# France INcome Tax raised to 100%: Total Marxism



## The2ndAmendment

This is the Progressive Paradise.

Welcome to Forbes

Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money

Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%

Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters


----------



## NightFox

The2ndAmendment said:


> France INcome Tax raised to 100%: Total Marxism



.... and the only people that should care about this are the People of France, good luck Frenchies you're going to need it.


----------



## DiamondDave

You have far lefties on here who may stay silent but love the idea of this.. and still some others that will openly support such things


----------



## Claudette

NightFox said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> France INcome Tax raised to 100%: Total Marxism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... and the only people that should care about this are the People of France, good luck Frenchies you're going to need it.
Click to expand...


Yup. When you vote in socialists you get, well, socialists. 

Works great till you run out of other peoples money.


----------



## eflatminor

Oh...my...God.

That is the most fucked up thing I've seen in some time.  Their ENTIRE income, gone!  

Well, at least we can take solace in knowing that central governments are much more efficient in how they spend money than individuals making voluntary choices...

Now which Statists here will support this kind of crap I wonder???


----------



## g5000

France is the next EU domino.  Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain...France.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Why isn't the commie leaders head NOT under a guillotine?


----------



## Edgetho

But, but, but.....  It's working so well...!!!

Record French jobless claims threaten Hollande's goal | Reuters



> PARIS | Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:35pm EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - *The number of jobless people in mainland France hit an all-time high in July*, squeezing the time left for President Francois Hollande to fulfill a pledge to reverse the trend by the end of the year.


----------



## g5000

The wonder of financial derivatives.  And you thought "subprime borrowers" were just black people in America.  

It was also whole countries.


----------



## Lovebears65

eflatminor said:


> Oh...my...God.
> 
> That is the most fucked up thing I've seen in some time.  Their ENTIRE income, gone!
> 
> Well, at least we can take solace in knowing that central governments are much more efficient in how they spend money than individuals making voluntary choices...
> 
> Now which Statists here will support this kind of crap I wonder???



I would just stop working. I mean if I dont get to keep one dime of what I earned why should I work right or move


----------



## NightFox

Lovebears65 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...my...God.
> 
> That is the most fucked up thing I've seen in some time.  Their ENTIRE income, gone!
> 
> Well, at least we can take solace in knowing that central governments are much more efficient in how they spend money than individuals making voluntary choices...
> 
> Now which Statists here will support this kind of crap I wonder???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would just stop working. I mean if I dont get to keep one dime of what I earned why should I work right or move
Click to expand...


They won't stop working, they'll just take their assets and their business elsewhere, France's loss is some other countries gain.


----------



## Vox

Hm... but France Supreme Court ( or whatever is it called) declared their 75% on the income over a million euros  uncostitutional at the end of last December...


----------



## Political Junky

They reinvest in their business, rather than taking the profit and sending it offshore.


----------



## THORAX

DiamondDave said:


> You have far lefties on here who may stay silent but love the idea of this.. and still some others that will openly support such things



That's because leftist progressives are mentally retarded children.

Many such leftist here on this forum are so retarded that they're cross eye'd and they regularly have foam build up on their mouths.


----------



## Vox

Political Junky said:


> They reinvest in their business, rather than taking the profit and sending it offshore.



No, they are not. The wealthy are leaving to different countries -Belgium being the most preferred


----------



## Toro

California Democrats look on with envy.


----------



## ScienceRocks

We should reward our innovators and successful...

A society that rewards our lazy or violent is going to get more of that.


----------



## RDD_1210

Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

RDD_1210 said:


> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.



Are you sure?


----------



## Toro

RDD_1210 said:


> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.



JoeB131 has.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters



As usual, the subject line is not what the links state.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Luddly Neddite said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, the subject line is not what the links state.
Click to expand...


You're right, in some regions and brackets it's over 100%, making them pay EXTRA from their savings!


----------



## Moonglow

The previous one time  75%  tax rate was struck down, I am sure this one will be also.


----------



## Sunshine

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters



The French have staged many uprisings.  They can again.  Hark!  What is that echo I hear?  *Marie Antoinette*......Marie Antoinette......Marie Antoinette.


----------



## Sunshine

The2ndAmendment said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, the subject line is not what the links state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, in some regions and brackets it's over 100%, making them pay EXTRA from their savings!
Click to expand...



Zerobama has a new role model~!


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> California Democrats look on with envy.



Must be the whole wine production thing, apparently being around all those grapes warps the mind.


----------



## eflatminor

RDD_1210 said:


> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.



I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.  Several of our little central planner wannabes right here at USMB have suggested extremely high tax rates.  Heck, 22% in this poll favored a 91% rate (not 100%, but close enough for 'remote'):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296722-poll-liberals-how-much-is-a-fair-share-taxes.html

Then there's Senator Chuck Schumer (D), who advocated a 100% tax rate for a select group:  http://www.nydailynews.com/2.1353/aig-bonus-checks-taxed-100-sen-chuck-schumer-article-1.205774

Paul Krugman also called for a 91% tax rate:  LibertyNEWS.com ? Lefty NYT Hack Paul Krugman Refers to 91% Tax Rate On Wealthy As Model We Should Look At

Here's a paper from the University of Chicago describing historical examples of a 100% tax rate:  http://home.uchicago.edu/~cbm4/tax100.pdf

So there you go, folks 'remotely' suggesting it.


----------



## SuMar

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters




Yikes...I'm glad I don't live in France.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Sunshine said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, the subject line is not what the links state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, in some regions and brackets it's over 100%, making them pay EXTRA from their savings!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Zerobama has a new role model~!
Click to expand...


- and according to you, its Marie Antoinette?

You DO know how utterly stupid that is, DON'T YOU???

Give this a moment's thought.
Think about how the GObP/R wants YOU to pay higher taxes than the 1%.

Go ahead. 

Think 
about
it.


------------

How can people be THIS stupid? Every day, you nutters log on and post about how you want to give your money away to the wealthy and get NOTHING in return.

----------- 

Blech.


-----------


----------



## CrusaderFrank

According to Krugman and USMB Progressives, France's economy should start to boom!

(Lol. No really, that's what they think)


----------



## Unkotare

R.C. Christian said:


> Why isn't the commie leaders head NOT under a guillotine?




You are a hyperbole whore. You just can't get enough.


----------



## GHook93

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters



The article states that the the socialist destroyer of France lobbied a 'one time' (which will probably be an annual one time surcharge lol) surcharge on anyone making over $1.3 mil that equated to 100% of one's income to offset tax incentives Sarkosy gave! The Socialist Destroy had a blow back to his 75% on all people making over one million Euros. The court said anything over 66% equate to confiscation! 

So what is the socialist destoryers next move? Change the constitution to allow 75% and attack companies. This guy is a true moron. France will never recover!


----------



## SuMar

CrusaderFrank said:


> According to Krugman and USMB Progressives, France's economy should start to boom!
> 
> (Lol. No really, that's what they think)



Maybe implode....


----------



## velvtacheeze

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters



Who are they?  What is their life like now?  Are these poor souls living in poverty?  I doubt it. The whole claim reeks of right wing propaganda.  Unconvincing . What a joke.


----------



## NightFox

GHook93 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article states that the the socialist destroyer of France lobbied a 'one time' (which will probably be an annual one time surcharge lol) surcharge on anyone making over $1.3 mil that equated to 100% of one's income to offset tax incentives Sarkosy gave! The Socialist Destroy had a blow back to his 75% on all people making over one million Euros. The court said anything over 66% equate to confiscation!
> 
> So what is the socialist destoryers next move? Change the constitution to allow 75% and attack companies. This guy is a true moron.* France will never recover!*
Click to expand...


I think you're being a little harsh on the French Government, after all they're just trying to finish the job that the Germans started.


----------



## daveman

Liberals figuratively beat their economic dog, then wonder why it runs away.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

RDD_1210 said:


> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.



I've seen leftists on this message forum as well as a few people I know suggest going back to 90% top income tax rates because we had them in the 50s and America was Utopia.  Michael Moore has advocated it.


----------



## Vox

Unkotare said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the commie leaders head NOT under a guillotine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a hyperbole whore. You just can't get enough.
Click to expand...


he is right on spot on this, however, I think he was joking and the joke is well grounded.


----------



## Vox

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen leftists on this message forum as well as a few people I know suggest going back to 90% top income tax rates because we had them in the 50s and America was Utopia.  Michael Moore has advocated it.
Click to expand...


we also had the ability to write off everything - including a trip to the movies.

Plus there were tariffs.

and a lot of other staff, including gold standard.

which, obviously, our libtard brethren happily forget.


