
Count it out folks. Get started now. If you go by ones, you won't finish in this lifetime. 1 Trillion dollars. Not in government bonds. Not payable in installments. 1 Trillion dollars. Cash. If you make a decent living, say over 40k+, you're going to pay more taxes, it's as simple as that. Maybe you hate conservatives, maybe you don't like this, you're an athiest, you love gays, whatever, I don't care. Is this new number enough to show you made a mistake? And don't talk to me about Bush. Bush is gone. Down in Texas, they don't even recognize the guy when he goes into the hardware store. I lived through Bush. Now I'm going to live with a president who has his hand out and says, to me, "More, please.".
More. More. More. The federal government takes over 1/3 of my paycheck before I even see it. It is almost certainly taking more than 1/4 of your paycheck, if you are doing anything more important than checking to see if the flowers are watered. I get the same tired song and dance "Well don't you want roads? Don't you want education? Don't you want....."
You have all sorts of questions for me, of all shapes and sizes. I have only one: Don't I pay enough? At 1/3 of my salary, 2.6 hours out of my day going straight into Uncle Sam's pockets, don't I pay enough?
"The poor! The homeless! AIDS! Green energy!"
Don't I pay enough?
"Darfur! Gaza! Global warming?"
Don't I pay enough?
"Free college! Free housing! Free mortgages!"
Don't I pay enough?
And if the answer to that question is "No", then I have one more question - right before I pack my bags, bid farewell to the American dream, and board a plane to some fictional land where I can profit from my labors. How much is enough?
User Reviews
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-03-06 16:50:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Agree with Hidden, but I think Skrap and Hidden's back and forth discussion was about 10,000X more intelligent than the original post.
I looked up the increases in business taxes, and the vast majority are specific to the oil and gas industry. There will be a more general disallownace of LIFO which can lead to some increase in taxes during times of high inflation, but it is small in times of low inflation. None take effect until 2011.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-03-06 13:14:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i was thinking about all this stuff today, and while skrap's argument sounds logical, i'm not sure he's got it completely right. i've read a lot of research that says that tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs, going off of historical evidence. i'm not sure that's completely true, either, but the evidence seems to hold enough weight to say that cutting taxes right now isn't really going to help as much as people think. i mean, where were all the jobs when Bush cut taxes?
i also don't understand why so many people on the right think that capitalism is the be-all-end-all way to do things. i don't think capitalism alone is safe for a society.
case in point- if a company is solely in business to make as much money as possible for it's shareholders, then what's to stop them from doing whatever it takes to do that? what about companies that use tax havens? cut their taxes. they'll laugh all the way to the bank and you won't see any new jobs being created. want to know why? they just shipped all their jobs overseas. the shareholders will benefit, sure. they will be able to spend more money on the expensive stuff they want, sure. but i think we can all agree that spending isn't really what's going to help the economy, it's creating more jobs. your local Wal-Mart doesn't hire more people because they had a good year. they hire people as needed.
the other thing that bothers me is that people with VERY short memories are acting like Obama is fucking everything up. where were they when their party had the White House, Senate, and Congress? the same GOP crybabies are the ones who voted for the first bailout for the most part. McCain's bullshit whining is the worst part of it. he would have won the election if he voted against the first TARP measure and did not offer to buy everyone's bad mortgage in the debates sounding like Lennon himself. but then again, picking Palin really screwed him. she was calling Obama a socialist all along while acting like the reincarnation of Marx up there in Alaska. not to mention she couldn't answer a question intelligently to save her life. anyway, i would love to know what moves McCain would be making if he had been elected instead. i'm not all that confident it would be better.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-03-05 17:20:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
for the record, skrap, i don't think you're greedy. but i do think some people here are without regard for the actual economy, but let's just not talk about that right now.
and i see your points and agree with them, but i don't think the rate that the taxes would go up under the proposal are really going to make a person's net income low enough not to be able to afford to pay the guy to mow the lawn. but i certainly agree that if my uncle has to lay people off, that's more of a tax burden and then of course, those people aren't able to afford services themselves with their unemployment check, and in turn, more people are hurt financially down the line. it's really basic economics. but like i said, i'm just not certain it's feasible. if my taxes jump up another 3%, i can't really see a change in my spending behavior. maybe i'm just young and naive, but here's the thing- i put away money into savings, i put money into investments, and then i have an account that money goes into for the mortgage and my more expensive bills (like the goddamn $500 power bill), and i also have an account that is all disposable money. the thing is, i don't change my habits, but the disposable money account keeps accumulating more money. i'm already saving and investing at my target levels. should i be saving more?
i've just put myself in a position where a tax increase isn't really going to affect me. i did that on purpose. so i could keep living the way i am now, despite a tax increase. yeah, my 401k has lost a good 50 grand in the past few months. hopefully that rebounds. but i'm still doing just fine with this recession.
anyway, i brought up my uncle because i was under the impression that his marginal tax rate went up, but he was still able to hire more people. that's what he told me. i certainly do agree with what you said though. i'd be a fool not to. i just don't agree with everything you say. like i said before, i don't want government assistance programs to get out of control and i want them to be closely watched and i'm not too keen on seeing new ones popping up, but i don't want them to go away completely.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-03-05 16:57:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Your uncle payed more in taxes than ever before because he made more than ever before, not because his tax rate was doubled. That's a sign of a good economy. He hired more people because there were projects he could put them on and he could afford to pay them. The reason that was the case was that business was keeping the economy strong with work to be done and lower taxes allowed him to use more of his earned money to put people to work. That's how economies really grow.
If you take his business' money as tax with the idea of using it to do projects for which he can hire people and earn that money back, what happens from his perespective (and mine) is that you take his money but give only a portion of it back (and even that is assuming he gets the government construction contract in the first place). Thus, with less money that he would have had were he allowed to keep what he earned, he can hire fewer people to do the work and those only until the job's done, in case he doesn't get the next contract.
In a couple years when there will still be little construction work to be done but taxes will be significantly higher for business owners like him, your uncle might not get any contracts and be forced to lay off most of his people. Then he doesn't make much money (but he pays a higher tax rate on what he does make), and his laid-off employees are burdens on the taxpayers rather than being taxpayers themselves. How exactly is that better for America than having your uncle making a ton of money and keeping a bunch of people working?
I don't have employees as such, but I do have service people who mow my lawn, spray for insects, do work around my house that I cannot or don't want to do, and lots of other things. If I have to pay more taxes and thereby reduce my available income, do you suppose I'll continue paying the lawn guy and just decide not to maintain my house? Nope. Sorry, lawn guy, but you're out of a job; I need the money you cost to recaulk the windows, and I'll be doing that myself since the oddjob guy cists too much now as well. Reducing my income by raising my taxes will affect my household only after it affects those outside my household who partially rely on my income. That's not personal greed, that's simply good personal financial practice. When you have less money to spend, you should be spending less money. Putting into place the circumstances that make everyone reduce our support of the economy and then making it even more difficult to get back to the point wherein we can afford to support the economy is in no way a stimulus to the economy.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-03-05 15:06:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-03-05 14:18:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Hidden - 35% of $10,000 is $3,500, not $500.
