# Tea partiers not smart enough...



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

Not smart enough to realize they are working against their own self interest.

The right wing agenda is pure capitalism. That's great for capitalists, bad for almost everyone else.

Oh, you say, you're a capitalist? Really, you make all of your money from interest and dividends? If you produce a service or goods for a fee, or for a salary or for hourly wages, then you are labor. It doesn't matter what color you collar is, you are labor. It doesn't matter if you don't see it that way, the capitalists do. Trust me, that is how they see you and they are determined to have you work for less.

So, go ahead and vote for the RepubliCONs, everything they have done for the last thirty years has worked out great, right? 

So what if before Reagan's economic "theories" were tried we were the greatest producer of finished goods in the world and now we are the greatest importer of finished goods. So what if we were the greatest crediter nation and now we are the greatest debter nation.

Oh, this "conservative era" that Reagan brought in, it's been great for ordinary Americans. It just takes two incomes to raise a family now, and of course we can't afford to put our kids through school, we can't save for retirement, can't afford healthcare... Oh it's been great!

Go ahead tea partiers, vote for the RepubliCONs!


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 20, 2010)




----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

One "reply" and I rest my case.


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2010)

Republican capitalists = work for your money.

democrat socialists = take the money from other people who worked for it.

Yup... the difference is clear. One thinks you should work for what you have, the other thinks they can just take what others have worked for to support themselves when they didn't.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> One "reply" and I rest my case.





Lack of many replies is not an indication that your case is won by any stretch of the imagination.

Here's the case against your claim.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

It would behoove you to read up on the path to which your Big Government vision inevitably leads.

As to why families need to incomes now, the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has doubled since the 1950s.   Reagan didn't do that.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 20, 2010)

Reagan was not a true small Government conservative, so of course it caused problems.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2010)

And republicons have been so against bigger government, social programs and excessive govt spending?
They did however support TARP.  Bailing out the fiiancial industry instead of letting it stand on it's own.

LMAO


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2010)




----------



## Missourian (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Not smart enough to realize they are working against their own self interest.
> 
> The right wing agenda is pure capitalism. That's great for capitalists, bad for almost everyone else.
> 
> ...




I don't,  but thanks for sharing your opinion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Not smart enough to realize they are working against their own self interest.
> 
> The right wing agenda is pure capitalism. That's great for capitalists, bad for almost everyone else.
> 
> ...



Oh, thank GOD!  We SOOO desperately needed another ignorant, spewing ass clown who tries to impose his own half-assed, uninformed definitions of words onto the rest of us, and I was becoming concerned that one wouldn't show up.  Now that you're here, I guess I can rest easy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> One "reply" and I rest my case.



You wait four fucking minutes and then declare yourself an unanswered genius?  Sit down and shut the fuck up, newbie.  SOME people have jobs and lives that don't revolve around waiting breathlessly for YOU to slobber ignorance all over their computer screens.


----------



## cad (Aug 20, 2010)

didn't TEA party come from the phrase : Taxed Enough Already?

so if that's what brought you in to the tea party, you should support dems?

really?


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

The RepublCONs have been shifting the tax burden onto the middle class for thirty years. Their foolish tax cuts on the wealthy and on corps. have led to the massive debt and of course since their taxes were cut it is the middle class who will pay it off.

The middle class has not seen an increase in buying power in thirty years, coincidence? I don't think so.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 20, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


>



spending to repair the roof and rain gutters which the former landlord let deteriorate is necessary, and many times the money for the repairs needs to be borrowed as the same guy spent all the savings.
I know, it's hard for a stupid asshole to grasp, but that is the case with our nation.   Yep. booooooooooosh fucked up everything and only fools still have faith in the party of no.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 20, 2010)

Shoveling Trillions of $$$ to political cronies is not repair work.

Just sayin'.


----------



## johnrocks (Aug 20, 2010)

Half our economy or more is controlled by government, there are thousands of regulations;from how big a hole in Swiss Cheese can be on up; yet capitalism always seems to get blamed for our problems, why is that and government seems to get a pass?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> The RepublCONs have been shifting the tax burden onto the middle class for thirty years. Their foolish tax cuts on the wealthy and on corps. have led to the massive debt and of course since their taxes were cut it is the middle class who will pay it off.
> 
> The middle class has not seen an increase in buying power in thirty years, coincidence? I don't think so.



Yeah, we're shifting the tax burden onto the middle class so well that 50% of it is still being paid by 5% of the taxpayers.  Not 5% of the population, mind you, but 5% of the TAXPAYERS.  A huge chunk of the population doesn't fit into that designation at all.

What's more foolish, dimwit?  Cutting taxes on people who actually pay them, or cutting taxes on people who don't pay any to start with?  How do you cut something that doesn't exist?

We have a massive debt, shitforbrains, for the exact same reason you have one in your personal budget:  spending more than you have.  And tax cuts aren't spending, no matter WHAT your leftist masters tell you.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

Well Cecile,
You are good at spewing invectives, but you haven't explained why it is that since we have been living under the RepubliCONS agenda for thirty years it is not the RepubliCONs fault that all our good manufacturing jobs have gone over seas and the middle class hasn't had an increase in buying power and why RepubliCON presidents totalled over ten trillion dollars borrowed!


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Well Cecile,
> You are good at spewing invectives, but you haven't explained why it is that *since we have been living under the RepubliCONS agenda for thirty years *it is not the RepubliCONs fault that all our good manufacturing jobs have gone over seas and the middle class hasn't had an increase in buying power and why RepubliCON presidents totalled over ten trillion dollars borrowed!


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Nice little fairy tale. Unfortunately it didn't have any relevance to the national debt or deficit spending.

As the rabbi said, and is quoted in my sig line, "spending money to avoid bankruptcy is like fucking to avoid pregnancy."