----------



## Darkwind

Unkotare said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the commie leaders head NOT under a guillotine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a hyperbole whore. You just can't get enough.
Click to expand...

Really?

Do you even know the story of the French revolution, or why they no longer have nobility?

Hyperbole?


LMAO


----------



## Katzndogz

Those rich people who already left must be glad they did now.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- NOT actually happening, hater dupes..

France rated #1 in quality of life.


----------



## Trajan

france is in a pickle, their UE rate has shot thru the roof to 10.8%, highest since 98......


----------



## francoHFW

Darkwind said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the commie leaders head NOT under a guillotine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a hyperbole whore. You just can't get enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> Do you even know the story of the French revolution, or why they no longer have nobility?
> 
> Hyperbole?
> 
> 
> LMAO
Click to expand...



They have plenty of nobility, they just have no power. The numbers killed and many other things have been exagerated by english speaking media, for, oh, 700 years...


----------



## francoHFW

Many thanks to greedy idiot Pubs for starting the Great World Recession, and screwing up the recovery...what incredible a-holes and morons..


----------



## Wyatt earp

daveman said:


> Liberals figuratively beat their economic dog, then wonder why it runs away.



Kudos the post of the day!!!!


----------



## eflatminor

velvtacheeze said:


> The whole claim reeks of right wing propaganda.  Unconvincing . What a joke.



You are suggesting the story is not true?  You have a link to back that up?  Perhaps modicum of specificity?  Anything?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters



How can you take more than 100% of what someone has regardless of how rich they are.


----------



## Plasmaball

DiamondDave said:


> You have far lefties on here who may stay silent but love the idea of this.. and still some others that will openly support such things



no you dont, stop saying dumb ass shit


----------



## Plasmaball

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen leftists on this message forum as well as a few people I know suggest going back to 90% top income tax rates because we had them in the 50s and America was Utopia.  Michael Moore has advocated it.
Click to expand...


citation needed.


----------



## francoHFW

Considering the top rate is 39% and the richest average 17% and Romney about 10%, not so crazy, dupe.


----------



## Sallow

Communists do not pay taxes.


----------



## francoHFW

So what would be the EFFECTIVE French rate, dupes? ZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> Communists do not pay taxes.



Your right the government takes all that you earn.


----------



## daveman

francoHFW said:


> Many thanks to greedy idiot Pubs for starting the Great World Recession, and screwing up the recovery...what incredible a-holes and morons..



Ummm...it's not conservatives running -- excuse me, _ruining_ -- Europe.


----------



## francoHFW

It's a global economy, and Pubs ruined it in 2008- and 1929. Great Job, mini-brains.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

francoHFW said:


> It's a global economy, and Pubs ruined it in 2008- and 1929. Great Job, mini-brains.



who controlled congress and the senate in 2008? dumb ass.


----------



## francoHFW

Bush. Shyttehead. lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775

francoHFW said:


> Bush. Shyttehead. lol



Was it Congressman Bush or Senator Bush?


----------



## Moonglow

Shrub Bush


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Moonglow, Title: Liberal Soldier

Moonglow, Portrait Pic: Simpson mooning us


----------



## NightFox

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you take more than 100% of what someone has regardless of how rich they are.
Click to expand...


It's not more than 100% of assets it's more than 100% of their INCOME for CY 2012, apparently the French Government decided to exact a one time levy on 2011 incomes for citizens with *assets* exceeding 1.3 million Euros, this is a retroactive income tax, the way it works out is; you get your income tax bill for CY 2012 and the government says "oh by the way, we decided to charge you more for CY 2011 income tax" so the total income tax that you owe for CY 2012 is now more than your total income for CY 2012, nice huh?


----------



## eflatminor

eflatminor said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole claim reeks of right wing propaganda.  Unconvincing . What a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are suggesting the story is not true?  You have a link to back that up?  Perhaps modicum of specificity?  Anything?
Click to expand...


So...you've got nothing.

Color me shocked.


----------



## JoeB131

Claudette said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> France INcome Tax raised to 100%: Total Marxism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... and the only people that should care about this are the People of France, good luck Frenchies you're going to need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. When you vote in socialists you get, well, socialists.
> 
> Works great till you run out of other peoples money.
Click to expand...


Actually, you get soclialists when the plutocrats abuse their power.  

Which is pretty much what happened there.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... and the only people that should care about this are the People of France, good luck Frenchies you're going to need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. When you vote in socialists you get, well, socialists.
> 
> Works great till you run out of other peoples money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you get soclialists when the plutocrats abuse their power.
> 
> Which is pretty much what happened there.
Click to expand...


And how's that working out?

Not so hot, looks like.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. When you vote in socialists you get, well, socialists.
> 
> Works great till you run out of other peoples money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you get soclialists when the plutocrats abuse their power.
> 
> Which is pretty much what happened there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how's that working out?
> 
> Not so hot, looks like.
Click to expand...


Depends who you ask, doesn't it?  

I mean, you Obama Haters are all up in arms.  But most of the rest of the country doesn't miss Bush the Dumber in the least.


----------



## editec

Sounds totally outrageous.


----------



## zeke

It is so special to hear you right wing whackos worrying about the French. When any other time you right wing whackos are slamming the French any opportunity you find.

You all are hypocrites.

Or is it more funny to realize that you all are so worried about the very rich. Of France.

Here's a hint for ya; don't move to France IF you become very rich. OK?
(funny shit thinking you right wing whack jobs becoming VERY rich.) Just getting up from your computer and getting a job would help.


----------



## RDD_1210

Toro said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 has.
Click to expand...


Which office does Joeb131 hold or running for?


----------



## RDD_1210

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen leftists on this message forum as well as a few people I know suggest going back to 90% top income tax rates because we had them in the 50s and America was Utopia.  Michael Moore has advocated it.
Click to expand...


That's not 100%. But if you want to change the topic to talk about 90% rates, let me know.


----------



## RDD_1210

eflatminor said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.  Several of our little central planner wannabes right here at USMB have suggested extremely high tax rates.  Heck, 22% in this poll favored a 91% rate (not 100%, but close enough for 'remote'):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296722-poll-liberals-how-much-is-a-fair-share-taxes.html
> 
> Then there's Senator Chuck Schumer (D), who advocated a 100% tax rate for a select group:  http://www.nydailynews.com/2.1353/aig-bonus-checks-taxed-100-sen-chuck-schumer-article-1.205774
> 
> Paul Krugman also called for a 91% tax rate:  LibertyNEWS.com ? Lefty NYT Hack Paul Krugman Refers to 91% Tax Rate On Wealthy As Model We Should Look At
> 
> Here's a paper from the University of Chicago describing historical examples of a 100% tax rate:  http://home.uchicago.edu/~cbm4/tax100.pdf
> 
> So there you go, folks 'remotely' suggesting it.
Click to expand...


Chuck Schumer made that suggestion soley on the AIG execs who were getting multi-million dollar golden parachutes after leading a company that lost billions of dollars and received tax payer assistance. I agree with his suggestion in that case. 

We can chat about the other comments you made too but those aren't 100% rates, still very high but not 100% which is what this thread is about.


----------



## NightFox

editec said:


> Sounds totally outrageous.



Yeah just a bit, total bait & switch by the French Government, Sarkozy caps individual income taxes at 50% of income, then his successor enacts a retroactive income tax (in the form of a one-time levy on the _previous_ year's income) to offset it because the French Constitutional Council nixes his idea to raise the top end marginal rate to 75%. 

People in the United States complain about not being able to predict income tax rates in the future, People in France can't even predict income tax rates in the *PAST*.


----------



## eflatminor

RDD_1210 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.  Several of our little central planner wannabes right here at USMB have suggested extremely high tax rates.  Heck, 22% in this poll favored a 91% rate (not 100%, but close enough for 'remote'):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296722-poll-liberals-how-much-is-a-fair-share-taxes.html
> 
> Then there's Senator Chuck Schumer (D), who advocated a 100% tax rate for a select group:  AIG bonus checks may be taxed at up to 100%, says Sen. Chuck Schumer - NY Daily News
> 
> Paul Krugman also called for a 91% tax rate:  LibertyNEWS.com ? Lefty NYT Hack Paul Krugman Refers to 91% Tax Rate On Wealthy As Model We Should Look At
> 
> Here's a paper from the University of Chicago describing historical examples of a 100% tax rate:  http://home.uchicago.edu/~cbm4/tax100.pdf
> 
> So there you go, folks 'remotely' suggesting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chuck Schumer made that suggestion soley on the AIG execs who were getting multi-million dollar golden parachutes after leading a company that lost billions of dollars and received tax payer assistance. I agree with his suggestion in that case.
> 
> We can chat about the other comments you made too but those aren't 100% rates, still very high but not 100% which is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...