======================================================
i didn't write that last section. you can tell because it was capitalized. and i did in fact read it before i posted it and although i'm bad at math, i was sharp enough to pick up on the fact that 500 bucks isn't 35% of 10 grand. that part read to me like an example and not an actual number that was calculated from 35%.
i was trying to point out that nothing about raising taxes right now is all that different from what we've seen historically. look, i'm no economist, and the real economists disagree on what works and what doesn't work in regards to raising taxes when we're facing a depression. taxes were raised during the great depression and the highest earners in the country paid NINETY FOUR PERCENT. and guess what? it stayed that way for a very long time (until '63 i believe but don't quote me on that) while we were going through an economic boom after the depression was over.
i wasn't alive during the great depression and the last relative of mine that was old enough to remember it died about 10 years ago. but people were starving to death, i do know that. lots of bad things happened to people that weren't rich enough to still be ok during that time. you may not agree with government assistance programs because you think giving anyone money is "spreading the wealth" and "socialism", but what if we spiraled into depression like we did in the past and your neighbor was starving to death? what if they came to your door and asked for some bread? would you turn them away because you think they should have been more financially responsible? maybe they were doing great and a family member got cancer and they couldn't pay the extremely high hospital bills and then that person died, sending them into a depression that affected them in such a way that their earnings suffered? sounds like a big sob story, huh? well it happens. i guess having a few people that abuse government assistance programs should be a good enough excuse to get rid of those programs though.
that, and we wouldn't want you to part with you precious money because then you couldn't hire more people if you owned a business, right? i remember when my uncle was over at my house for a bbq and we were having a beer and smoking a cigar in the beautiful, peaceful backyard at my newly purchased home. it's a great house and not to mention huge. way more than i need, but i wanted it. i was just talking to him about how i paid more in taxes that year than i made a couple years prior, and yet i had just bought a huge new home and a couple cars, each in cash, and was doing better than ever. he also remarked that he paid about half a million in taxes last year because of his construction company he owns, which was the most he's ever paid, but his business was booming and he's hired more employees in his company's history.
i would certainly like to see government assistance greatly reduced in some cases. and i would also want a close eye kept on it. and if new programs are brought to the table, they should be very closely scrutinized, although i'm really not for any new assistance programs.
i am not a fucking socialist. the US has always been a country that mixes socialist and capitalist ideas for all of our entire lifetimes. even during times when you were most proud of this country, believe it or not. anyone who is not proud now, get the fuck out, we don't need you. maybe you can move to Belgiu-- oh wait... the rest of us Americans will roll up our sleeves, forget about the silly nonsense of fear mongering by labeling the president a socialist, and get through these tough economic times.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2009-03-05 14:26:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hidden said it best.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-03-05 14:18:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Hidden - 35% of $10,000 is $3,500, not $500. And next year when the top tax rate is 65% and I only get to keep $3,500 of that $10,000 I might have earned, it will indeed keep me from spending the time to earn it. I will have some extra time off to do stuff around the house and play guitar; time that only actually costs me $3,500 and not $10,000. And, wait, and (this is important) the government gets no income tax from me in that time. Nothing.
That's the Dem version of productivity stimulus, right there.
I encourage everyone who can to do exactly the same thing. If the Dems want to set up a Welfare State, then you jump up and take them for everything you can and contribute as little as possible. If you're among the 52% of Americans who pay no tax beyond what is deducted from your check, you go and apply for every concieveable government assitance program for which you even think you might be eligible. Out of work? Apply for government grants to go to school. Get some job training on the government tab while you're collecting unemployment. Single parent? WIC! Take everything you can, while you can. If you're in the minority that pays extra taxes, you can move your money to long-term tax-free or tax-deferred investments before the tax rates go up. You can move them back after the debacle is over. Set your own hours/compensation? Stay below the maximum tax rate for income by deferring income or increasing your vacation time. Own a business? Apply for government contracts! Follow the Dem lead and take take take!
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-03-05 13:24:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought the sarcasm was dripping.
Guess not.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2009-03-05 11:42:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
what hidden said.
this guy's a fucking moron.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-03-05 11:00:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i'll bet i pay way more in taxes than you and i don't mind a tax increase if it helps get America back on it's feet. i'm not a selfish, greedy prick like you. i guess that makes me a socialist. like i've said before, i like the fact that my tax dollars make my nice community nicer every day. i like the fact that my tax dollars go to improving America. i love my country. you sound like you'd sell it out in a heartbeat if you thought you weren't keeping enough of your precious money.
let me give you a little class on marginal tax rates throughout American history. hopefully the rest of you greedy fucks read this too-
The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. However, in the intervening years Congress subsequently increased the top marginal tax rate to 35% (the top marginal tax rate as of 2007).
In economics, marginal tax rates are important because they determine incentives to increase income; at high marginal tax rates, the individual has less incentive to earn more. Of course, this is true only in the most simplistic of economic theories. A rational person would not have less incentive to earn an extra $10,000 per year because it would result in an additional $500 annual tax liability.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-03-04 19:03:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-03-02 13:52:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This crisis will be solved by people like me--people that see an opportunity where others see a disaster--so why would you want my capital tied down and eaten up by taxes so that the poor and the useless can live another week on handouts?
===========================================================
You are going to solve this crisis with internet porn subscriptions?!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-03-04 12:23:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-03-02 13:52:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This crisis will be solved by people like me--people that see an opportunity where others see a disaster--so why would you want my capital tied down and eaten up by taxes so that the poor and the useless can live another week on handouts?
===
the canadian govt didn't raise tax. in fact, they were cut in 2008. so what are you complaining about?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2009-03-04 02:38:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-03-04 02:33:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What's well said about this?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-03-04 02:33:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
what's well said about this? some asshole thinks he deserves all the "money" he makes? you gotta be shitting me. i bet he works in a cubicle.
Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2009-03-04 01:50:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well said, dome.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2009-03-03 07:18:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Or get the balls to go out and start a company. You pissy little faggotized socialist. "
actually shitfuck you moron, i have started a company.a small one, but one that is making small amounts of money now, and will make lots of money in 5 years or so. that doesnt automatically make me into some greedy fuck who is out to screw whoever and whatever i can just to make a few more dollars.
actually, fuck it, phallic pretty much answered you perfectly. you missed the point entirely because you sound like you epitomise the sort of close-minded fuckwit who would blame a new government for the mistakes of past ones.
i just wanted to point out that youre not the only one who is a big shot business man.
Submitted by cheerios (user info) at 2009-03-03 00:10:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2009-03-03 00:05:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-03-02 13:52:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You fucking douchebag--it's the utterly greedy, selfish and completely unchecked behaivour of the global finance community that gives you the opportunity to have a job and a place to live
____
shitfuck, if you can't see the distinction between market capitalism in general and the immorality of high-risk loans given to people with weak ratings with extended liability through hedge funds and overseas accounts you're precisely as retarded as i think you are.
It's like you make a deliberate, concerted effort to be stupid.
Submitted by RePet (user info) at 2009-03-02 22:44:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If I could +10 I would.
This is truth, people. Let it sink in.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-03-02 20:59:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Or credit default derivatives. Yeah, those things.
Exhibiting my ignorance for nearly three years now.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-03-02 20:48:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Unless you've been dealing in no-fault derivative pyramid schemes, shitfuck, I don't think iddqd was talking about you.
Jesus...I'm sticking up for iddqd.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-03-02 13:52:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2009-03-01 22:53:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
seriously, you cant be this dumb.
youre blaming a BRAND NEW government because its having to clean up the shit of the privous government, as well as the utterly greedy, selfish and completely unchecked behaviour of important people in the global finance community?
i, through choice, know fuck all about this, but even i know more than you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You fucking douchebag--it's the utterly greedy, selfish and completely unchecked behaivour of the global finance community that gives you the opportunity to have a job and a place to live. Instead of biting the hand that feeds you maybe you should open your fucking eyes and see that it's the work of the buisness owners that allow you the opportunity to provide for yourself.
Ever owned a business iddqd? Ever had employees? Right now I'm up to my neck in T4 statements that need to be filed with the government today, on top of this I've got year end coming up, an accountant that needs a serious spanking, and estimates and quotes to be putting together so that I can provide work for my guys--so that they can have a place to sleep and put food on the table for their kids. Ever thought about that? Owning a business isn't a simple way to make a fortune, it's the hard way.
As for cleaning up the mess of the last government--obviously I'm no fan of the Bush administration, and honestly I don't support Reaganomics or the trickle down theory--but the only way to have this mess cleaned up efficiently and almost painlessly is to say no more bailouts and no more tax hits to the entreprenuers of the world. This crisis will be solved by people like me--people that see an opportunity where others see a disaster--so why would you want my capital tied down and eaten up by taxes so that the poor and the useless can live another week on handouts?