Bankruptcy is where this country is currently headed from all the out of control, spend, spend, spend like the wind, democrat spending.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

Cecile
Do you think it fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secratary?


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Well Cecile,
> > You are good at spewing invectives, but you haven't explained why it is that *since we have been living under the RepubliCONS agenda for thirty years *it is not the RepubliCONs fault that all our good manufacturing jobs have gone over seas and the middle class hasn't had an increase in buying power and why RepubliCON presidents totalled over ten trillion dollars borrowed!



Yeah... no shit... this cherry is a total fucking kook...


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Cecile
> Do you think it fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secratary?



I think it would fair if you proved it.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

Pale Rider
You should pay a little more attention. We are not spending to cut the debt, we are spemding to keep the economy from grinding to a halt. I understand that the RepubliCONs want the economy to come to a stop so they can convince you it's because of that socialist, communmist, statis, nazi, lefty, pinko, President Obama.

Like I said, the Tea Partiers are just not smart enough to know they are working against their own self interest.


----------



## Jeremy (Aug 20, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Cecile
> ...



He's to busy tongue punching Olbermann in the fart box to bother.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

Pale Rider,
I'm just telling you what Warren Buffet said!


----------



## boedicca (Aug 20, 2010)

A Multiple Billionaire who couldn't possible spend all his money in several lifetimes and whose wealth is mostly shielded from taxes in trusts is not representative of the middle class people making more than $200K in major metro areas who will be saddled with the tax increase.

The fact that you think Buffett is proper Spokes Model for the middle class shows how inane and economically illiterate you are.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 20, 2010)

johnrocks said:


> Half our economy or more is controlled by government, there are thousands of regulations;from how big a hole in Swiss Cheese can be on up; yet capitalism always seems to get blamed for our problems, why is that and government seems to get a pass?



Government gets a pass?  Missed that, when did that happen?
It seemed petty to complain when my tax dollars were being spent on a war of choice in Iraq when thousands of young Americans were paying for that fiasco with their lives, limbs and vision.
It would have been good if the government had passed a war tax, if we really needed to invade and occupy Iraq for eight years don't you think those who stood to gain the most should give the most?  And those who gave the most, their lives, limbs and vision ought to get the most in terms of health care and a living wage, college guaranteed to the kids some left behind, a secure income to widows.
But hell, it's their money!  Isn't that what capitalism is all about - making more, more and more?


----------



## 007 (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Pale Rider
> You should pay a little more attention. We are not spending to cut the debt, we are spemding to keep the economy from grinding to a halt. I understand that the RepubliCONs want the economy to come to a stop so they can convince you it's because of that socialist, communmist, statis, nazi, lefty, pinko, President Obama.
> 
> Like I said, the Tea Partiers are just not smart enough to know they are working against their own self interest.





wihosa said:


> Pale Rider,
> I'm just telling you what Warren Buffet said!



Listen up cherry, no matter how you cut it, as an individual, or as the government, you can NOT, I repeat NOT, SPEND YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT. Now I don't know what kind of fucking indoctrination camp you've been in, but who ever told you different is a damn LUNATIC!

And if you claim Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary, link to it, prove it.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

boedicca,
How can you get my meaning so ass backwards? Oh I know, you're trying to!

If Warren Buffet admits that he pays a lower tax rate than his secratary you don't want to know? People who make all their money by collecting interest and dividends deserve a lower tax rate? 

So you're going to bat for all those poor "middle class" people who are making over 200K?

Boy if that's the middle class I am definetly not middle class any more.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

Pale Rider,
I'm sure you are smart enough to grasp this idea, If no one else is spending money and the economy is grinding to a halt then the only entity that can keep spending is the government. It is necessary for the gov. to spend to prefent the economy from completely crashing, which is exactly what was done.

We did not borrow money to get out of debt.

Think about it before answering.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 20, 2010)

In major metro areas where houses still cost $600K plus, $200K for a single earner and $250K for a dual income couple is middle class.   Those are the people who will bear the brunt of the the Obama Tax increase as they are not in a position to shield income in complicated trusts and offshore.

Buffett is pandering to his DC Cronies with his nonsense.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

So you think that it's fair for Warren Buffet's secretary to pay a higher tax rate?

So you think that some one with an income of a quarter million dollars should be exempt from an increase of 4% even though that means that the typical wage earner with a $40,000 income will have to shoulder more of the tax burden in the long run.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 20, 2010)

I don't think anything about our current tax system is fair.

Making it even more complex and raising taxes on anyone is not an improvement.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 20, 2010)

boedicca said:


> In major metro areas where houses still cost $600K plus, $200K for a single earner and $250K for a dual income couple is middle class.   Those are the people who will bear the brunt of the the Obama Tax increase as they are not in a position to shield income in complicated trusts and offshore.
> 
> Buffett is pandering to his DC Cronies with his nonsense.



With all due respect, you're ignorant.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2010)

Boedicca

You can't say whether a person who is one of the wealthiest people in the world should pay a higher tax rate than his own secretary.

I rest my case, Tea Partiers are just not smart enough to know they are working against their own self interests.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Shoveling Trillions of $$$ to political cronies is not repair work.
> 
> Just sayin'.



Cheneys old company and big oil?


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> The RepublCONs have been shifting the tax burden onto the middle class for thirty years. Their foolish tax cuts on the wealthy and on corps. have led to the massive debt and of course since their taxes were cut it is the middle class who will pay it off.


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Not smart enough to realize they are working against their own self interest.
> 
> The right wing agenda is pure capitalism. That's great for capitalists, bad for almost everyone else.
> 
> ...



The tea party people are working in their own self-interest.  They are smart enough to realize that.  

The right wing agenda is not pure capitalism.  It is more capitalist, but it is not pure capitalism anymore than the left wing agenda is pure communism.


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> And republicons have been so against bigger government, social programs and excessive govt spending?
> They did however support TARP.  Bailing out the fiiancial industry instead of letting it stand on it's own.
> 
> LMAO



I think most Republicans are unhappy with bailing out the financial system.