Riiiight...91% is not 'remotely' close...


----------



## regent

I thought Marxism didn't have taxes?


----------



## RDD_1210

eflatminor said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.  Several of our little central planner wannabes right here at USMB have suggested extremely high tax rates.  Heck, 22% in this poll favored a 91% rate (not 100%, but close enough for 'remote'):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296722-poll-liberals-how-much-is-a-fair-share-taxes.html
> 
> Then there's Senator Chuck Schumer (D), who advocated a 100% tax rate for a select group:  AIG bonus checks may be taxed at up to 100%, says Sen. Chuck Schumer - NY Daily News
> 
> Paul Krugman also called for a 91% tax rate:  LibertyNEWS.com ? Lefty NYT Hack Paul Krugman Refers to 91% Tax Rate On Wealthy As Model We Should Look At
> 
> Here's a paper from the University of Chicago describing historical examples of a 100% tax rate:  http://home.uchicago.edu/~cbm4/tax100.pdf
> 
> So there you go, folks 'remotely' suggesting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Schumer made that suggestion soley on the AIG execs who were getting multi-million dollar golden parachutes after leading a company that lost billions of dollars and received tax payer assistance. I agree with his suggestion in that case.
> 
> We can chat about the other comments you made too but those aren't 100% rates, still very high but not 100% which is what this thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiight...91% is not 'remotely' close...
Click to expand...


Thanks for ignoring what I said about the one 100% example you did give.

You want an honest discussion..... Riiiight.


----------



## Uncensored2008

DiamondDave said:


> You have far lefties on here who may stay silent but love the idea of this.. and still some others that will openly support such things



No doubt Shallow and Blind Boo will be marking this as brilliant, and demand that Obama do the same here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Political Junky said:


> They reinvest in their business, rather than taking the profit and sending it offshore.



DING DING DING

And we have a winner - first leftist to openly support this.

Stalin smiles on you, Comrade!


----------



## DiamondDave

Plasmaball said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have far lefties on here who may stay silent but love the idea of this.. and still some others that will openly support such things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no you dont, stop saying dumb ass shit
Click to expand...


Yes.. they have... repeatedly.. and in the thread you have actually been given examples of such posters here.. as well as politicians who also call for 90+% tax rates


----------



## DiamondDave

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you get soclialists when the plutocrats abuse their power.
> 
> Which is pretty much what happened there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how's that working out?
> 
> Not so hot, looks like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends who you ask, doesn't it?
> 
> I mean, you Obama Haters are all up in arms.  But most of the rest of the country doesn't miss Bush the Dumber in the least.
Click to expand...


And thus speaketh the moron who calls for full confiscation of anything over 2MIL owned by anyone


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... and the only people that should care about this are the People of France, good luck Frenchies you're going to need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. When you vote in socialists you get, well, socialists.
> 
> Works great till you run out of other peoples money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you get soclialists when the plutocrats abuse their power.
> 
> Which is pretty much what happened there.
Click to expand...


No it's not.

The funny thing is that you're not even the slightest bit embarrassed displaying your lack of knowledge.


----------



## Uncensored2008

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> California Democrats look on with envy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be the whole wine production thing, apparently being around all those grapes warps the mind.
Click to expand...


And yet I dearly love the wineries, spend way too much time at them (and with their product, truth be told...)


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luddly Neddite said:


> - and according to you, its Marie Antoinette?
> 
> You DO know how utterly stupid that is, DON'T YOU???
> 
> Give this a moment's thought.
> Think about how the GObP/R wants YOU to pay higher taxes than the 1%.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Think
> about
> it.
> 
> 
> ------------
> 
> How can people be THIS stupid? Every day, you nutters log on and post about how you want to give your money away to the wealthy and get NOTHING in return.
> 
> -----------
> 
> Blech.
> 
> 
> -----------



Reduced to lying, yet again.

This is how we can tell that the ideas your party programs into you are bankrupt.


----------



## eflatminor

RDD_1210 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Schumer made that suggestion soley on the AIG execs who were getting multi-million dollar golden parachutes after leading a company that lost billions of dollars and received tax payer assistance. I agree with his suggestion in that case.
> 
> We can chat about the other comments you made too but those aren't 100% rates, still very high but not 100% which is what this thread is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight...91% is not 'remotely' close...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for ignoring what I said about the one 100% example you did give.
> 
> You want an honest discussion..... Riiiight.
Click to expand...


Those were private contracts with individuals that no government had the right to confiscate, which is why they did not.  That you would advocate 100% confiscation when that individual was convicted of no crime is telling.  

But tell us again how all those advocating 91% tax rates are 'remotely close' to what's happening in France...

Disingenuous tool.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

zeke said:


> It is so special to hear you right wing whackos worrying about the French. *When any other time you right wing whackos are slamming the French* any opportunity you find.



????

We are slamming the French in this thread, you FUCKING RETARD.

At to the first part of the quote:
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters



Must be a pretty nice place to live or else you'd figure they would have moved.


----------



## DiamondDave

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a pretty nice place to live or else you'd figure they would have moved.
Click to expand...


France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy - Telegraph


----------



## jasonnfree

Right wingers hated the frogs till now.  Nothing angers a working stiff conservative like hearing about the wealthy having to pay more taxes, even the wealty in another country they never liked to begin with.  Nothing delights  working stiff conservatives like hearing about cuts to food stamps, head start, and other programs for the poor in their own country.


----------



## DiamondDave

jasonnfree said:


> Right wingers hated the frogs till now.  Nothing angers a working stiff conservative like hearing about the wealthy having to pay more taxes, even the wealty in another country they never liked to begin with.  Nothing delights  working stiff conservatives like hearing about cuts to food stamps, head start, and other programs for the poor in their own country.



Nobody should be paying more, or everyone should be paying more.. .at the same fucking goddamn rate... you know.. a little thing called equality in treatment

And you know.. personal responsibility is a GOOD thing... having government take personal responsibilities of some and passing it on to others is not a good thing

So fuck you, twerp


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

DiamondDave said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a pretty nice place to live or else you'd figure they would have moved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy - Telegraph
Click to expand...


Well I never said the Ayn Rand hypothesis was wrong - just that you have to tax at much higher levels than you do in the U.S. now for it to happen.

So there we have it >100% will drive the wealthy away. No surprise.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

DiamondDave said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers hated the frogs till now.  Nothing angers a working stiff conservative like hearing about the wealthy having to pay more taxes, even the wealty in another country they never liked to begin with.  Nothing delights  working stiff conservatives like hearing about cuts to food stamps, head start, and other programs for the poor in their own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be paying more, or everyone should be paying more.. .at the same fucking goddamn rate... you know.. a little thing called equality in treatment
Click to expand...

Life isn't fair.





> And you know.. personal responsibility is a GOOD thing... having government take personal responsibilities of some and passing it on to others is not a good thing
> 
> So fuck you, twerp


History has actually shown that's not always true.


----------



## Unkotare

Vox said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the commie leaders head NOT under a guillotine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a hyperbole whore. You just can't get enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is right on spot on this, however, I think he was joking and the joke is well grounded.
Click to expand...


I don't think he was joking. He says shit like that all the time. He's got issues.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Life isn't fair.



You seek to enslave others based on your own greed, and that's the best you can come up with? 





> History has actually shown that's not always true.



Izzatrite?

I'd love to see you try and support that claim....


----------



## Unkotare

Darkwind said:


> Do you even know the story of the French revolution, or why they no longer have nobility?




Garsh no, professor. No one but you has ever heard o that there obscure piece of history!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seek to enslave others based on your own greed, and that's the best you can come up with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has actually shown that's not always true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Izzatrite?
> 
> I'd love to see you try and support that claim....
Click to expand...




In the 1920's ordinary investors were allowed to leverage their portfolio's 10 to 1. This is one of many factors that led to the crash of 1929 and a shining example of a collective failure of individual personal responsibility.

So since investors had demonstrated their collective stupidity, the government made a law saying you can't have overnight positions leveraged at more than 2 to 1.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seek to enslave others based on your own greed, and that's the best you can come up with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History has actually shown that's not always true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Izzatrite?
> 
> I'd love to see you try and support that claim....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1920's ordinary investors were allowed to leverage their portfolio's 10 to 1. This is one of many factors that led to the crash of 1929 and a shining example of a collective failure of individual personal responsibility.
> 
> So since investors had demonstrated their collective stupidity, the government made a law saying you can't have overnight positions leveraged at more than 2 to 1.
Click to expand...


The Great Depression was scientifically engineered by the Federal Reserve so they could buy up all US assets for pennies on the dollar. Go fuck yourself.