Teach a man to fish. Give a man a fish. Get the fucking picture?
It's people like me that make the world go round, not sheep like you, so if you get slaughtered because of a little greed on my part, do us a favour, shut the fuck up and know your roll.
Or get the balls to go out and start a company. You pissy little faggotized socialist.
Submitted by Sirius (user info) at 2009-03-02 12:26:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:27:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know guys like AJ are too stupid to understand this, but you're sawing into a golden goose. And as that knife tears deeper into soft flesh, tearing through arteries and veins, and blood flows over your opposite hand that is gripping the still-struggling bird by the throat, you have to swallow to contain the drool as you think "Boy, I can't wait to get to them eggs."
You're idiots, and you will live long enough to regret it, but you'll still be to stupid to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My apologies if this is the incorrect fallacy, if it is I ask the person who catches this up on me to please point it out so I will not be confused in the future.
"Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against."
Though I do not disagree with your ability to speak your mind, or your utter disgusts. At least back yourself up and provide sources. And not just from one news media outlet (should you choose to use them), from many, and from those that aren't in this country as well. Maybe that seems illogical to you, however from the outside looking in is a view point that's sometimes helpful and relevant at times.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-03-02 03:52:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
foolishly, i thought once the elections had finished and he had been announced president this love affair/obsession with Obama would die down. It has, but only a little.
Whether its 'Yay Obama' or 'neigh Obama'. Its still a bit of a frenzy. come on, give the rest of the world a break from this over exposure.
Give the guy a break and let him get on with his job.
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2009-03-02 02:23:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The "American Dream" is a myth you have been spoon-fed. Go pack your bags; and say hi to amelia earhart for me when you get there.
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2009-03-02 02:13:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm as happy as a pig in shit. I hope he raises taxes more. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2009-03-01 22:53:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
seriously, you cant be this dumb.
youre blaming a BRAND NEW government because its having to clean up the shit of the privous government, as well as the utterly greedy, selfish and completely unchecked behaviour of important people in the global finance community?
i, through choice, know fuck all about this, but even i know more than you.
way to keep your head in the sand.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2009-03-01 16:06:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Dude... have you been on extended vacation to Mars?
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2009-03-01 14:57:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
yes sir things are looking good, thanks!!
Submitted by Entaran (user info) at 2009-03-01 08:17:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hey dumbass. I'm not even American and I appear to have more of an idea how your new taxation hike works. Needless to say you're being a sensationalist idiot, which is the short and the long of the story.
If you like tax, move to oh... pretty much any other first world country where the highest tax brackets approach or exceed 50%.
Cry more when you look outside the borders of your shitty little corner of the world.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2009-03-01 02:11:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
One third? That's all you pay? One third?
STFU.
Hidden seems to be a closet socialist....:-)
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2009-02-28 20:10:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Domenad, i have a question for you. You backed the war in Iraq, against all the contrary evidence, because of your faith in the military, but moreso in the government.
You were willing to take Mr Bush's word and sacrifice not just the $1 trillion that the war cost, but even the lives of friends and relatives for a cause that was championed almost exclusively by the US government.
I ask you, if you are willing to sacrifice YOUR LIFE for the government and flag that you hold so dear, how can there EVER be an amount of money too great for you to give to its causes.
Or do you only consider yourself an American when a Republican is leading the country?
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2009-02-28 20:01:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
hidden - that was an incredible reply. I *heart* you just for that.
Brilliant, brilliant post - this morning the Bloke and I talked about money, banks and the recession for about 3 hours.. its facinating and important.
What happens to weath mangement... we're concerned about what to do with both of our companies income.
What is happening to money? Will it become redundant eventually?
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2009-02-28 19:54:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well personally I'm thanking god that I'm not in Denmark who pay 62% tax maximum....but wish I was in Bulgaria which is only 10%
Here its more like 25% and rising..
Submitted by TLawrence (user info) at 2009-02-28 18:20:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by billrhine (user info) at 2009-02-27 01:51:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by TLawrence (user info) at 2009-02-27 01:40:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I have written several posts regarding the Obama situation and how to resolve it. Although I have not yet received adequate funding for the project I am confident that it will happen and that we will be successful. 14/88
============
You have written several piles of dogshit almost as bad as this post.
============
That might be so, but at least I don't "publish" them on lulu.com.
Submitted by Slypher (user info) at 2009-02-28 18:01:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
oh and -2 DIE!
Submitted by Slypher (user info) at 2009-02-28 18:00:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
so i mean, what gives, domenad? you can't even come up with a half-decent defense to any of this?
shouldn't start what you obviously don't have the cajones to finish, jackass.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2009-02-28 16:55:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-02-27 16:28:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fucking Eh!
I'm on the side that let's all these greasy stone dumb faggot wheel lefties freeze in the cold, damp dark.
It's my fucking money, I EARNED IT. Sweat and muscle and more than a little brain power--now I end up getting penalized for my entreprenurial spirit? Get the fuck off my property.
Fuck the poor and fuck the helpless.
Fuck em.
_________________________
Your personal and economic security is dependent upon the stability of the state in which you reside. Further, your money is not earned within a vacuum, nor does it have any value without the state to back it.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-28 15:13:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-02-27 07:18:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
About 38% of Americans do not pay any Federal taxes beyond the little post-exemption payroll tax (if they are working legally) and what other taxes areinvolved with daily life (sales tax, excise taxes, etc.) http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html
People who are in lower income brackets and pay no tax tend to be the greater draws on the government assistance programs (SSI, payments to the States for food stamps/WIC and unemployment benefit insurance, etc.). Obama comes by and says he'll give them more assistance and lower their already minimal tax load, and they like that so he gets their vote. Obama says he'll do the same for the next few tax groups, to so arrange it that even more people will have no Fed tax burden and will therefore be in the first group, and shortly you have the 54% of the population that voted for him and the Dem house/senate largely paying no Fed tax.
The recently-elected government is clearly working toward making it such that the minority who net produce will be required by law to support the majority who do not. Couple that with incredible debt-funded spending which will supposedly be covered by new taxes (again largely only applicable to those that produce) and you have a situation wherein there is no motivation to produce anything. Far from a 'stimulus', it's detriment to real growth and will drive people who want to work hard and keep what they earn away from doing business in America.
Looking forward to the 2010 elections. I project I'll be on extended vacation at the time.
=====================================================================
you're right- the people who pay the least in taxes or no taxes at all draw the most from government assistance programs. essentially those of us who make more money are paying for the dregs of society.
i was thinking about it and it seems to me like us people in the higher tax brackets are paying the extra money to keep the order. i really think that if these people didn't get the assistance they needed during tough times, they would be forced to a life of crime. and the more crime there is, the more you're paying in taxes for police and prisons and inmates. more crime makes a nice community a shitty one, and there goes your property values- right down the shitter.
i can't even begin to imagine a realistic scale of which any of the above could happen, but it was just the first thought that popped in my head as soon as i imagined taking away government assistance.
you can't expect everyone in the world to be successful in life. there are always going to be those that just don't have the potential. so what do you do? ignore them and let them die in the streets? hope they don't break in your house and harm your family just to steal some shit to survive? is it really so bad to face the reality of it all and say, hey, there's no avoiding it, we will always have shitheads that are fuckups; let's keep them in check. most people want to be successful in life and will try their best to do so. if you think government assistance gives people an incentive to be lazy and take a little slice of your hard earned money, do you think not having these programs would have consequences that are less than desirable?
what about the positives? what about a single mother who receives assistance which allows her to buy a book or two for her child that she could not have otherwise afforded? maybe reading can stimulate cognitive ability in the child and the child grows up to be a successful and productive member of society. at the same time, the mother is less stressed and depressed over money and can better raise that child.
i'm sorry, but it just seems to be like everyone screaming about their money going to lazy people just don't think about all this stuff. some of them honestly believe that if we don't give people assistance, they will just be forced to "not be so lazy" anymore and go get a job. sadly, that may not be the case in most situations.
like i said, i pay more taxes than what most people i know gross in a year. i'm ok with that because i love my community and i love my country and i'm happy that it is such a rich and developed place to live. i've been to countries that have nothing and i think i'll stick to paying large amounts of taxes in this country and having this great quality of life.