I also think that the Republicans at the top are unhappy with bailing out the financial system.  But it was a Hobson's Choice.  If they didn't, we would be in The Great Depression 2.0.

What upsets me today is that the Republicans offered little in real financial industry reform.  The financial bill is far from perfect but the GOP fought it every step of the way so that the big banks wouldn't have to reform themselves.


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


>



2009 was Bush's last budget.


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Cecile
> ...



Warren Buffett said that he did.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Toro said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



I was just about to post that.

Now here are some questions:

1.  How did Buffett get to pay such a low tax rate?
2.  If Buffett thinks everyone above a certain income level should pay more in taxes because the government needs the money why didn't he just do that instead of minimizing the taxes he pays?


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

asterism said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



1. Buffett pays a lower tax rate because most of his income is in dividends and capital gains, which has a lower rate of taxation than income.
2. Probably for the same reason why Republicans vote against the stimulus but take stimulus money for their districts and states - they are acting rationally and in their own best interests.


----------



## daveman (Aug 20, 2010)

Moonbats aren't smart enough to define for others what their own self-interests are.

But that doesn't stop them from thinking...sorry, wrong word...from _feeling_ that they are.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 20, 2010)

Toro said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Not smart enough to realize they are working against their own self interest.
> ...



The RW agenda is based on greed and envy.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> And republicons have been so against bigger government, social programs and excessive govt spending?
> They did however support TARP.  Bailing out the fiiancial industry instead of letting it stand on it's own.
> 
> LMAO


*Republicans have spent like drunken fools when given the opportunity.  They are no better than the Democrats.  They just spend the money differently.

Profits are up on Wall Street and corporate America is hiring again.  Unfortunately much of their hiring is abroad as is their investments.  The Right argues we should not increase taxes on the wealthy, but should cut their taxes to increase investments.  But if those investments continue to build new plants in China and provide jobs for millions of Chinese, just how does that help the American worker? *


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> The RW agenda is based on greed and envy.



I always thought the left wing agenda was based on envy.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 20, 2010)

Toro said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The RW agenda is based on greed and envy.
> ...



It's not.  You may believe it is, but if you really thought about it (or it you could) you realize that's nothing more than a RW talking point.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> boedicca,
> How can you get my meaning so ass backwards? Oh I know, you're trying to!
> 
> If Warren Buffet admits that he pays a lower tax rate than his secratary you don't want to know? People who make all their money by collecting interest and dividends deserve a lower tax rate?
> ...



Judging by the degree of class-envy you have, I'm guessing that you're in the income bracket that pays Zero taxes.
The 200k+ earners you hate so much are the job providers.
To raise taxes for anyone, during this spiraling economy, is asinine.

TEA (Taxed Enough Already) means that we have been taxed enough by BOTH parties. Not just Dems.
Yes, the Repugs supported TARP. That's why their heads are on the proverbial block, also.
Everyone will be held accountable in November.

Now lets compare how much TARP cost us compared to the sum of GM, Stimulus, and Healthcare and look at who has cost us MORE.

You keep throwing around this "30 years" number.
I guess you're not counting Clinton's 2 terms or how many years the Dems controlled the legislative branch, hunh?!

Okay, so you hate the Tea Party.
Cool.
But, like Cecille said, don't stride in here and think you can impose your version of shit on the rest of us.



BTW, PaleRider, that chart you posted (I've used it also) needs updated.
CBO's numbers, released today, holds it steady at 1.45T through 2013


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



How is it any more of a talking point than saying that the right wing agenda is based on greed and envy?


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Toro said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Correct.  Well that and his MASSIVE charitable contributions, huh?



Toro said:


> 2. Probably for the same reason why Republicans vote against the stimulus but take stimulus money for their districts and states - they are acting rationally and in their own best interests.



Ah.  So perhaps his expert ability to game the tax code to his ability while not sharing with others could be taken into account when he proclaims that tax rates should be increased right?  I mean if he was really looking out for the best interests of the government wouldn't he at least lead by example?  The guy is literally giving billions of his own dollars away!  Why doesn't he give it to the government if he truly believes that the government needs more money?

Ever think about that?


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Flopper said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > And republicons have been so against bigger government, social programs and excessive govt spending?
> ...



Perhaps it's not the government's place to "help the American worker," since that really hasn't ended well.  The USA is still the nexus of innovation, so get out there an innovate.  Leave the solved problems that have turned into commodity labor to emerging economies.  Find a need and fill it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 20, 2010)

hortysir said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca,
> ...



My guess is you don't have any friends or acquaintances who earn even $100,000.  I may be wrong, but I play golf and poker with a group of guys who all earn at least $250 k, and not one of them hires or employs anyone.  Two are attorney's, one is a medical doctor; at the table we add two engineers.  btw, the doctor is the best putter and has the lowest handicap (3).


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



How so?  That seems to be the platform of both parties vying for control of the economic resources, just with different perspectives.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2010)

A pure flat tax on all personal income.  No exceptions, no deductions.


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Harping on income disparity isn't envy?

Hmmmmm.......


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> A pure flat tax on all personal income.  No exceptions, no deductions.



At what rate?


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



These doctors and lawyers type up their own reports, interface directly with their clients as soon as they walk in the door and they answer their own phones?  They all fix their own computers?

You have either made a mistake or are witness to a very strange group of completely inefficient practitioners.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2010)

asterism said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > A pure flat tax on all personal income.  No exceptions, no deductions.
> ...



got me, we would have to figure that out.  Perhaps as low as 10%?
The needed rate could be figured out from SS pay records.


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2010)

asterism said:


> Correct.  Well that and his MASSIVE charitable contributions, huh?