----------



## DiamondDave

OohPooPahDoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers hated the frogs till now.  Nothing angers a working stiff conservative like hearing about the wealthy having to pay more taxes, even the wealty in another country they never liked to begin with.  Nothing delights  working stiff conservatives like hearing about cuts to food stamps, head start, and other programs for the poor in their own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be paying more, or everyone should be paying more.. .at the same fucking goddamn rate... you know.. a little thing called equality in treatment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you know.. personal responsibility is a GOOD thing... having government take personal responsibilities of some and passing it on to others is not a good thing
> 
> So fuck you, twerp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History has actually shown that's not always true.
Click to expand...


Was not asking for fair.. was indeed asking for equality in treatment.. big difference.. it is YOU guys who ask for things out of FAIRNESS.. hence your progressive systems

Yeah.. taking away personal responsibility has historically shown to be a good thing


----------



## Uncensored2008

OohPooPahDoo said:


> In the 1920's ordinary investors were allowed to leverage their portfolio's 10 to 1. This is one of many factors that led to the crash of 1929 and a shining example of a collective failure of individual personal responsibility.
> 
> So since investors had demonstrated their collective stupidity, the government made a law saying you can't have overnight positions leveraged at more than 2 to 1.



Not exactly true, but even if it were, it fails to support your claim that "personal responsibility is *NOT* a GOOD thing... having government take personal responsibilities of some and passing it on to others *IS* a good thing"


----------



## Unkotare

The2ndAmendment said:


> The Great Depression was scientifically engineered by the Federal Reserve so they could buy up all US assets for pennies on the dollar.






You really are fucking nuts. I mean, check yourself into the institute - level nuts.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Unkotare said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Depression was scientifically engineered by the Federal Reserve so they could buy up all US assets for pennies on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are fucking nuts. I mean, check yourself into the institute - level nuts.
Click to expand...


Cui Bono?

Cui Bono?

Cui Bono?

Cui Bono?

Cui Bono?

Cui Bono?

Cui Bono?


----------



## daveman

francoHFW said:


> Bush. Shyttehead. lol



Ummm...I believe there's a law against serving as President and in Congress at the same time.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you get soclialists when the plutocrats abuse their power.
> 
> Which is pretty much what happened there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how's that working out?
> 
> Not so hot, looks like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends who you ask, doesn't it?
> 
> I mean, you Obama Haters are all up in arms.  But most of the rest of the country doesn't miss Bush the Dumber in the least.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you love huge bureaucracy, insane debt, and the government reading your emails and listening to your phone calls -- it's just dandy!

Of course, you and the way you loath freedom, really DO think those things are grand.


----------



## daveman

zeke said:


> It is so special to hear you right wing whackos worrying about the French. When any other time you right wing whackos are slamming the French any opportunity you find.
> 
> You all are hypocrites.
> 
> Or is it more funny to realize that you all are so worried about the very rich. Of France.
> 
> Here's a hint for ya; don't move to France IF you become very rich. OK?
> (funny shit thinking you right wing whack jobs becoming VERY rich.) Just getting up from your computer and getting a job would help.


Meanwhile, in reality:

We're pointing out the failure of progressive policies.  Because there are some people dim enough to want that crap here in the US.  

Can you believe people are really that dumb?


----------



## daveman

RDD_1210 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which office does Joeb131 hold or running for?
Click to expand...


Need help moving the goal posts?


----------



## The T

DiamondDave said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody should be paying more, or everyone should be paying more.. .at the same fucking goddamn rate... you know.. a little thing called equality in treatment
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you know.. personal responsibility is a GOOD thing... having government take personal responsibilities of some and passing it on to others is not a good thing
> 
> So fuck you, twerp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History has actually shown that's not always true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was not asking for fair.. was indeed asking for equality in treatment.. big difference.. it is YOU guys who ask for things out of FAIRNESS.. hence your progressive systems
> 
> Yeah.. taking away personal responsibility has historically shown to be a good thing
Click to expand...

And hence Statist libtards refuse to belive people are different...refuse to belive in the individual or that they truly exist. All they have to do is step outside. There are billions of us...and it scares the living shit out of them.


----------



## daveman

NightFox said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds totally outrageous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah just a bit, total bait & switch by the French Government, Sarkozy caps individual income taxes at 50% of income, then his successor enacts a retroactive income tax (in the form of a one-time levy on the _previous_ year's income) to offset it because the French Constitutional Council nixes his idea to raise the top end marginal rate to 75%.
> 
> People in the United States complain about not being able to predict income tax rates in the future, People in France can't even predict income tax rates in the *PAST*.
Click to expand...

"The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate."


----------



## JoeB131

RDD_1210 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't have that sort of rate here and no one has remotely even suggested it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which office does Joeb131 hold or running for?
Click to expand...


God-Emperor of the Planet Arakis...


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> Sure, if you love huge bureaucracy, insane debt, and the government reading your emails and listening to your phone calls -- it's just dandy!
> 
> Of course, you and the way you loath freedom, really DO think those things are grand.



Hey, guy, I miss the freedom to be fired from my job if I get sick. Yeah, miss that freedom not one little bit.  

So why weren't you whining about "insane debt" when Bush turned Clinton's surpluses into 6 trillion in War Debt?   

Or when he was torturing useless information out of prisoners?


----------



## daveman

The2ndAmendment said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so special to hear you right wing whackos worrying about the French. *When any other time you right wing whackos are slamming the French* any opportunity you find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> We are slamming the French in this thread, you FUCKING RETARD.
> 
> At to the first part of the quote:
> "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Click to expand...


If I may:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.


----------



## Unkotare

The2ndAmendment said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Depression was scientifically engineered by the Federal Reserve so they could buy up all US assets for pennies on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are fucking nuts. I mean, check yourself into the institute - level nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cui Bono?
> 
> Cui Bono?
> 
> Cui Bono?
> 
> Cui Bono?
> 
> Cui Bono?
> 
> Cui Bono?
> 
> Cui Bono?
Click to expand...




As I was saying...............................


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which office does Joeb131 hold or running for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God-Emperor of the Planet Arakis...
Click to expand...


Here's hoping the Fremen feed you to a worm.


----------



## Desperado

And these people that are getting taxed 100% plus are still living in France?
I would be gone in a heartbeat if that was the tax burden here.
Why work if all you did was hand your money over to the government.
This will start a massive underground market.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seek to enslave others based on your own greed, and that's the best you can come up with?
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which office does Joeb131 hold or running for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God-Emperor of the Planet Arakis...
Click to expand...


It's a dump.  You can have it.

Oh, and Spice is just worm shit.


----------



## Immanuel

Hey at least it was only a one time fluke!  The way our leftist talk in America, one has to wonder if they would not want that kind of thing here permanently.

Immie


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Sure, if you love huge bureaucracy, insane debt, and the government reading your emails and listening to your phone calls -- it's just dandy!
> 
> Of course, you and the way you loath freedom, really DO think those things are grand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, I miss the freedom to be fired from my job if I get sick. Yeah, miss that freedom not one little bit.
Click to expand...

So, you hate the idea of taking responsibility for your employment decisions.

Whiner.


JoeB131 said:


> So why weren't you whining about "insane debt" when Bush turned Clinton's surpluses into 6 trillion in War Debt?


Wasn't keen on it, but your rant is tempered by the "Clinton's surplus" nonsense.  


JoeB131 said:


> Or when he was torturing useless information out of prisoners?


...which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread, but your hyperemotionalism had to spew something out, didn't it?


----------



## daveman

daveman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seek to enslave others based on your own greed, and that's the best you can come up with?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Say, can anyone here explain this concept?  Bonus points if you don't use mindless buzzwords like "economic justice", which is just a way of making yourself feel better about theft.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- Not actually happening.
And they have deductions too.

We have a 39% top rate but nobody pays it, the average is 17%, and corporate 12%. Pure Pubcrappe and fear mongering.

France- #1 quality of life. USA- #23


----------



## The2ndAmendment

francoHFW said:


> OP- Not actually happening.
> They have deductions too.
> 
> We have a 39% top rate but nobody pays it, the average is 17%, and corporate 12%. Pure Pubcrappe and fear mongering.
> 
> France- #1 quality of life. USA- #23



Yeah you hater pub dupes


----------



## The T

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which office does Joeb131 hold or running for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God-Emperor of the Planet Arakis...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a dump. You can have it.
> 
> _*Oh, and Spice is just worm shit*_.
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which office does Joeb131 hold or running for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God-Emperor of the Planet Arakis...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's hoping the Fremen feed you to a worm.
Click to expand...

The Baron Harkonnen found this out the hard way.


----------



## hazlnut

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters




See, most intelligent people like myself read the OP topic and say: "well, that's impossible, what would they live on -- "

Then we READ the article and see what REALLY happened.