Submitted by peckerhead (user info) at 2009-02-28 12:55:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-02-27 16:28:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fucking Eh!
I'm on the side that let's all these greasy stone dumb faggot wheel lefties freeze in the cold, damp dark.
It's my fucking money, I EARNED IT. Sweat and muscle and more than a little brain power--now I end up getting penalized for my entreprenurial spirit? Get the fuck off my property.
Fuck the poor and fuck the helpless.
Fuck em.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There you go sitting on the fence again. Why so vague? Can't you take a stand for a change?
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2009-02-27 22:34:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
He's giving everyone who makes less than 100k larger tax cuts than Bush.
He's making the rich and pulling out of Iraq pay for almost all of this.
So you're whole "I'm paying too much taxes," shit doesn't fly.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2009-02-27 22:14:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2009-02-27 16:28:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fucking Eh!
I'm on the side that let's all these greasy stone dumb faggot wheel lefties freeze in the cold, damp dark.
It's my fucking money, I EARNED IT. Sweat and muscle and more than a little brain power--now I end up getting penalized for my entreprenurial spirit? Get the fuck off my property.
Fuck the poor and fuck the helpless.
Fuck em.
Submitted by Konerak (user info) at 2009-02-27 09:35:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
1/3rd?
Come to Belgium. Here you pay 50%. Certain groups earn more by being unemployed and cashing their welfare checks, than they would by finding a job and working.
Now that's abuse.
Hey, did Bush ever find those weapons of mass destruction in Irak then? Didn't hear too much about that once you guys were in.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-02-27 07:18:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
About 38% of Americans do not pay any Federal taxes beyond the little post-exemption payroll tax (if they are working legally) and what other taxes areinvolved with daily life (sales tax, excise taxes, etc.) http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html
People who are in lower income brackets and pay no tax tend to be the greater draws on the government assistance programs (SSI, payments to the States for food stamps/WIC and unemployment benefit insurance, etc.). Obama comes by and says he'll give them more assistance and lower their already minimal tax load, and they like that so he gets their vote. Obama says he'll do the same for the next few tax groups, to so arrange it that even more people will have no Fed tax burden and will therefore be in the first group, and shortly you have the 54% of the population that voted for him and the Dem house/senate largely paying no Fed tax.
The recently-elected government is clearly working toward making it such that the minority who net produce will be required by law to support the majority who do not. Couple that with incredible debt-funded spending which will supposedly be covered by new taxes (again largely only applicable to those that produce) and you have a situation wherein there is no motivation to produce anything. Far from a 'stimulus', it's detriment to real growth and will drive people who want to work hard and keep what they earn away from doing business in America.
Looking forward to the 2010 elections. I project I'll be on extended vacation at the time.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2009-02-27 06:15:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
stfu I make more than you and the feds only get 7% of my shit
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-02-27 02:24:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:10:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Anyway, I've read Milton Friedman too and grasp the power of free markets and minimal govenrment intervention. But cutting regulation in the finance sector is what got you into this mess in the first place.
===
yes. canadian banks are a lot more regulated and surprise, surprise, canada has the best banking system to withstand this crisis. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4981X220081009
i'm not sure i can name ten canadian banks. having a few large super banks ("super" being proportionally to our country size of course) makes the system easier to manage and regulate. due to regulation, our banks have a lot less leverage but on the other hand, it voids aberrances which later lead to painful corrections.
but hey, at least you're "free".
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-02-27 02:10:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
reactionary crap bores me
Submitted by billrhine (user info) at 2009-02-27 01:51:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by TLawrence (user info) at 2009-02-27 01:40:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I have written several posts regarding the Obama situation and how to resolve it. Although I have not yet received adequate funding for the project I am confident that it will happen and that we will be successful. 14/88
============
You have written several piles of dogshit almost as bad as this post.
Submitted by TLawrence (user info) at 2009-02-27 01:40:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I have written several posts regarding the Obama situation and how to resolve it. Although I have not yet received adequate funding for the project I am confident that it will happen and that we will be successful. 14/88
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2009-02-26 23:44:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2009-02-26 23:30:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I voted for him, but if he thinks he's taking any more of my paycheck, well, the joke's on him, because I just got laid off! Hey, wait a minute...
------------------------
Can we be unemployment buddies?
Submitted by pandora (user info) at 2009-02-26 23:30:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I voted for him, but if he thinks he's taking any more of my paycheck, well, the joke's on him, because I just got laid off! Hey, wait a minute...
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2009-02-26 22:34:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My last day at work is tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WWWwwwwwwOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
gimme yo tax money!!! Ima get some nice welfare cheese logs
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-02-26 21:37:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I once slept with a girl who had three nipples.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-02-26 21:15:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ummm, let's see, what else can I bore you with?
I'll think of something.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-02-26 21:13:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
One of my brothers went to Australia 30 years ago and never came back. He said that, even thought the chicks tended to be really weather-beaten, and hence kind of ugly, both the schools and standard of living over there were so much better that he had to stay.
He's dating a French girl. His last girlfriend was from Sweden.
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2009-02-26 21:08:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I love how your bitching would put you on a watch list in other countries, and maybe provoke a midnight raid on your house by the police, who take you off to the gulag for being an ungrateful asshole.
Only in America are you able to pay less taxes than most western countries, and still be able to bitch and get away with it.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-02-26 21:03:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The way I see it, if this country suffers a complete and utter economic collapse, then maybe a small percentage of rednecks will stop saying, "America is the greatest country ever!" That would make it all worthwhile to me.
I'm a cup-is-half-full kinda guy.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2009-02-26 19:22:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I think "enough" would be an indexed tax system up to 70% like the Swedish model, considering that country has the highest standard of living in the world.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-02-26 19:11:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm plenty happy I voted for Obama
You made up you numbers; others below have pointed out the correct values
You're stupid and you sound like a morning drive talk radio idiot
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:58:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Three weeks ago, I was a worried about getting laid off before the end of this year, and then I had to kill my dog, which sucked. In the last two days, I've been assigned two "shovel-ready" stimulus jobs, and I can get a new dog. Not as good as the last, I grant you, but a new dog nonetheless.
I wouldn't worry about your situation; we're pretty much screwed, regardless. Drink more, maybe.
Submitted by 8bithero (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:52:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This -2 is for you thinking ANY American citizen voted for the President.
You need to go back to Government 101.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:34:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:22:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
inion de trua to understand what I mean when I say that today's marriage laws are gender neutral you need to remember that when marriage was first institutionalized in the American government the laws were explicitly written to demonstrate male dominance. A man became sole owner of everything his wife owned when he married her. Laws for divorce were applied unequally between the sexes, not just in the practices of judges (as you see today where judges are predisposed to award children to mothers), but in the actual letter of the law. Women were not simply marrying their husbands, they were literally giving up many of their freedoms and all of their possessions to him. I'm unable to remember the exact case, or if it might have been a series of them, but eventually these laws were changed so that instead of becoming subservient to the husband in marriage, the wife instead became a genuine partner. This is how our laws are still structured today. When Jordan marries Jamie, Jordan will have the same rights whether he or she's a man or woman, and Jamie will have the same rights whether he or she is a man or a woman, so, essentially, it doesn't matter to the law which gender each partner is.