I'm not sure exactly how much he donates every year, but until he pledged his fortune to the Gates Foundation, Buffett was well known for being extremely stingy with charity.  So at least before his big donation, his giving wouldn't have affected his taxes much.  And I think that he hasn't given much to the Gates Foundation yet.  I think he has just pledged it, but I could be wrong on that.



Toro said:


> Ah.  So perhaps his expert ability to game the tax code to his ability while not sharing with others could be taken into account when he proclaims that tax rates should be increased right?  I mean if he was really looking out for the best interests of the government wouldn't he at least lead by example?  The guy is literally giving billions of his own dollars away!  Why doesn't he give it to the government if he truly believes that the government needs more money?
> 
> Ever think about that?



Berkshire Hathaway already is one of the largest payers of income tax in the United States.

But that's not really the point.  Buffett could give his fortune to the government and it would make a small dent in the deficit.  Buffett is worth ~$50 billion.  The deficit is $1.4 trillion.  There has to be major structural reform.  Buffett's point was merely to illustrate that there was something wrong with the system in which he pays a smaller share of his income than his receptionist, implying that the whole system has to be reformed.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2010)

With a pure flat tax on personal income think of how much we could save on the IRS and tax supported parasitic industries like HR Block.


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I think 15% would maximize government revenues, but 10% would be more in line with how much power the government should have.  Of course we'd need to ramp down to that to avoid too much shock to the system and work out the problems.  Both would make the current $4 Trillion government look tiny, IMO.  I think we should start with the 30% FairTax and go from there.


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> With a pure flat tax on personal income think of how much we could save on the IRS and tax supported parasitic industries like HR Block.



Not to mention the efficiency gained by having businesses focused on what they do best instead of having to operate on a basis of how it affects their tax bills.  Progressives hate this idea because the current tax code is their primary tool for social engineering.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 20, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Not smart enough to realize they are working against their own self interest.
> 
> The right wing agenda is pure capitalism. That's great for capitalists, bad for almost everyone else.
> 
> ...



Reagan had nothing to do with it.  The world wanted American quality and style.  Blue jeans baby..LEVIS.  They were selling for a hundred bucs a pop in Moscow.  We produced the best textile and cheap.  Jap cars still had a bad reputation.  Lee Iacoca took personal responsibility at Chrysler.  Boeing was the only aircraft manufacturer that delivered planes on time.  Ford pickups outsold all others combined.  There was a strong middle class earning family supporting living wages.  Reagan in fact raised taxes.  We had the only information systems on the planet.  Texas Instruments had the only microprocessor game on the planet.  Then dumbass Reagan and Bush senior had the bright idea to sell off and outsource everything that was worth anything to foreign interests.  The gov wasted hundreds of billions on the military on stupid pipe dreams like "Star Wars".  Reagan got the big britches and refused to bargain with the air traffic controllers which had a chilling effect on unions nation wide.  The Japs economy tanked thanks to the world bank which started the collapse of our exports. Gas was reasonably cheap still but the oil companies were playing Reagan for a sucker.  They were creating low supply and we had long gas lines at the pump. 

These people that gather around and reminisce about Reagan are idiots.  They spout pure capitalism but don't have a clue about what it leads to.  Monopolies after the big fish destroy the little fish and it all winds up as fascism with the big fish owning the government and charging the American consumer whatever the hell they want to..

They only sane capitalism is well regulated capitalism.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 20, 2010)

asterism said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Fair tax?  You mean the sales or VAT  tax?

I disagree a flat income tax with no deductions.
That way taking money out of the country or hoarding it would not get you out of taxes.
If you made the money in the USA you pay tax on it.


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Toro said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Correct.  Well that and his MASSIVE charitable contributions, huh?
> ...



You are.  He pledged most of his money and he opened up with the largest single contribution ever recorded in 2006.

Warren Buffett's Charity Work, Events and Causes




Toro said:


> Berkshire Hathaway already is one of the largest payers of income tax in the United States.



Irrelevant since Berkshire Hathaway is not Warren Buffet.  He owns a very small part of that entity.

BRK-A: Major Holders for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Common - Yahoo! Finance



Toro said:


> But that's not really the point.  Buffett could give his fortune to the government and it would make a small dent in the deficit.  Buffett is worth ~$50 billion.  The deficit is $1.4 trillion.  There has to be major structural reform.  Buffett's point was merely to illustrate that there was something wrong with the system in which he pays a smaller share of his income than his receptionist, implying that the whole system has to be reformed.



Buffett has always been good at making money.  What in the world makes you think he isn't just interested in making more of it?  We can plainly see what he wants to do, and giving it to the government isn't it.  He knows how to game the system.  Instead of harping on the ease by which he's able to do that, he talks about the "fairness" of it all to make a political statement and advocates that those much less wealthy than he should pay up.

I understand the emotional appeal progressives think they have, but rather than do what Buffett says, I'd rather do what he does.  

He has also not commented one bit on the methodology progressives use in their view of the economy as a static entity (tax rate cuts cost money).  Have you ever wondered why?


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> They only sane capitalism is well regulated capitalism.



Correct.  Well regulated, not micromanaged and encumbered by wealth distribution scams.


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Why tax prosperity?  Tax consumption.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 20, 2010)

asterism said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



The RW is separate from the political parties; they are at best the fringe of the R party.


----------



## asterism (Aug 20, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Ah.

I know this tune, the "Club for Greed" line.  Instead of refuting "Club for Growth" points, a simple replacement is made.

If we're so greedy, why are people like you demanding that we pay more for your pet causes?  Just curious.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 21, 2010)

asterism said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



I'm not demanding anything.  History suggests what happens when the few control a substantial amount of a nations wealth, the result is both predictable and inevitable.

Time for me to hit the rack.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 21, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Well Cecile,
> You are good at spewing invectives, but you haven't explained why it is that since we have been living under the RepubliCONS agenda for thirty years it is not the RepubliCONs fault that all our good manufacturing jobs have gone over seas and the middle class hasn't had an increase in buying power and why RepubliCON presidents totalled over ten trillion dollars borrowed!