> The newspaper said that the exceptionally high level of taxation was due to a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million).
> 
> President Francois Hollande's Socialist government imposed the tax surcharge last year, shortly after taking office, to offset the impact of a rebate scheme created by its conservative predecessor to cap an individual's overall taxation at 50 percent of income.
> 
> *The government has been forced to redraft a proposed bill to levy a temporary 75 percent tax on earnings over 1 million euros, which had been one of Hollande's campaign pledges.
> 
> The Constitutional Council has judged such a high rate of taxation to be unfair, leaving the government to rehash it to hit companies rather than individuals.*



Oh well, so it's not true.

Thanks to the OP for another far-right FAIL.


----------



## The T

Desperado said:


> And these people that are getting taxed 100% plus are still living in France?
> I would be gone in a heartbeat if that was the tax burden here.
> Why work if all you did was hand your money over to the government.
> This will start a massive underground market.


 Always does...much like prohibition of the 1920's here in the States...Yeah Gubmints make mistakes...if they live to regret it...


----------



## NightFox

hazlnut said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, most intelligent people like myself read the OP topic and say: "well, that's impossible, what would they live on -- "
> 
> Then we READ the article and see what REALLY happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newspaper said that the exceptionally high level of taxation was due to a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million).
> 
> President Francois Hollande's Socialist government imposed the tax surcharge last year, shortly after taking office, to offset the impact of a rebate scheme created by its conservative predecessor to cap an individual's overall taxation at 50 percent of income.
> 
> *The government has been forced to redraft a proposed bill to levy a temporary 75 percent tax on earnings over 1 million euros, which had been one of Hollande's campaign pledges.
> 
> The Constitutional Council has judged such a high rate of taxation to be unfair, leaving the government to rehash it to hit companies rather than individuals.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well, so it's not true.
> 
> *Thanks to the OP for another far-right FAIL.*
Click to expand...




			
				MSN Money said:
			
		

> That's what happened in France, where Reuters says more than 8,000 French households' tax bills topped 100% of their income last year. Business newspaper Les Echos, citing Finance Ministry data, *reported Saturday that the huge tax hit stemmed from a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million).*



Try reading the story again, this time paying attention to the DETAILS.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> OP- NOT actually happening, hater dupes..
> 
> France rated #1 in quality of life.



By who? Some commy newspaper in Paris?


----------



## NightFox

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- NOT actually happening, hater dupes..
> 
> France rated #1 in quality of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By who? Some commy newspaper in Paris?
Click to expand...


As usual he's lying, France isn't even in the top 15 (Australia is #1 according to _The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Better Life Index_)

Top Countries On OECD Better Life Index - Business Insider


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Sure, if you love huge bureaucracy, insane debt, and the government reading your emails and listening to your phone calls -- it's just dandy!
> 
> Of course, you and the way you loath freedom, really DO think those things are grand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, I miss the freedom to be fired from my job if I get sick. Yeah, miss that freedom not one little bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you hate the idea of taking responsibility for your employment decisions.
> 
> Whiner.
Click to expand...


I'm going to use really small words here because you are some kind of damaged RETARD.  

When you go into McDonald's and order a Big Mac and they serve you a E. Coli laced shitburger, it isn't YOUR fault for eating there, it's THEIR fault for not providing the service promised.  

When I bust my ass for 60 hours a week like I did on the job that cured me of Republican Lies, and insurance was part of the agreement as long as I performed as required, then it isn't my fault they welch on the deal, it's theirs.  They didn't provide the service promised...

Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over.  We the People!  No insurance companies paying their asshole execs eight figures while they let people die of treatable diseases AFTER they paid insurance like  






daveman said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why weren't you whining about "insane debt" when Bush turned Clinton's surpluses into 6 trillion in War Debt?
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't keen on it, but your rant is tempered by the "Clinton's surplus" nonsense.
Click to expand...


Government was taking in more money than it was spending, and the debt went down.  Surplus. 






daveman said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or when he was torturing useless information out of prisoners?
> 
> 
> 
> ...which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread, but your hyperemotionalism had to spew something out, didn't it?
Click to expand...


No, guy, the point of this thread was that we entered some kind of horrible world when the Black Guy got into the White House (which is what you are really mad about, ain't it?)  But we aren't toruting people, we are getting out of wars, and we are fixing our health care woes.


----------



## rdean

Oh, now Republicans care about "France"?  What happened to "Freedom Fries"?


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, I miss the freedom to be fired from my job if I get sick. Yeah, miss that freedom not one little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you hate the idea of taking responsibility for your employment decisions.
> 
> Whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to use really small words here because you are some kind of damaged RETARD.
> 
> When you go into McDonald's and order a Big Mac and they serve you a E. Coli laced shitburger, it isn't YOUR fault for eating there, it's THEIR fault for not providing the service promised.
> 
> When I bust my ass for 60 hours a week like I did on the job that cured me of Republican Lies, and insurance was part of the agreement as long as I performed as required, then it isn't my fault they welch on the deal, it's theirs.  They didn't provide the service promised...
> 
> Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over.  We the People!  No insurance companies paying their asshole execs eight figures while they let people die of treatable diseases AFTER they paid insurance like
Click to expand...

If they didn't live up to their end of the contract, then you had grounds to sue.

Of course, if you were fired for cause, you wouldn't have grounds to sue.

If your behavior at work was anything like your behavior, here, you were fired for cause.


JoeB131 said:


> Government was taking in more money than it was spending, and the debt went down.  Surplus.


No, it wasn't.  It was an accounting trick.  There was never any more money; it was just moved from one pile to another.

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1

But, hey, suckers fell for it.



JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or when he was torturing useless information out of prisoners?
> 
> 
> 
> ...which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread, but your hyperemotionalism had to spew something out, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy, the point of this thread was that we entered some kind of horrible world when the Black Guy got into the White House (which is what you are really mad about, ain't it?)
Click to expand...

No, but that's what you've been programmed to believe, and you're not sophisticated enough to go against your programming.


JoeB131 said:


> But we aren't toruting people, we are getting out of wars, and we are fixing our health care woes.



Getting out of wars?  Does the word "Syria" ring any bells?  

And we're not fixing our health care woes.  We're adding to them.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> Oh, now Republicans care about "France"?  What happened to "Freedom Fries"?


France can do what it likes, and live with the consequences of its failure.

What we're doing is pointing out that failure to people who believe we should emulate Europe.

For some reason, you don't like that.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over.  We the People! .





There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...


----------



## daveman

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over.  We the People! .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...
Click to expand...


Joe's a chickenred:

Someone who advocates Communism but is too cowardly to move to a Communist nation; who advocates the destruction of the US Constitution while hiding behind its protections; who condemns the American consumerism lifestyle while living that same lifestyle.

_That woman at the protest handing out pro-Castro literature is a chickenred...she'd never move to Cuba._


----------



## The T

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over. We the People! .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...
Click to expand...

What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?


----------



## Unkotare

The T said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over. We the People! .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?
Click to expand...



He'll gather unto him all his fellow proletariat and seize the means of production in a glorious revolution! 

OR, he'll keep his mouth shut and continue to fill a chair to no effect, putting his head down and trying to look busy when the boss comes by. On those days he's feeling extra full of righteous rage he will grumble under his breath if he is absolutely sure no one is around.


----------



## The T

Unkotare said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He'll gather unto him all his fellow proletariat and seize the means of production in a glorious revolution!
> 
> OR, he'll keep his mouth shut and continue to fill a chair to no effect, putting his head down and trying to look busy when the boss comes by. On those days he's feeling extra full of righteous rage he will grumble under his breath if he is absolutely sure no one is around.
Click to expand...

 
I'd say the latter and be quiet in his defeat. His days, and those he follows are drawing to a close.


----------



## Immanuel

The T said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over. We the People! .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?
Click to expand...


Blame Republicans, praise Obama.

Immie


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> If they didn't live up to their end of the contract, then you had grounds to sue.
> 
> Of course, if you were fired for cause, you wouldn't have grounds to sue.
> 
> If your behavior at work was anything like your behavior, here, you were fired for cause.



I did have grounds to sue.  In fact, they offered me a bunch of money as a severence package NOT to sue.   generally, I don't sue people even if I have cause.    

What seems to confuse your ape brain is that political alignment has anything to do with work performance.  I know liberals who are fantastic at their jobs.  I know conservatives I wouldn't trust to file paperwork.  Especially the religious conservatives, who are usually lacking the critical thinking skills to solve problems.   