-------
i get that, but legally the terms still exist for gender specification in many cases when applying for and finalizing a marriage. i'm not contesting the fact that marriage laws and rights are probably genderless AFTER the parties are married, i'm stating that in many (probably most) states, marriage parties are still defined with gender in mind and that presents a problem in contracts if both parties are the same gender. i'd like to see instance of this though because i was fairly sure that "wife" is equal to "husband" was part of the clarification when it came to property rights.
divorce laws do not count in this argument because, as of yet, it's not about dissolving the marriage it's about legalizing it. currently a same sex couple is not allowed the same protections of genderless marriage laws because they are subject to gender specified terms in the legal proceedings that allow them to marry in the first place. until the first step is made genderless, none of the rest of them matter because they cannot happen.
on a side note divorce proceedings and annulments are presenting problems for states that don't have same sex marriage or civil unions yet because the marriages aren't legally recognized when a couple moves there. states were civil unions are/were allowed also strangely still have problems with divorce proceedings because of the same terminology currently inherent in the accepted definition of marriage. i think new jersey just passed a law saying if you got married in another state you can apply for divorce there without being a resident of new jersey. might be rhode island though. one of the ones down east.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:22:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
inion de trua to understand what I mean when I say that today's marriage laws are gender neutral you need to remember that when marriage was first institutionalized in the American government the laws were explicitly written to demonstrate male dominance. A man became sole owner of everything his wife owned when he married her. Laws for divorce were applied unequally between the sexes, not just in the practices of judges (as you see today where judges are predisposed to award children to mothers), but in the actual letter of the law. Women were not simply marrying their husbands, they were literally giving up many of their freedoms and all of their possessions to him. I'm unable to remember the exact case, or if it might have been a series of them, but eventually these laws were changed so that instead of becoming subservient to the husband in marriage, the wife instead became a genuine partner. This is how our laws are still structured today. When Jordan marries Jamie, Jordan will have the same rights whether he or she's a man or woman, and Jamie will have the same rights whether he or she is a man or a woman, so, essentially, it doesn't matter to the law which gender each partner is.
Submitted by Otter (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:20:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not happy with Obama, he hasn't impressed me.
At all.
But, on the other hand, he's only been in office for a month and some change, so I'm willing to give him a chance.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:16:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:06:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I forgot that the most immediate refutation to that point would be areas where the license either already did or have been changed to say "Partner One" and "Partner Two." These changes don't effect how those locales legally handle married couples, but they do cause a hell of a lot of controversy!
---------
yes, but many states still say bride/groom and not spouse/partner etc. even worse because marriage licenses are issued by the state THROUGH the county, a county could potentially make laws or at least trouble about giving out applications to same sex couples.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:13:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
which laws explicitly make them genderless?
i know in my own divorce proceedings i still had a gender in definition of the term(wife) used to refer to my party. i also know that you cannot get married if you put the names in the wrong places on a marriage license or certificate of marriage. ie, husband cannot sign in wife's spot. the terminology for divorce may be a little more homogenous (as i'm assuming that's where most of your argument over the terminology is based) but there is less ceremony. you still have to appear before a justice of the peace at minimum and be pronounced man/husband and wife. there's a little speech even in the short version that the jop has to say. there is no speech for divorce, both parties don't even have to appear and in many cases only a notice of intent posted in a newspaper is a valid way to make one party known.
if you are talking about marriage laws meaning getting married as opposed to what laws apply after marriage, then gender still matters. so many loopholes result just from terms used. this is why something simple like "don't fuck chickens" (real law) has to be stated in such long drawn out language. as long as the genders are specified when asking for permission to be married it will matter what the genders of the parties are. everything AFTER the marrriage occurs can be as genderless as it wants. also i'm not sure about the two straights become transgendered. there's a legal proceeding required to have your sex changed on paper (namely the birth ceritifcate) as opposed to in the flesh. you can change your name to sarah right now if you wanted, get tits and chop of your genitals but that doesn't make you a woman legally. that is a separate proceeding entirely. i'm not going to look up instances of men legally becoming women and what happens in marriages. but, the fact is in THOSE marriages a man married a woman, regardless of whether either stayed their sex from then on, they were the "proper" genders to attain the license and complete the marriage ceremony. and currently law prevents a marriage being started with same sexes, not continued.
before anything about being a bigot comes out i'm actually pro-gay marriage but not plural marriages for tax reasons unless they cap the dependent tally at one other adult in a household.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 18:06:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I forgot that the most immediate refutation to that point would be areas where the license either already did or have been changed to say "Partner One" and "Partner Two." These changes don't effect how those locales legally handle married couples, but they do cause a hell of a lot of controversy!
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:59:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
inion de trua:
I'm not sure about the bigamy law.
I understand that on the documents people are referred to as "husband" and "wife" or some analogues, but that is a trivial matter. As far as how the laws are applied it is inconsequential which is the husband and which is the wife. If two straight people were to marry and have simultaneous sex changes their legal position would not change at all. That is what I mean. Joedaddy referred to homosexuals' situation as "special," implying that the current, straight, marriage laws are somehow not applicable to homosexuals. In reality, the laws are explicitly set up (after a Supreme Court ruling, at least) to handle both partners as genderless, other than for trivial matters such as who to call "Mr." and "Mrs." when they show up in court for divorce proceedings.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:47:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
also a heterosexual couple is not treated as one til after they're married when they become one legally responsible entity. before that they do have genders. you can't argue that they're treated as one couple before marriage which is where the argument originates anyway.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:46:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:37:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
joedaddy what is unique about homosexuals' positions? What part of marriage laws are inapplicable to couples who are unable to conceive? Wouldn't every law presently applicable to straight married couples be immediately applicable to any gay couple? Remember that marriage laws are all gender neutral, i.e., they do not treat the husband and wife separately. The fact that the law is required to treat a heterosexual couple as indistinct in gender, it is strange that these laws might be suddenly inapplicable to a couple where there is naturally no difference in gender.
--------
well... i mean "husband" and "wife" are gender specific. so are "bride" and "groom" which appear on marriage licenses when you fill them out. they'd have to address the wording of marriage licensing to really make a case for no gender bias.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:44:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:06:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:28:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry if I went on too long!
==============================
No, not at all. That's the kind of response desired.
I agree with you up to a point. I'd rather see "civil union" promoted OVER marriage, as a right (and a rite) that is recognized with the same power as marriage but without the restrictions imposed by traditions.
Something a loving threesome couple (or more) could enter into, not just two people.
-------
isn't there a federal law against bigamy because of/after utah becoming a state?
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:37:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
joedaddy what is unique about homosexuals' positions? What part of marriage laws are inapplicable to couples who are unable to conceive? Wouldn't every law presently applicable to straight married couples be immediately applicable to any gay couple? Remember that marriage laws are all gender neutral, i.e., they do not treat the husband and wife separately. The fact that the law is required to treat a heterosexual couple as indistinct in gender, it is strange that these laws might be suddenly inapplicable to a couple where there is naturally no difference in gender.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:25:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
god chic, the short version to the ghey thing is:
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2008-11-10 16:40:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
why don't these assholes make law, that's specific to their unique situation, rather than spending all their time hijacking an existing law?
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:25:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:00:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey look at this! The US Chamber of Commerce agrees with me. I guess he should come to Uber and talk to all the geniuses to find out what time it is.
"While we have not seen all the details, the president's disappointing budget proposal appears to move in exactly the wrong direction. More taxes, heavy-handed regulations, and command-and-control government will not hasten recovery. Instead, it will delay it and do so at a terrible cost to taxpayers, businesses, and working families. "
----
citing any chamber of commerce is the same as citing bill o'reilly or rush as a fair and balanced viewpoint.
traditionally and overwhelmingly a conservative minded group, so yeah, it's not at all a surprise that your opinion is in line with theirs.
trying to couch their 'pro-business at the cost of individuals' welfare' agenda in terms like that is just par for the course with the chamber, my man.
try again, please.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:12:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You enjoy more rights than 95% of the world's population, while paying less % in tax than most of them.