Well, assmunch, I will have an obligation to explain that to you just as soon as I assert that as my position.  Until such time, I will thank you kindly not to even CONSIDER presuming to state my positions for me, since it's clear to me that I flush things with more brain wattage than you possess.

Next time, try ASKING me what I think, and THEN ask for the explanation.  It works better.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 21, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Cecile
> Do you think it fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secratary?



According to whom?  Warren Buffet or the IRS?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 21, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Pale Rider
> You should pay a little more attention. We are not spending to cut the debt, *we are spemding to keep the economy from grinding to a halt.* I understand that the RepubliCONs want the economy to come to a stop so they can convince you it's because of that socialist, communmist, statis, nazi, lefty, pinko, President Obama.
> 
> Like I said, the Tea Partiers are just not smart enough to know they are working against their own self interest.



Yes, because it's GOVERNMENT spending that keeps the economy running.  

Dear GOD, you are such an ignorant shitstain.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 21, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Pale Rider,
> I'm just telling you what Warren Buffet said!



Warren Buffet is a disingenuous sack of shit with an agenda that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him.  Try something a bit more substantial, because he can SAY any fucking thing he wants, and it proves nothing except that he has an adequate vocabulary.  I could SAY I'm Queen Elizabeth II of England, but that ain't gonna get me into Buckingham Palace, now is it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 21, 2010)

wihosa said:


> Boedicca
> 
> You can't say whether a person who is one of the wealthiest people in the world should pay a higher tax rate than his own secretary.
> 
> I rest my case, Tea Partiers are just not smart enough to know they are working against their own self interests.



YOU can't say for fucking certain that he isn't.  All YOU can say is that you'll believe any goddamned thing you're told as long as it fits the worldview you subscribe to.

I rest my case, leftists are gullible, self-deluding mouthbreathers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 21, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Really?  You know two attorneys, one doctor, and two engineers who don't provide employment and income to ANYONE else?  How, pray tell, do they manage that?  They answer their own phones, do they?  Do their own research?  Clean their own fucking bedpans?  Or are they retired?

I call bullshit.


----------



## Toro (Aug 21, 2010)

asterism said:


> Irrelevant since Berkshire Hathaway is not Warren Buffet.  He owns a very small part of that entity.
> 
> BRK-A: Major Holders for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Common - Yahoo! Finance



Buffett owns, or at least owned until the Burlington transaction, 23% of the class A stock of BRK.  The stock he has donated to the Gates Foundation he runs in a trust for the foundation.  It appears that he owns ~12% of BRK pre-Burlington.  That makes him one of the largest owners of any company in the world.



> Buffett has always been good at making money.  What in the world makes you think he isn't just interested in making more of it?  We can plainly see what he wants to do, and giving it to the government isn't it.  He knows how to game the system.  Instead of harping on the ease by which he's able to do that, he talks about the "fairness" of it all to make a political statement and advocates that those much less wealthy than he should pay up.
> 
> I understand the emotional appeal progressives think they have, but rather than do what Buffett says, I'd rather do what he does.
> 
> He has also not commented one bit on the methodology progressives use in their view of the economy as a static entity (tax rate cuts cost money).  Have you ever wondered why?



Buffett is a well-known progressive.  There aren't many people who know more about business and the economy than he.


----------



## asterism (Aug 21, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



How many is "few" in this scenario?  How do you think the current climate compares with the 1950s?


----------



## Toro (Aug 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider,
> ...



You are a disingenuous sack of shit with an agenda.

I'll take the word of a man who pays his receptionist, not some bitter hack.


----------



## johnrocks (Aug 21, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Half our economy or more is controlled by government, there are thousands of regulations;from how big a hole in Swiss Cheese can be on up; yet capitalism always seems to get blamed for our problems, why is that and government seems to get a pass?
> ...



I'm not giving those idiots that wear the "R" a pass, your absolutely right to complain about those unfunded fiasco's.  I'm so pissed about that, that I refuse to vote for anyone  who ever supported it without refuting it.  A pox on both parties and the Federal Reserve for screwing things up.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 21, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Shoveling Trillions of $$$ to political cronies is not repair work.
> 
> Just sayin'.



Right..it's* Faulty *repair work and business as usual for Haliburton.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 21, 2010)

asterism said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



to prevent the removal of wealth from the USA without paying taxes on it.


----------



## asterism (Aug 21, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Ah.  So you are saying to tax revenue not income correct?  That's not really going to work out well.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 21, 2010)

asterism said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



I am saying to tax all personal income regardless of source.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 21, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


Lawyers need paralegals and secretaries. Doctors need nurses and assistants.
But to answer your question, yes.
And they're all business owners. AC, pharmacy, bowling alley, heavy equipment dealer, etc.....

Good deflection, though.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 21, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



That's not to mention all the people employed by the results of the natural business of lawyers, doctors, engineers, and other professionals.  Court reporters, for example, and all the other people whose employment is connected to the court system, or those connected to a hospital.  I'd have to know what type of engineers we're talking about to give a list of those whose employment is created by the business activities thereof.


----------



## daveman (Aug 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'd have to know what type of engineers we're talking about to give a list of those whose employment is created by the business activities thereof.


Somebody's got to build what engineers design.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 21, 2010)

asterism said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


*If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.*


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 21, 2010)

Flopper said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Cause they can afford to rent more government officials?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 22, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Cecile
> ...



I've found another fool to embarrass:


Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Tom Bawden in New York 

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner. 

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If youre in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent. 

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. 

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 22, 2010)

Wow, we're going to need to use Hoverbikes to break this conditioning to hate Reagan reflexively and with garbage for "evidence".


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Flopper said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Because removing the incentive for innovation helps neither the workers, the taxed, nor the government because it's unsustainable.  While "those who are most able to pay them" can do so right now, that won't last if they are taxed out of productivity.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 22, 2010)

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?