Point was, I got six years of excellent reviews, including the last year.  Nope, it really was all about the $60,000 in medical bills I ran up in 2007.  And I'm not the only guy they did this to. Another guy had a muscle disconnect and was on disability for months.  Despite being their 20 years, they let him go at the first oppurtunity they legally could.  They let you go if you were pregnant and they let you go if you were too old. 

And if the GOP thinks this is okay under the guise of freedom, the sooner they are wiped out politically, the better.    





> No, it wasn't.  It was an accounting trick.  There was never any more money; it was just moved from one pile to another.
> 
> 
> But, hey, suckers fell for it.



Uh, guy, there was more money.  This was the point.  You had 4% unemployment and record stock markets and the rich were paying their fair share.  More money was coming in than going out.  The "accounting trick" you talk about had been going on since LBJ and it is still going on now.   Clinton was the only guy who actually made it work.  




daveman said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, the point of this thread was that we entered some kind of horrible world when the Black Guy got into the White House (which is what you are really mad about, ain't it?)
> 
> 
> 
> No, but that's what you've been programmed to believe, and you're not sophisticated enough to go against your programming.
Click to expand...


Uh, no, I read your posts.  Just because you aren't screaming the N-word, you still aren't fooling anyone.  Obama got elected, and you guys completely lost your shit.  




daveman said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we aren't toruting people, we are getting out of wars, and we are fixing our health care woes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting out of wars?  Does the word "Syria" ring any bells?
> 
> And we're not fixing our health care woes.  We're adding to them.
Click to expand...


No, actually, we're fixing them.  That Employers can't cheat their employees anymore with sub-standard insurance is a VAST improvement.  The fact insurance companies can't call Acne a pre-existing condition to deny cancer treatment is an AWESOME improvement. 

True, it's not single payer and getting the employers and insurance companies out of the picture, yet.


----------



## eflatminor

hazlnut said:


> See, most intelligent people like myself  read the OP topic and say: "well, that's impossible, what would they live on -- "
> 
> Then we READ the article and see what REALLY happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newspaper said that the exceptionally high level of taxation was due to a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million).
> 
> President Francois Hollande's Socialist government imposed the tax surcharge last year, shortly after taking office, to offset the impact of a rebate scheme created by its conservative predecessor to cap an individual's overall taxation at 50 percent of income.
> 
> *The government has been forced to redraft a proposed bill to levy a temporary 75 percent tax on earnings over 1 million euros, which had been one of Hollande's campaign pledges.
> 
> The Constitutional Council has judged such a high rate of taxation to be unfair, leaving the government to rehash it to hit companies rather than individuals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, so it's not true.
> 
> Thanks to the OP for another far-right FAIL.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really are as batshit stupid as you appear.  The French government being forced to redraft their previous attempt at a 75% marginal rate is a separate issue to the one off 100% levy that was imposed.  The story is in fact, true.

Do you ever tire of being so damn wrong?  Is it your blind bias that makes you so stupid, or were you born that way?  Anyway, good luck with all that...


----------



## daveman

The T said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers can't be trusted with this, so we take it over. We the People! .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?
Click to expand...

Whine impotently on the internet about how the world owes him a living.

In other words, nothing will change.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again....the faceless chair-filler and his silly little wannabe Marxist fantasies that he would never have the balls to actually pursue...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whine impotently on the internet about how the world owes him a living.
> 
> In other words, nothing will change.
Click to expand...


Again, you work on the assumption that employers create jobs.  They don't. Consumer Demand does.  

Let's go back to the original example.  A rich guy can try to sell Shitburgers, could invest huge amounts of money making them and a expensive campaign selling them.  

But at the end of the day, there's no demand for shitburgers.  The annals of business are full of failures that someone with money thought we really just wanted and didn't.  






Nope, what creates jobs are demand.   

Now, we do have a few problems, because we allow the rich and their bad behavior.  We let them talk us into bad trade treaties that moved good jobs overseas instead of demanding the jobs be kept here.  

And we've allowed automation even in areas where automation, while cheaper, isn't better.  

In short, the rich keep promising prosperity if we keep bending over, but they never deliver... 

Time to stop bending over for them.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> If they didn't live up to their end of the contract, then you had grounds to sue.
> 
> Of course, if you were fired for cause, you wouldn't have grounds to sue.
> 
> If your behavior at work was anything like your behavior, here, you were fired for cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did have grounds to sue.  In fact, they offered me a bunch of money as a severence package NOT to sue.   generally, I don't sue people even if I have cause.
Click to expand...

So, you either had grounds, but didn't sue...or was fired for cause and couldn't sue.

Either way, it's your own damn fault, isn't it?

_So stop whining about it._ 


JoeB131 said:


> What seems to confuse your ape brain is that political alignment has anything to do with work performance.  I know liberals who are fantastic at their jobs.  I know conservatives I wouldn't trust to file paperwork.  Especially the religious conservatives, who are usually lacking the critical thinking skills to solve problems.


When you use your own bigotry to prove a point, all you prove is that you're a bigot.


JoeB131 said:


> Point was, I got six years of excellent reviews, including the last year.  Nope, it really was all about the $60,000 in medical bills I ran up in 2007.  And I'm not the only guy they did this to. Another guy had a muscle disconnect and was on disability for months.  Despite being their 20 years, they let him go at the first oppurtunity they legally could.  They let you go if you were pregnant and they let you go if you were too old.


I repeat:  You had grounds, but didn't sue.  It's your own damn fault.  Stop whining about it.


JoeB131 said:


> And if the GOP thinks this is okay under the guise of freedom, the sooner they are wiped out politically, the better.


I DON'T think it's okay.  But you, you chicken, refused to hold them accountable for their actions.  The government can't do anything about it if they don't know about it.  

And you didn't tell them.  It's your own damn fault.  Stop whining about it.


JoeB131 said:


> No, it wasn't.  It was an accounting trick.  There was never any more money; it was just moved from one pile to another.
> 
> 
> But, hey, suckers fell for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, there was more money.  This was the point.  You had 4% unemployment and record stock markets and the rich were paying their fair share.  More money was coming in than going out.  The "accounting trick" you talk about had been going on since LBJ and it is still going on now.   Clinton was the only guy who actually made it work.
Click to expand...

The link showed proof of my claim.  Your claims are bullshit.  Dismissed.


JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, I read your posts.  Just because you aren't screaming the N-word, you still aren't fooling anyone.  Obama got elected, and you guys completely lost your shit.


Because we knew he'd be a crappy President.

And we were right.

Just because you can't support his policies with facts and logic doesn't mean the rest of us who object to those policies are racist.  That spurious charge stems from your own failings and lack of critical thought.


JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we aren't toruting people, we are getting out of wars, and we are fixing our health care woes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting out of wars?  Does the word "Syria" ring any bells?
> 
> And we're not fixing our health care woes.  We're adding to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually, we're fixing them.  That Employers can't cheat their employees anymore with sub-standard insurance is a VAST improvement.  The fact insurance companies can't call Acne a pre-existing condition to deny cancer treatment is an AWESOME improvement.
Click to expand...

Yeah.  Meanwhile, back in reality, there are more patients -- but there aren't any more doctors.  

Do the math.

Further, I can't help but notice that you utterly failed to address my point about Syria.

Coward.



JoeB131 said:


> True, it's not single payer and getting the employers and insurance companies out of the picture, yet.


 Did I ever tell you Communists are stupid?  True story!


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Whine impotently on the internet about how the world owes him a living.
> 
> In other words, nothing will change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you work on the assumption that employers create jobs.  They don't. Consumer Demand does.
> 
> Let's go back to the original example.  A rich guy can try to sell Shitburgers, could invest huge amounts of money making them and a expensive campaign selling them.
> 
> But at the end of the day, there's no demand for shitburgers.  The annals of business are full of failures that someone with money thought we really just wanted and didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, what creates jobs are demand.
> 
> Now, we do have a few problems, because we allow the rich and their bad behavior.  We let them talk us into bad trade treaties that moved good jobs overseas instead of demanding the jobs be kept here.
> 
> And we've allowed automation even in areas where automation, while cheaper, isn't better.
> 
> In short, the rich keep promising prosperity if we keep bending over, but they never deliver...
> 
> Time to stop bending over for them.
Click to expand...

Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.

Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?

Consumers can demand.  But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.  

You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Desperado said:


> And these people that are getting taxed 100% plus are still living in France?
> I would be gone in a heartbeat if that was the tax burden here.
> Why work if all you did was hand your money over to the government.
> This will start a massive underground market.





"In an article from 1965 entitled Problems Facing Our Socialism, Barack Obamas father stated:

Theoretically, *there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income *so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is *a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates),* and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.
> 
> Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?
> 
> Consumers can demand.  But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.
> 
> You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.



By that logic, someone should have developed that car.  

The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car.  They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine... 