The question you should really ask yourself is, how much are your freedoms worth to you? Some people give their lives. You're bitching about 27% - 33% of your workday...
Get some perspective. Dick.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:06:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:28:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry if I went on too long!
==============================
No, not at all. That's the kind of response desired.
I agree with you up to a point. I'd rather see "civil union" promoted OVER marriage, as a right (and a rite) that is recognized with the same power as marriage but without the restrictions imposed by traditions.
Something a loving threesome couple (or more) could enter into, not just two people.
========
Anyhow, your rebuttal is the kind of speech that the voting public in california should have had exposure to.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2009-02-26 17:05:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you gotta pay to play
Submitted by malkavian (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:57:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't bother.
I am not American. Frankly, I don't care a bit about how much you pay to your government. But seriously though, you really think that all of your country's problems would have been solved -what?- one, two months after the new president got into the White House? More importantly, you really think that NOT doing anything about the financial crisis would have been a better solution? These are hard times we are living in, as we all know, so yeah, we have less money in our pockets. It is normal. You think conservatives would have magically kept the status quo if they were elected?
Anyway, as far as I know, the actual government doesn't hold that much power over the economic spheres anyway. THat would be the owners of the privately owned "federal" bank.
Boy, am I in a commenting mood today.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:55:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:38:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
wow.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:36:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
If you're losing more than 1/3 of your paycheck, you're either A) stupid or B) making enough to not care that much.
As far as the $1T number, as a generation, we've already inherited much more debt than that. Can't say I'm too thrilled about it.
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:35:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:15:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:10:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Dude, you don't pay a lot of taxes. You may pay marginally less taxes than Canada, but they have free healthcare and a hell of lot less crime. And surprise, surprise they are on the top of every "best place to live" and "highest standard of living" index in the world. Of course there is a big downside to living in Canada, which is being surrounded by Canadians. It's like sitting in a room full of gay artists who inexplicably like watching hockey.
Anyway, I've read Milton Friedman too and grasp the power of free markets and minimal govenrment intervention. But cutting regulation in the finance sector is what got you into this mess in the first place. Wealth rose too much and too quickly and now your econopmy has a hangover. So believe me, higher taxes are a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It's going to take 10 years to fix your mess of a financial system and you better pray that your dollar doesn't lose its reserve currency status in the meantime. Because if it does, you really won't care how much your taxes are.
=================================================================
i hear that if we taxed Method's mom every time she sucked a black cock, we could reform education AND health care in two years time
--
Dude, if they did that the US could just outright go ahead and buy Saudi Arabia. I'd post the annual expected black cock sucking royalty revenue, but I there aren't enough characters allowed in the comments field.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:35:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
YIPE! YIPE!YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE!
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:33:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:28:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It is also relevant to point out that many states are writing laws that explicitly refer to married couples, such as in Arkansas where a bill passed which restricted adoption to only married couples. A federal law could say that a civil union is to be considered by all states as equal to marriage, but this would very likely be taken to the Supreme Court as a matter of states rights, and under this court it is hard to determine on which side they would rule! It is, again, another problem that is avoided by simply giving gays the right to marry rather than sculpting out a whole new special space for us.
Sorry if I went on too long!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spooner is my big gay hero!
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:31:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:10:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Anyway, I've read Milton Friedman too and grasp the power of free markets and minimal govenrment intervention. But cutting regulation in the finance sector is what got you into this mess in the first place.
--------
i think the best part about all of this is that's what helped cause the crash before/during the great depression. what's that line "do what you always do, get what you always get?"
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:28:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It is also relevant to point out that many states are writing laws that explicitly refer to married couples, such as in Arkansas where a bill passed which restricted adoption to only married couples. A federal law could say that a civil union is to be considered by all states as equal to marriage, but this would very likely be taken to the Supreme Court as a matter of states rights, and under this court it is hard to determine on which side they would rule! It is, again, another problem that is avoided by simply giving gays the right to marry rather than sculpting out a whole new special space for us.
Sorry if I went on too long!
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:26:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Go back to Antarctica, we don't like your type around here.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:23:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok Spooner, I'll bite, for the sake of entertainment here. I consider myself very moderate and reasonable, and it would be best to appease both sides of the issue in some way, shape or form.
Can you agree that:
Marriage originated as a religious institution.
It was appropriated by government/civil institution as a way to classify and tax people, not to provide them with any additional recognition.
Then can we also say that:
A desire to get married is due to an upbringing in a culture springing from those same religous roots that denounce homosexuality as an abomination?
Please tell me what the difference is in the eyes of the "State" between a civil union and a marriage, for the purposes of classification and taxation?
I suggest a more forward looking mindset, choose "civil union" wording, for all intents and purposes it is a euphemism for marriage anyway, and throw a milksop to the backasswards religious institutions, let them keep their sacred word with all it's connotations, positive and negative.
---
Whether or not marriage is a religious institution is irrelevant as anything offered by the US government is guaranteed to be given equally to all people. Marriage is an institution that has heavy influence in religion, but it has been appropriated into the secular sphere, evidenced not only by atheist marriages (which people never question the validity of) and inter-religious marriages. Simply put, people will say that marriage is a religious institution but for the most part they do not act as if it is a religious institution.
This argument is not only needlessly reductive in its understanding of marriage, it is also needlessly reductive in its understanding of religion. People generally say that religion created marriage, and religion speaks out against homosexuality, but homophobia is not a definitional requirement for religion. Many religions are accepting of homosexuality. Not all religions forbid homosexuals from participating in their marriage rites, and many Judeo-Christian denominations marry homosexuals as part of their religious customs (though these religiously-ordained marriages are obviously not recognized by the state).
The fight against civil unions is often misrepresented as a symbolic move, as if the only issue contained within it are the words themselves, and gay-rights advocated are quibbling over semantics. However, this is not true. Civil Union laws are often written to place them below actual marriages in one respect or another. For example, laws that require businesses to extend benefits to spouses may not require the same company to extend benefits to same-sex, civilly-unioned partners. More important, the Defense of Marriage Act closes off all federal benefits to marriage, regardless what the state that marriage occurs in calls it. Even homosexuals who are married in Massachusetts do not have access to federal benefits (while this most famously prevented congressman Gerry Studds' legally married husband from receiving benefits after the congressman's death, this affects all federal employees the same way it affects congressmen and women). This same federal ban on marriage also inhibits gay couples where one partner is from another country. For straight people, marriage puts a partner on the fast-track to citizenship. But because the federal government does not recognize gay marriages under DOMA, this avenue is completely shut off to gay people.
The problem with civil unions, then, is that because they are separated, and because they would likely exist on the state level, it would be incredibly easy for conservatives to needle in this kind of discrimination in the future. While many people see it as a compromise the gay community is silly not to make, the truth is that allowing for a separate institution beside marriage only allows for further chances at discrimination.
Submitted by billrhine (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:22:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:15:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:10:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Dude, you don't pay a lot of taxes. You may pay marginally less taxes than Canada, but they have free healthcare and a hell of lot less crime. And surprise, surprise they are on the top of every "best place to live" and "highest standard of living" index in the world. Of course there is a big downside to living in Canada, which is being surrounded by Canadians. It's like sitting in a room full of gay artists who inexplicably like watching hockey.
Anyway, I've read Milton Friedman too and grasp the power of free markets and minimal govenrment intervention. But cutting regulation in the finance sector is what got you into this mess in the first place. Wealth rose too much and too quickly and now your econopmy has a hangover. So believe me, higher taxes are a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It's going to take 10 years to fix your mess of a financial system and you better pray that your dollar doesn't lose its reserve currency status in the meantime. Because if it does, you really won't care how much your taxes are.
=================================================================
i hear that if we taxed Method's mom every time she sucked a black cock, we could reform education AND health care in two years time.