It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?



Not completely.  Going from 35% to 39.6% eradicates any innovative plans with an expected profit margin of 4% or less.  Expected profit margin is the result of calculations and outright guesses on whether a new venture should be started and whether the risk is worth the reward.  So not only are low margin projects not viable, but all projects in the consideration stage have a decrease of expected after tax profit of 7%.  THAT is significant.  Included in this mix is that investments are not treated as expenses until a loss is realized.  Reducing the after tax profit by 7% tips the scales in the "not viable" column in quite a few new ventures.

It's certainly no incentive to take that risk.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?
> ...



Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed.  The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true.  The government did step in and things are actually worse.  You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


Aren't you confusing business/corporate tax rates with personal tax rates?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No.

In the end, all after tax profits end up as personal income for shareholders.  With regards to innovation, most new ventures are started by businesses that operate without a taxable corporate entity.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true.



You don't remember Roemer talking about unemployment and other economic indicators?  Here's what was predicted with the stimulus, without the stimulus, and what actually happened with the stimulus.







You don't remember hearing that the economy would suffer greatly if GM didn't get the bailout and was forced into going bankrupt?  What actually happened was GM still went bankrupt even with the bailout.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?


Certainly stunted it's growth compared to how good it could have been.  Otherwise the tax cuts JFK did would not have been so effective that we could afford the Vietnam War and Great Society for so long.  That's where the squandered cash went.  Down those ratholes.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...




It's not just a 39.6% tax rate.    Many states have income taxes near 10%.  Then add the 3.8% Medicare surcharge.   Add these together, and the marginal tax rate is well over 50%.  At that point, the reward-risk tension for investing in a small business is seriously strained - hence the nearly complete lack of new job creation in the small business sector and continuing high unemployment of Obamanomics.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

boedicca said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Yup.

Small business contribution to job and economic growth is always decreased when the government steps in and picks favorites.  GM got $50 Billion to survive and produce the Volt.  Tesla, the pioneers of viable electric cars was one of many who were penalized to make that happen.

That does bring up an interesting point:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ernment-incentives-to-buy-the-chevy-volt.html


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 22, 2010)

daveman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have to know what type of engineers we're talking about to give a list of those whose employment is created by the business activities thereof.
> ...



Quite true, but to be any more specific than that about job titles would require me to know the type of engineer.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 22, 2010)

Flopper said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Because it's morally right to stop stealing from others to support YOUR lazy ass.  Just because they CAN afford it doesn't mean they have an obligation to.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Let's keep subjective opinions on morality out of this.  Economics tells us to look at options from a fiscal perspective.  "They can afford to pay" only lasts so long if the act of manipulating things so that "they" pay causes them to be in a situation where they actually can't pay.

If we're all "middle class," what is the tax rate on the middle class according to today's spending?  Can the current middle class afford it?


----------



## Flopper (Aug 22, 2010)

boedicca said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Considering the current state of the economy, I suspect that most people making over $200,000 would invest very little in small businesses.  I would say most of their investment money ends up either in treasuries, corporate bonds, tax exempt bonds, or large multinationals corporation via outright purchase of stock or mutual funds.  None of which does much to create jobs in the US.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Flopper said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Ignorance of who earns over $200,000 per year right now is what fuels this mindset.  Here's a hint, it's mostly owners of small businesses pouring cash into their operations just to ride out the storm.



Flopper said:


> I would say most of their investment money ends up either in treasuries, corporate bonds, tax exempt bonds, or large multinationals corporation via outright purchase of stock or mutual funds.



More ignorance.  Do your homework and go find a restaurant.  Sit down and talk with the owner.



Flopper said:


> None of which does much to create jobs in the US.



You don't think those investments create jobs in the US?  Where did Google's funding come from?  Where does a gas station owner put his savings?  Where does a pension invest?

Think this one through a bit.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


*No, we aren't all middle class.  Models vary but most definitions of middle class tops out at $100,000 a year.  An income over $200,000 is definitely not middle class.

American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an absurd idea that if we can just get taxes low enough for the wealthy, they will become the engine of job creation in America.  This is based on the idea that if you give a tax break to the poor they will spend it and benefits to the economy are short lived.  But if you give a tax break to the rich, they will invest it and thus create jobs.  It sounds good however, all investments do not lead to job creation.  People invest money where they will get the most gain in relation to the risk.  That place today is not small businesses on Main St. USA.  Investments abroad provide better rates of return.  Treasury Bonds provide the most safety.  Municipal Bonds provide move tax free income.  Of course there is the large multinational corporation that generate lots of jobs, just not in US.

Low taxes for the rich is no guarantee of job creation in the US.*


----------



## daveman (Aug 22, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 22, 2010)

Flopper said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Thank you for proving that you succumb to the Progressive Class War.

A two income family earning $200K in San Jose is middle class.  They live in a 3 or 4 bedroom, 2 bath tract home and likely send their kids to public schools.  They are much closer to the working class who earn $100K (especially if they are in the midwest) than they are to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Why do the Progressives deem people who work for a living and earn a higher than average income The Rich?   Because cumulatively, they have far more income than the tiny handful of the truly wealthy at the top of the income scale - and they are too busy supporting their families and lack the individual power and connections to have much influence on the political process.

That was the theory.  But as the Tea Party Movement is proving - people who value Individual Liberty, Responsibility, and Fiscal Conservatism have more in common with each other than the separateness the Progressives promote with an artificial dividing line of income.

Bet that Scares the Heebeejeebus out of you.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Flopper said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Thank you Captain Obvious, you seem to have missed the "if" in my comment. 



Flopper said:


> Models vary but most definitions of middle class tops out at $100,000 a year.  An income over $200,000 is definitely not middle class.