So argument fail, again.  

The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.
> 
> Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?
> 
> Consumers can demand.  But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.
> 
> You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic, someone should have developed that car.
> 
> The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car.  They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...
> 
> So argument fail, again.
> 
> The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.
Click to expand...

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.  

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> So, you either had grounds, but didn't sue...or was fired for cause and couldn't sue.
> 
> Either way, it's your own damn fault, isn't it?
> 
> _So stop whining about it._



Or I had grounds, but didn't think suing was worth the effort.  I mean, yeah, I could have done years and years of court proceedings, but frankly, I just moved on. 

It doesn't mean that I think that it was a good thing, or that we won't be better off the sooner we get the private sector the fuck out of health care.  




daveman said:


> [
> 
> When you use your own bigotry to prove a point, all you prove is that you're a bigot.



No, it's just reality.  If you really believe in talking snakes and burning bushes, you have a child-like ability to reason, and therefore can't be trusted.  If it weren't for the stupid fucks voting for guys who are "right with Jesus", we'd have fixed this country's problem by now. 






daveman said:


> [
> The link showed proof of my claim.  Your claims are bullshit.  Dismissed.



Guy, your link came from TownHall.  you might as well have posted from StormFront.  




daveman said:


> [
> Just because you can't support his policies with facts and logic doesn't mean the rest of us who object to those policies are racist.  That spurious charge stems from your own failings and lack of critical thought.



Guy, we are better off than we were in 2008.  Obama won re-election.  Facts and Logic are that you guys made your best case, and couldn't.  





JoeB131 said:


> Yeah.  Meanwhile, back in reality, there are more patients -- but there aren't any more doctors.
> 
> Do the math.



I have.  the problem with your theory is that you assume that the poor and undeserving are going to compliantly die if a big corporation can't make money off of them.  Well, some do.  But most just go to an emergency room and skip out on the bill. 

The number of doctors are completely irrelevent to the issue.  We have enough doctors. We just aren't using them efficiently. 



daveman said:


> [
> Further, I can't help but notice that you utterly failed to address my point about Syria.
> 
> Coward.



Were we at war with Syria?  Last time I checked, we weren't.  




daveman said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, it's not single payer and getting the employers and insurance companies out of the picture, yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever tell you Communists are stupid?  True story!
Click to expand...


Guy, the UK, Canada, Germany, Japan, France, and Italy all do it that way. 

They aren't "Communist". 

They all have higher life expectencies. 
They all have lower infant mortality rates. 
They all spend less per capita than we do. 
Medical Crises do not cause bankruptcies.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.
> 
> Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?
> 
> Consumers can demand.  But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.
> 
> You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic, someone should have developed that car.
> 
> The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car.  They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...
> 
> So argument fail, again.
> 
> The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
Click to expand...


Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.  

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.) 

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share. 

And they work just fine.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic, someone should have developed that car.
> 
> The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car.  They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...
> 
> So argument fail, again.
> 
> The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.
> 
> 
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
Click to expand...


We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed. 

Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [
> 
> We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.



Yeah, but not because of communism, and Communist China is going strong with a command economy.  So there's that.  

Incidently, Communism doesn't work for the same reason Capitalism doesn't.  Human Nature. 




Toro said:


> [
> Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?



Except that our safety net has been cut to tatters, and we allow wealth disparity that other countries don't allow.  WHich is the whole point of this thread.  The wealthy in France are paying 75% income tax.   Our wealthy whine like little bitches when they have to pay 39%. 

And that's the thing. We already cover 100 million with government programs.  150 million get it through their jobs (subsidized by government) or Unions (again, subsidized by government.) About 10 million self-insure, and 50 million don't have coverage.  We spend more than any country on earth, we get the worst results.


----------



## Sallow

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.
> 
> Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?
> 
> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.
Click to expand...

Japan is a 'westerrn' country? Since when?


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.



Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund)  from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence. 

Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;

*U.S. TREASURY DATA*

*FY* - *National Debt* - *Deficit*
FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic, someone should have developed that car.
> 
> The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car.  They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...
> 
> So argument fail, again.
> 
> The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.
> 
> 
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
Click to expand...

France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?


----------



## zeke

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?*
Click to expand...




Yea you tell em bigrebbie. How is it that SOME people in France evidently have to borrow money or dig into savings to pay in excess of 100% of their income to the taxman.

Why, that sounds so unbelievable that, well I don't believe you big rebbie.


----------



## JoeB131

Sallow said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.
> 
> Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?
> 
> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan is a 'westerrn' country? Since when?
Click to expand...


To be fair to Toro, Japan has been considered an advanced industrialized nation since the Meiji Restoration.  Even though not part of "The West", politically, economically, etc. It is in that group. 

See, I can be fair to Toro.


----------



## JoeB131

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
Click to expand...


Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but not because of communism, and Communist China is going strong with a command economy.  So there's that.
Click to expand...


Er, no. There are only two countries that follow the old USSR communist model - Cuba and North Korea. All the rest have reformed towards mixed economies. Government spending to GDP is half that in China than it is in the US. 



> Except that our safety net has been cut to tatters, and we allow wealth disparity that other countries don't allow.  WHich is the whole point of this thread.  The wealthy in France are paying 75% income tax.   Our wealthy whine like little bitches when they have to pay 39%.



Well, actually they aren't in France because the court ruled it unconstitutional. 

And our safety net has not been shredded.  It's the opposite in fact. The government pays nearly half of all medical expenses in this country, up from less than 10% 50 years ago. FTR Canada's governments spend 75%.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?
Click to expand...


What if they are young and aren't from the past?


----------



## NightFox

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
Click to expand...


The over 100% is immaterial, the interesting part of the story is what they did that caused it to happen, the French Government in effect enacted what amounts to a taxation _Bill of Attainder_, whereby in *CY 2012* they added an additional one-time levy to income in *CY 2011* on certain people and then added the levy to their CY 2012 income tax bill. 

Fortunately the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids Bills of Attainder and thus prevents our completely immoral, government worshiping statists from pulling the same sort of egregious nonsense here, Although I suspect there's a whole bunch of "progressive" think tank creatures sitting around trying to figure out how they can formulate some plausible statist apologias for proposing something similar to go back in time and re-write the past tax rates on "rich people".


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NightFox said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The over 100% is immaterial, the interesting part of the story is what they did that caused it to happen, the French Government in effect enacted what amounts to a taxation _Bill of Attainder_, whereby in *CY 2012* they added an additional one-time levy to income in *CY 2011* on certain people and then added the levy to their CY 2012 income tax bill.
> 
> Fortunately the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids Bills of Attainder and thus prevents our completely immoral, government worshiping statists from pulling the same sort of egregious nonsense here, Although I suspect there's a whole bunch of "progressive" think tank creatures sitting around trying to figure out how they can formulate some plausible statist apologias for proposing something similar to go back in time and re-write the past tax rates on "rich people".
Click to expand...


France already paid an extravagant amount in taxes, now they have this.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund)  from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.
> 
> Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;
> 
> *U.S. TREASURY DATA*
> 
> *FY* - *National Debt* - *Deficit*
> FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
> FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
> FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
> FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
> FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
> FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
> FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
> FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion
Click to expand...




Yup...

Almost as big a Clinton myth as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

During the Clinton term, the national debt increased 41%....

...and with no wars to blame it on.


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund)  from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.
> 
> Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;
> 
> *U.S. TREASURY DATA*
> 
> *FY* - *National Debt* - *Deficit*
> FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
> FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
> FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
> FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
> FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
> FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
> FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
> FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion
Click to expand...


The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition. 

That happened to the US Treasury for 4 years in the 1990s. It has nothing to do with any accounting standards. 

Do you know how we know there was more money coming into the Treasury than going out?  I mean, besides checking for ourselves?  The total outstanding publicly traded debt of the United States Treasury fell during that time. 

There was no "raiding" of the SS trusts. There can't be because the assets of the trusts are non-marketable liabilities that can't be sold. 

What is correct is that the operating budget was not in surplus. But we don't reference the operating budget in our political or economic discourse. 

This "there was no surplus" argument is not an argument made by economists or financiers, conservative or otherwise.


----------



## NightFox

PoliticalChic said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund)  from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.
> 
> Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;
> 
> *U.S. TREASURY DATA*
> 
> *FY* - *National Debt* - *Deficit*
> FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
> FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
> FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
> FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
> FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
> FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
> FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
> FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...
> 
> Almost as big a Clinton myth as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...
> 
> During the Clinton term, the national debt increased 41%....
> 
> ...and with no wars to blame it on.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't care who or what a President wants to have sex with, however the fantasy accounting practiced by the federal government is offensive.