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:10:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Dude, you don't pay a lot of taxes. You may pay marginally less taxes than Canada, but they have free healthcare and a hell of lot less crime. And surprise, surprise they are on the top of every "best place to live" and "highest standard of living" index in the world. Of course there is a big downside to living in Canada, which is being surrounded by Canadians. It's like sitting in a room full of gay artists who inexplicably like watching hockey.
Anyway, I've read Milton Friedman too and grasp the power of free markets and minimal govenrment intervention. But cutting regulation in the finance sector is what got you into this mess in the first place. Wealth rose too much and too quickly and now your econopmy has a hangover. So believe me, higher taxes are a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It's going to take 10 years to fix your mess of a financial system and you better pray that your dollar doesn't lose its reserve currency status in the meantime. Because if it does, you really won't care how much your taxes are.
Submitted by rubbermaid (user info) at 2009-02-26 16:07:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Used car salesman below.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:57:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
hey domenad, i hear mexico is nice. you'll pay less in taxes if you're willing to work out in the sun all day. sounds way better than getting paid to sit on your ass and surf ubersite, huh?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:51:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I WANNA FIGHT ABOUT IT!!
not really...
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:50:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:38:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
or just get the fuck out of the country, you fucking whiner. here's a chart to help you pick a new place to live- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
-----
this doesn't take into account percentage that is actually taxed.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:50:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:44:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hidden, I'd add in sales tax and insurance rates too.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you totally, but I think it's actually more of a gap than you'd think.
============================================================
yeah, and that chart is also from 2005. wanna fight about it?
anyway, i agree with you, i just wanted to throw that chart out there to give this retard something to think about.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:45:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:22:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe you hate conservatives, maybe you don't like this, you're an athiest, you love gays, whatever, I don't care. Is this new number enough to show you made a mistake?
===
Also, in a nutshell, you just implied that I would or should sacrifice some of my most sacred principles for a tax break.
Is that how your mind works?
=======================================================
that was the first thing that came to mind when i read this crap too.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:44:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hidden, I'd add in sales tax and insurance rates too.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you totally, but I think it's actually more of a gap than you'd think.
Submitted by sage104 (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:41:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by SunnyG (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:06:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
my president is black...my lambo is blue!
*******************
...and I'll be cot damned if my rims ain't too!
Jeezy baby. :)
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:40:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 12:24:18 PST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad i'm still waiting on an answer for why i'm not allowed to get married i mean making laws against it really does just seem kind of harsh and unnecessary and for some reason only conservatives want to do it!!
============
Ok Spooner, I'll bite, for the sake of entertainment here. I consider myself very moderate and reasonable, and it would be best to appease both sides of the issue in some way, shape or form.
Can you agree that:
Marriage originated as a religious institution.
It was appropriated by government/civil institution as a way to classify and tax people, not to provide them with any additional recognition.
Then can we also say that:
A desire to get married is due to an upbringing in a culture springing from those same religous roots that denounce homosexuality as an abomination?
Please tell me what the difference is in the eyes of the "State" between a civil union and a marriage, for the purposes of classification and taxation?
I suggest a more forward looking mindset, choose "civil union" wording, for all intents and purposes it is a euphemism for marriage anyway, and throw a milksop to the backasswards religious institutions, let them keep their sacred word with all it's connotations, positive and negative.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:39:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you're not very good at this talking thing...
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:38:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i pay more in taxes than what most people i know even gross in a year. i'm glad i pay all those taxes because i live in a nice community. i'm glad i pay those taxes because i live in an extremely developed country.
if my taxes go up, i'll still be living quite comfortably. in fact, i just sold one of my cars and i think i'll buy another one. a really fast luxury car this time.
i don't really give a shit about a tax increase because i know taxes are never going to get high enough for me not to be able to live comfortably. if they are so high for you that you have to live in poverty, then you're doing something wrong, my friend.
hey, i have a great idea-- maybe you should organize a "tea party" like all the nutjobs have been talking about. it would be great entertainment for me.
or just get the fuck out of the country, you fucking whiner. here's a chart to help you pick a new place to live- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:29:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no1hasdis you should really refrain from using homophobic slurs against people as it has consequences which negatively effect people who you probably do not mean to hurt!
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:28:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You strike me as the same type of guy that bitches as much about how much he's taxed as how bad the roads are and how much it's going to cost to get a new suspension on the car because of it. This country is broken. Something has to be done to fix it. I'll take an increase on the 27% that gets taken out of my checks now if it means health insurance won't take another 5% to buy just because I work for a small business.
I guarantee I can find 2.6 hours of your workday that you spend doing fuckall, including messing around on Ubersite.
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:28:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
domenad, i heard you're the incestous homosexual son of a whore and a cocksucker, who enjoys taking it up the ass from his brother and then licking his dick clean when he's done
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:24:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad i'm still waiting on an answer for why i'm not allowed to get married i mean making laws against it really does just seem kind of harsh and unnecessary and for some reason only conservatives want to do it!!
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:22:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Maybe you hate conservatives, maybe you don't like this, you're an athiest, you love gays, whatever, I don't care. Is this new number enough to show you made a mistake?
===
Also, in a nutshell, you just implied that I would or should sacrifice some of my most sacred principles for a tax break.
Is that how your mind works?
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:21:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad deeply conservative people are often made the butt of jokes in media and and literature due to their profound ignorance which is easily recognized by most people and satirized, does this offend you?
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:20:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad a majority of americans support the stimulus bill don't you think it is then hypocritical and dishonest for the republicans to represent their obstructionism as being populist in nature?
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:19:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2009-02-26 10:37:19 PST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah, i've gotta say i'm pretty happy still.
thanks for asking though.
=================
It was a tough choice because I didn't believe the "more of the same" hype against McCain, but he didn't have a plan any more than Obama did.
At least with Obama there's a better chance of international goodwill and some help.
I fully expect the US as a whole to have to swallow it's pride and ask for some help in order to unfuck itself. We practically need to follow a 12 step program at this point.
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:19:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad historically most racist people have voted conservatively because it accords with their racist beliefs how does that make you feel?
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:18:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad statistics show that people who have more education tend to be more liberal and vote more democratic why do you think this is?
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:17:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad conservatives actively discriminate against various classes of people why do you think this is?
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:17:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
domenad tell me why i am not allowed to get gay married
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:12:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Thanks for singling my name out from the group of detractors, though. Hugs and kisses- because I'm too stupid for other internet emotions.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:11:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I usually -2 these things, but for some reason this struck a chord with me.
Thankfully, I'm too poor to notice the economic downturn. All it has meant for me is cheaper gas.
So the worse the economy gets, the more spending money I have.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:10:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than double what this 'stimulus plan' will cost. Am I happy with the course of action this has taken? No. But de-regulation of the financial markets, tax breaks, golden parachutes, and executive orders are what got us in this mess in the first place. At least Obama's using the proper channels.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:08:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ahhh fg!! there is a position for you too
heh
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:07:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:01:05 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
Saccy, I will give you a job, heh
===
Oh you naughty man, you!
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:07:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yes, health and extraordinary benefits. now how do you feel about the come to work in your lingerie day? white or black stockings?
Submitted by SunnyG (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:06:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
my president is black...my lambo is blue!
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:04:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Health benefits included, EI?
And you shouldn't be quoting the CoC or anyone else important without linking to your source.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:01:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Saccy, I will give you a job, heh
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2009-02-26 15:00:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey look at this! The US Chamber of Commerce agrees with me. I guess he should come to Uber and talk to all the geniuses to find out what time it is.
"While we have not seen all the details, the president's disappointing budget proposal appears to move in exactly the wrong direction. More taxes, heavy-handed regulations, and command-and-control government will not hasten recovery. Instead, it will delay it and do so at a terrible cost to taxpayers, businesses, and working families. "
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:57:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Is this new number enough to show you made a mistake?