You seem to have missed my point.  If we were all middle class, what is the tax rate on that middle class according to today's spending.  Can the current middle class afford it?



Flopper said:


> American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It is an absurd idea that if we can just get taxes low enough for the wealthy, they will become the engine of job creation in America.



That is a false premise because the engine of job creation in America has always been the "wealthy" (by your definition of those being above the middle class).  It takes money to invest money in a new venture.



Flopper said:


> This is based on the idea that if you give a tax break to the poor they will spend it and benefits to the economy are short lived.



No, it's not.  Please do not try to explain to me and others what my views are.  It's faulty and not productive. 



Flopper said:


> But if you give a tax break to the rich, they will invest it and thus create jobs.  It sounds good however, all investments do not lead to job creation.



While all investments do not lead to job creation, all job creation is a result of investments.



Flopper said:


> People invest money where they will get the most gain in relation to the risk.



True.



Flopper said:


> That place today is not small businesses on Main St. USA.



False.



Flopper said:


> Investments abroad provide better rates of return.



True, but at what risk?



Flopper said:


> Treasury Bonds provide the most safety.  Municipal Bonds provide move tax free income.  Of course there is the large multinational corporation that generate lots of jobs, just not in US.
> 
> Low taxes for the rich is no guarantee of job creation in the US.[/B]



High taxes for "the rich" as defined by you as those making more than $200,000 per year is a guarantee of a decreased incentive to create jobs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Let's don't.  Where the hell do you get off trying to impose YOUR boundaries on how decisions can and can't be made onto others?    If I want to make economic decisions based on "I have no right to other people's money, and only an immoral dirtbag steals from  others" rather than "You have it and I don't, so I'm gonna take yours", who the fuck are you to tell me that my standards are not the correct ones and that I have to use yours?


----------



## daveman (Aug 22, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


How else is he going to justify his theft?


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wow!

Hyperbole much?  Say what you want, nobody is stopping you.  I'll refrain from giving my input to you from now on.  Good luck.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 22, 2010)

*Tea partiers not smart enough... 
*

My guess is that that condition is manditory for membership.  Probably an ironclad rule.  No exceptions.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



If your input involves "let's define the debate THIS way", feel free to refrain from giving it, and spare me the butt-chapped sniveling.  Butch up, buttercup, or go join the knitting club.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 22, 2010)

The thing is, morality DOES play into. I was talking with my sister the other day, and she said child psychologists had come to the conclusion that for decades parents were concerned with whether or not their children were happy, when really they should be concerned with whether or not they were GOOD.

Morality has a huge place in politics, in economics, and in every day life. Pushing it the side has resulted in disaster.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You've got a warped view of strength.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



They would have to invent new technology to measure my indifference to the "view of strength" possessed by a whining crybaby who pitches a hissy fit over being criticized on the Internet.

Bottom line, pussycat:  if you're going to get your panties in a ruffle and whimper when you're told to go fuck yourself, don't try to tell people how they can and can't define a debate.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Please point out the hissyfit.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Bottom line, pussycat:  if you're going to get your panties in a ruffle and whimper when you're told to go fuck yourself, don't try to tell people how they can and can't define a debate.



Talking tough and throwing invectives doesn't make you strong and declaring that I shall not give you input is not anywhere close to getting panties in a ruffle.  You sound just like the little kid who throws rocks at an adult and then yells "pussy!" when he simply chuckles and walks away.

Your responses certainly sum up the substance of your thought processes.  I'm actually laughing now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



*Bottom line, pussycat:*

This phrase means we're done, shitforbrains.  It doesn't mean "Please continue whining".  Move along.


----------



## asterism (Aug 22, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



This is fun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhEp72u3Sfo]YouTube - bolz spinning top[/ame]

I think I'll give it a couple more cranks:

Who are you to dictate what I do?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 22, 2010)

asterism said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



You get the USMB award for the day by keeping the fuckwit AKA CC1200 busy while the adults have been enjoying themselves.  

Thank you!  NO!..seriously you have performed a valuaqble service and at least for a short time we are in your debt!


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 23, 2010)

I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive.  Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".

The only thing I can equate to, if it is a true 'directive' from the journolist type asshats agreeing on the meme of the week for the causeheads they call their fans and constituents, in an effort to sabotage the anti-incumbent sentiment by planting the seed of "if you vote them out you will get hurt economically."  Now if this is the case, it's a bowl of horseshit and it reeks to high heaven.

On the other hand, the stupidity of the statement is based on two things, economic ignorance and an ethical lapse.

First, the ethical lapse:  "It is right to steal from those richer than you."  If you think that the government giving you goodies is not theft by force of government, you're lying to yourself.  Taxation should be banned from charitable giving.  No exceptions.  It's what the founding fathers did, for good reason.  You cannot say no to taxes, and programs of charity based on taxes steal by force of imprisonment or weapon from those who have.  It is only several layers removed from going up to your neighbor's house, sticking a gun in his face and demanding cash.  Ultimately there is no difference.  That is the ethical lapse that you are entitled to the fruit of your neighbor's work against his will.  If it was of his will, he would have given you cash or help when he saw you down on your luck.  Of course, now the government has extra cash, he doesn't have it to give... and he gave less to the government than he may have given to you individually.  So, you fuck yourself as you fuck your neighbor believing you are entitled.  Not to mention, someone is sticking a gun in YOUR faces as well for your money to pay for what they are entitled to of your labor.  Fun, isn't it?

The economic ignorance is in the idea that you are improving your lot in life and voting FOR your self interest by using taxes to pay for your entitlements (need not withstanding).  Government taxes are incredibly inefficient at doing a good thing.  There are so many parties that skim off a share before it reaches you.  Makes a corrupt charity look like a saint in comparision.  Not only that, it is rife with corrupt uses of the money, diversions of money away from it's intent to fund pet projects never agreed to by you, and generally, reduces the available money in private sector for investment and growth.  How, is this economically smart to vote for more money to be removed from the market and be slowed or stuck or removed completely from the market (shipping it overseas)?  

This may seem like a short term good because for now, you get your entitlements you believe you are owed.  On the other hand, it is unsustainable in the long run.  Over time, more and more people have 'good ideas to make society better' that need funding.  And they grow, and grow and include more and need more and eat more and more and more tax money.  Now mind you, this is already an inefficient system where possibly HUNDREDS of people are getting a bit off each dollar that passes through them leaving only crumbs that reach the real goal and placate a few.  Of course those few clammor for more... and vote to get more.  The never-ending parasitic cycle goes until the host dies or kills the parasites.

Short term, it seems like a good idea.  The parasites are happy, the host is still healthy-ish.  But as the parasites grow, they eventually kill the host.  Economically, the host is staggering as a population explosion has occurred thanks to congress from 2006 till now and P-BO.  No one is reaching for the flea/tick bath or even discussing the hard choices of killing the parasites.  They're just keeping up with the blood transfusions and hoping to stay ahead of the game.  It's a losing battle and in the long term, when the host dies, everyone dies.  This is the economic stupidity we are in.


----------



## asterism (Aug 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive.  Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".
> 
> The only thing I can equate to, if it is a true 'directive' from the journolist type asshats agreeing on the meme of the week for the causeheads they call their fans and constituents, in an effort to sabotage the anti-incumbent sentiment by planting the seed of "if you vote them out you will get hurt economically."  Now if this is the case, it's a bowl of horseshit and it reeks to high heaven.
> 
> ...



I agree, but I am a tad more zen in my thoughts on this.  After all, Adam Smith (not a producer by the way) did correctly explain the concept of the Invisible Hand.  That is, the benefit of everyone is greater if individuals are looking out for their own best interests.

What Adam Smith did not predict nor consider, was a government that was a full participant in the economy with the people "in need" voting en masse against those that are being forced to provide the resources to pay for those needs.  He never even imagined a scenario where more than 50% of the voters were not material participants in funding the level of government resources.  

So now we have a situation where 51 wolves and 49 cows get to vote on what's for dinner.  When is the last time you grilled up a good slab of dog?  I see beef, chicken, pork and fish when I go to the grocery store.  I don't see dog.  It's like that for a reason, dog isn't particularly productive.  Prevalent, but not productive in this context.

It's a new normal folks.  Time for the cows to realize that they actually can take out the wolves just by stomping on them.  Don't allow them to rest on the fringe in groups.  See them out individually and stomp them with your hooves and superior mass.

As it pertains to politics, don't let them pull the pack mentality to defeat you.  Go after their flawed logic individually.  Destroy their collective by not letting them gain ground.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 23, 2010)

> What Adam Smith did not predict nor consider, was a government that was a full participant in the economy with the people "in need" voting en masse against those that are being forced to provide the resources to pay for those needs. He never even imagined a scenario where more than 50% of the voters were not material participants in funding the level of government resources.



That is true because no such government existed at the time where such parameters could exist.  Voters were generally only male landowners or free men who met certain conditions.  When the vote was expanded, people who had almost no investiture in the function of government or society (industry or agricultural owners) the power shifted as there are always more poor people than rich, and they had less to lose from bad choices.

The second issue was that nobody back then... and I mean NOBODY could have ever envisioned a "kleptocracy" like we have today.  We have men of such LOW moral standard, and others who are blithering idiots "handled" into power, and even more who are just representatives of special interests devoted to looting the public coffers!  I mean even at the worst days of Parliament when all you got was Fat Torrie Landowners who were mindless bigoted old fools and made MP when they reached a certain weight, surviving on rotten boroughs and gerrymandering, they still could not get away with it because the house of lords stood in their way.  Today, we don't have this protection.  Both houses are corrupt and doing the same thing for their own people.  That's where we sit.

Even the former Russian communists are impressed by our corruption and ability to delude ourselves at the depths of our thievery.  To some of them, we're the stuff of legend.



> It's a new normal folks. Time for the cows to realize that they actually can take out the wolves just by stomping on them. Don't allow them to rest on the fringe in groups. See them out individually and stomp them with your hooves and superior mass.



That is coming.  I think the elitists and their supporters know it too.  That's why we see the threads and attacks and propaganda coming out of Washington we do now.  That's why people like Glenn Beck is become a modern day Paul Revere and William Penn rolled into one.  Sounding the warning and calling people back to God as the rock hard foundation of this nation, so all may be able to stand for the founding morals and ideals of this great nation and stand against her enemies.  That is why the hatred for him is reaching homicidal pitch.

2010 is the bell weather.  What happens this November may save or sink this nation.  For what is to come, we must be careful not to close off the peaceful avenues of change or dam up the desire for change.  For if all peaceful routes are closed, and all the desire is blocked off... it will build and build till the pressure breaks through and the only routes left are those of violence.  This is what I fear may happen, but I still have hope.

So people need to consider this in their idle or pointed mockery of those who go to tea parties.  They are not professional protesters or wild eyed one issue nutters that we are used to.  They are your neighbors and your friends.  They will not soon forget the slights you have chosen to heap upon them.  So when they do come to power, it is best to not have given them good reason to retaliate in kind when you are weak.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > What Adam Smith did not predict nor consider, was a government that was a full participant in the economy with the people "in need" voting en masse against those that are being forced to provide the resources to pay for those needs. He never even imagined a scenario where more than 50% of the voters were not material participants in funding the level of government resources.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow! You really had me listening right up to the point where you defer to Glenn Beck=Roger Ailes=Rupert Murdoch=Saudi Prince.  WTFRU blabbering about?


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive.  Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".



D'jever notice that when a liberal defines someone's best interest, it's always "whatever keeps liberals in power"?


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 23, 2010)

daveman said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive.  Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".
> ...


Absolutely.


----------