===
I didn't make a mistake. Not a single regret. I'd do it all over again. Happy, happy day. And I don't even have a job.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:47:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:45:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I applied for a $1,000 grant from the National Endowment of the Arts to write this review. Got the money, here's my review.
Submitted by Wuzi (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:43:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Meh.
I voted for Nader.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:38:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Like it or not, our economic structure in the USA, or any capitalistic country, requires taxes to work. If you don't want to pay your share, then move.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:37:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:27:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know guys like AJ are too stupid to understand this, but you're sawing into a golden goose. And as that knife tears deeper into soft flesh, tearing through arteries and veins, and blood flows over your opposite hand that is gripping the still-struggling bird by the throat, you have to swallow to contain the drool as you think "Boy, I can't wait to get to them eggs."
You're idiots, and you will live long enough to regret it, but you'll still be to stupid to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh please, tell us all how taxing the rich and taxing businesses who send work overseas equates to killing the golden goose.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:30:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Over here, my father happily sends away 50% of hís paycheck, and in maybe a year or 5 I'll be doing the same.
Americans whine about gas costs and taxes like fat little spoiled kids.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:27:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know guys like AJ are too stupid to understand this, but you're sawing into a golden goose. And as that knife tears deeper into soft flesh, tearing through arteries and veins, and blood flows over your opposite hand that is gripping the still-struggling bird by the throat, you have to swallow to contain the drool as you think "Boy, I can't wait to get to them eggs."
You're idiots, and you will live long enough to regret it, but you'll still be to stupid to.
Submitted by sage104 (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:25:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"pack my bags, bid farewell to the American dream, and board a plane to some fictional land"
**********************
Good riddance, asshole.
Yes, I'm happy, thanks for asking (stole it from Sandman).
I actually agree with No1. :)
Weird day, eh?
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:21:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:19:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
domenad is your typical partisan knee-jerk retard who doesn't even bother to know the facts. He's just mad there is a progressive democrat in the white house, and broadbrushes him with his assumptions, without looking with a non-partisan eye at the details to determine if this is indeed a logical course of action.
"Oh noes, he done be raising taxes, that must mean I'll pay more of my $8 per hour at Taco Bell to the governemnt, just so he can go give money to dem lazy negras!"
Fucking idiot, you're probably one of the ones who will see a net tax decrease under Obama.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
domenad is Joe the Plumber?????!!!!
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:19:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
domenad is your typical partisan knee-jerk retard who doesn't even bother to know the facts. He's just mad there is a progressive democrat in the white house, and broadbrushes him with his assumptions, without looking with a non-partisan eye at the details to determine if this is indeed a logical course of action.
"Oh noes, he done be raising taxes, that must mean I'll pay more of my $8 per hour at Taco Bell to the governemnt, just so he can go give money to dem lazy negras!"
Fucking idiot, you're probably one of the ones who will see a net tax decrease under Obama.
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:14:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Further, the tax increases are not to pay for welfare programs. They are to cover the massive bailout to the financial sector to repair the credit system the entire market system depends on, adn on resuscitating the economy that went into a tailspin. You know who caused this meltdown? Thats right, greedy executives who made flawed short term moves to maximize their multi-million dollar bonuses (which they collected even while the system melted down). Now a huge deficit is being incurred to repair it. Who should pay? The under $250K/year working classes who are already struggling and most affected? Or the over $250K bankers and hedge managers and ceos who havent paid a fair share all along and profitted even while they were undoing the system with thier greed?
Submitted by Toddler (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:13:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
PWNT by Rob
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:10:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You want numbers?
As of February 19, 2009, the total U.S. federal debt was $10.802 trillion [1], or about $37,851 per capita. Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $6.5 trillion.[2] In 2007, the public debt was 36.8 percent of GDP [3], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.
A trillion in new taxes doesn't seem all that much in comparison to the amount of money you owe, does it?
1) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
2) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_daily.htm
3) http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2007/07frusg.pdf
Submitted by YourNameHere (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:09:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
gtfo
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:07:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:56:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:41:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Where, exactly, are you getting this number? What is your source? Funny thing is... I've had CNN on all day and you would think that this would have come up.
Yeah, I'm pretty happy. Thanks for asking.
--------------------------------
"Extend the $400 annual tax cut due to start showing up in workers' paycheques in April, and extend the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 for couples earning less than $250,000 per year. Those tax cuts were due to expire at the end of 2010.
Raise income taxes and curb deductions for couples making more than $250,000 a year beginning in 2011, which would allow their marginal rate to rise from 35 per cent to 39.6 per cent.
Raise taxes on wealthy hedge fund managers and corporations.
Eliminate tax incentives U.S. companies now have to move jobs overseas.
Phase out direct payments to farming operations with revenues above $500,000 a year."
Summary of current tax change. Note there are tax CUTS for couples earning less than 250K.
The increases are for the top wealthiest individuals and corporations.
The focus is also on closing loopholes that are taken advantage of by the wealthiest.
Summary here :
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/02/26/obama.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's bitching about this? Yeah, I'm very fucking happy about this. This is the platform I voted for. This is what I want. I hope everything about this comes to fruition. This is exactly what America needs right now. What a dumbass.
As for the question "How much is enough?", I think we could very nearly double this, and be getting in the ballpark.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-02-26 14:05:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Let's just bring this back for some more discussion, shall we?
I didn't vote for him. I am not happy with what he's doing.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:59:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You can bitch and moan about your taxes all you want - it just makes you an ignorant hypocrite.
Your entire economic structure is fucked. The lack of individual accountability is dwarfed by massive corporate greed.
Not to mention you are printing money that isn't backed by anything but debt.
You want to start complaining about something - at least make it relevant.
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:56:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:41:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Where, exactly, are you getting this number? What is your source? Funny thing is... I've had CNN on all day and you would think that this would have come up.
Yeah, I'm pretty happy. Thanks for asking.
--------------------------------
"Extend the $400 annual tax cut due to start showing up in workers' paycheques in April, and extend the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 for couples earning less than $250,000 per year. Those tax cuts were due to expire at the end of 2010.
Raise income taxes and curb deductions for couples making more than $250,000 a year beginning in 2011, which would allow their marginal rate to rise from 35 per cent to 39.6 per cent.
Raise taxes on wealthy hedge fund managers and corporations.
Eliminate tax incentives U.S. companies now have to move jobs overseas.
Phase out direct payments to farming operations with revenues above $500,000 a year."
Summary of current tax change. Note there are tax CUTS for couples earning less than 250K.
The increases are for the top wealthiest individuals and corporations.
The focus is also on closing loopholes that are taken advantage of by the wealthiest.
Summary here :
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/02/26/obama.html
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:55:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Piss off, then. If you don't want to earn it, you don't deserve to benefit.
I recommend Nigeria.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:47:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Happier than a pig in shit.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:47:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not one cuntrag on here, even the "brilliant" rob berg can answer my question: how much is enough Rob? I realize you don't pay too much out there with the rag and the bucket mopping up windshields, but I and others see some serious numbers when I get my pay stub.
Submitted by rubbermaid (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:44:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck stick.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:42:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
http://www.iousathemovie.com/
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:41:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You don't even know what high taxes are. And from everything I've seen, he's on the right track with the vast majority of these taxes coming from the fat cats that are already overpaid and taking more then their share of the public wealth, while hoarding it away and not contributing back.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:41:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Where, exactly, are you getting this number? What is your source? Funny thing is... I've had CNN on all day and you would think that this would have come up.
Yeah, I'm pretty happy. Thanks for asking.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:37:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't vote (unless you count my write-in for Seacrest), but yeah, I'd say I'm pretty happy. Generally speaking.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:37:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah, i've gotta say i'm pretty happy still.
thanks for asking though.
Submitted by dblogg (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:36:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for the Truth.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2009-02-26 13:36:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Did you just wake up stupid one day - or was it a result of rigorous training?