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund)  from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.
> 
> Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;
> 
> *U.S. TREASURY DATA*
> 
> *FY* - *National Debt* - *Deficit*
> FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
> FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
> FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
> FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
> FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
> FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
> FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
> FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition. _
Click to expand...

No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional *debt* to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".


----------



## DiamondDave

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?
Click to expand...


Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL.... 

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund)  from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.
> 
> Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;
> 
> *U.S. TREASURY DATA*
> 
> *FY* - *National Debt* - *Deficit*
> FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
> FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
> FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
> FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
> FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
> FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
> FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
> FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional *debt* to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".
Click to expand...


Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument. 

But since you won't be able to, I'll explain it to you. 

Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided."  But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.

In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit.  The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

DiamondDave said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...
> 
> What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....
> 
> Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...
Click to expand...


You notice he wants to penalize young people that might have worked hard and became rich for the "sins of the past. "


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition. _
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional *debt* to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument.
Click to expand...


Well there's your problem right there, you're asking *economists* to answer an *accounting* question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.

If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the *truth* don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better. 



> Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided." But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.
> 
> In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit. The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.


You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

zeke said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> *France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea you tell em bigrebbie. How is it that SOME people in France evidently have to borrow money or dig into savings to pay in excess of 100% of their income to the taxman.
> 
> Why, that sounds so unbelievable that, well I don't believe you big rebbie.
Click to expand...


Your acceptance of the truth is not required for it to be true.


----------



## Unkotare

Sallow said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.
> 
> Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?
> 
> You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan is a 'westerrn' country? Since when?
Click to expand...



Economically & politically? Since the 1950s.


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional *debt* to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there's your problem right there, you're asking *economists* to answer an *accounting* question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.
> 
> If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the *truth* don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided." But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.
> 
> In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit. The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.
Click to expand...


I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts. 

If the trusts have a surplus of $400 million and the operating budget has a deficit of $200 million, the consolidated government cash flow statement will have a surplus of $200 million. The assets in the trust will rise by $400 million while the liabilities of the Treasury to the trusts will rise by a corresponding amount. The $200 million will be used to pay off the public debt leading to a net rise in the debt of $200 million. This is convention in our system. 

It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there's your problem right there, you're asking *economists* to answer an *accounting* question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.
> 
> If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the *truth* don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided." But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.
> 
> In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit. The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.".  It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail.  The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition. 



> It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.


It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist.  Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks. 

The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".


----------



## DiamondDave

The government basically says its numbers are legit because they say their numbers are legit.. yet if a business used the very same accounting practices, they would be prosecuted

Too long have we have the government blowing smoke up our asses because the populace in general just does not want to hear the truth and bad news


----------



## NightFox

DiamondDave said:


> The government basically says its numbers are legit because they say their numbers are legit.. yet if a business used the very same accounting practices, they would be prosecuted
> 
> Too long have we have the government blowing smoke up our asses because the populace in general just does not want to hear the truth and bad news



Exactly Dave, politicians and bureaucrats believe that they can transform lies into truth simply by declaration, the really sad part is that so many Americans not only let them get away with it, they actually defend the practice.  

"_Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart:O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!_" -- *William Shakespeare*, The Merchant of Venice


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there's your problem right there, you're asking *economists* to answer an *accounting* question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.
> 
> If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the *truth* don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better.
> 
> 
> You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.".  It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail.  The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist.  Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks.
> 
> The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".
Click to expand...


s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows. That's it. Nothing more. If you want to argue that the government's financial position did not improve, that's a different argument. But you are redefining the terms to suit your narrative.  Or you simply do not understand what basic terms mean. Your argument that some of the smartest economists in the world don't understand this because its accounting is really silly.  The Treasury and CBO employ small armies of economists. Go find a few that back up your argument. 

That the government's books are not GAAP compliant also doesn't change this fact. Companies file a cash flow statement that are GAAP compliant.  The cash flow statement most closely approximates cash accounting governments use. It details cash coming in and cash going out of the business, just like the government accounts. What you are referring to is an income statement. An income statement is not a cash flow statement. 

I understand that how the government accounts for cash flows, assets and liabilities in the trusts is confusing, or that the trusts themselves are confusing.  You can argue that we shouldn't look at the consolidated government accounts and instead break out the trusts from the operating budget. But how the government accounts for its operations is similar to a (mostly) GAAP compliant entity that consolidates its operations and pools of capital through a cash flow statement.


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.".  It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail.  The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist.  Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks.
> 
> The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.
Click to expand...


Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it. 

Like I've  said multiple times if you really care about the *truth* and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation. 

As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?


----------



## Clementine

Lovebears65 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...my...God.
> 
> That is the most fucked up thing I've seen in some time.  Their ENTIRE income, gone!
> 
> Well, at least we can take solace in knowing that central governments are much more efficient in how they spend money than individuals making voluntary choices...
> 
> Now which Statists here will support this kind of crap I wonder???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would just stop working. I mean if I dont get to keep one dime of what I earned why should I work right or move
Click to expand...


You wouldn't want to work.   No one would.   That is precisely why socialism has never worked and never will.    There aren't enough people willing to be used this way.    Many will leave.   I think this is why there was talk of a global tax.   All part of the 'you can run, but you can't hide from wealth redistribution' plan that liberals want.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

You know what's amazing, that the Libtards came and defended France's 100% tax policy.


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.".  It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail.  The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition.
> 
> 
> It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist.  Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks.
> 
> The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.
> 
> Like I've  said multiple times if you really care about the *truth* and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.
> 
> As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?
Click to expand...


I've been involved in pensions most of my career.  I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it.  Most people don't. 

I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity.  I will show you how it works later.


----------



## usmcstinger

The2ndAmendment said:


> This is the Progressive Paradise.
> 
> Welcome to Forbes
> 
> Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money
> 
> Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%
> 
> Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters



Old News.


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.
> 
> Like I've  said multiple times if you really care about the *truth* and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.
> 
> As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been involved in pensions most of my career.  I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it.  Most people don't.
Click to expand...


Then you should understand exactly what I'm saying and know that the federal governments idea of "accounting" is completely spurious, besides the obvious logic flaws in their system every accountant I've talked to about it offers the same conclusion. 

To defend such practices is to participate in the intentional deception that politicians and bureaucrats hoped to achieve by doing things the way they do them.  Average Joe Citizen doesn't even question their assertions when they make them and doesn't even bother to check the details which is exactly what the miscreants of the federal government want. 



> I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity.  I will show you how it works later.


Yes I understand this, I also understand exactly why they consolidated the accounts, specifically so they could make the claims that you're now repeating, however it doesn't change the fact that the legal obligation to service the SSA "trust fund" exists which is the reason that they are forced to issue new debt to utilize the SSA revenue to service operating expenses, that money will have to be paid back and it will be paid back by the tax payers because non-SSA tax revenues were not sufficient to cover operating expenses at the time the money was "borrowed" from the SSA.


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.
> 
> Like I've  said multiple times if you really care about the *truth* and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.
> 
> As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been involved in pensions most of my career.  I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it.  Most people don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should understand exactly what I'm saying and know that the federal governments idea of "accounting" is completely spurious, besides the obvious logic flaws in their system every accountant I've talked to about it offers the same conclusion.
> 
> To defend such practices is to participate in the intentional deception that politicians and bureaucrats hoped to achieve by doing things the way they do them.  Average Joe Citizen doesn't even question their assertions when they make them and doesn't even bother to check the details which is exactly what the miscreants of the federal government want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity.  I will show you how it works later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I understand this, I also understand exactly why they consolidated the accounts, specifically so they could make the claims that you're now repeating, however it doesn't change the fact that the legal obligation to service the SSA "trust fund" exists which is the reason that they are forced to issue new debt to utilize the SSA revenue to service operating expenses, that money will have to be paid back and it will be paid back by the tax payers because non-SSA tax revenues were not sufficient to cover operating expenses at the time the money was "borrowed" from the SSA.
Click to expand...


First, I'm explaining, not defending, the accounting. I'm also saying that simply because companies have to create GAAP- compliant financial statements, it doesn't mean governments need to as well.  Government accounting _already_ is similar to a cash flow statement under GAAP. Governments are not profit-seeking enterprises, nor do they pay taxes, which are reasons to create a GAAP compliant income statement in the first place.  This system has been in place since c1980. The idea that the government "raided" SS under Clinton is utter nonsense. 

The trusts have been cash flow positive for most of their existence. The argument is that because Treasury securities are considered to be the safest securities, then the trusts should only be invested in Treasury securities. So the government can either create a trust fund that buys Treasury securities in the open market, or it can create a system that replicates the exact same thing without disrupting the bond market. In either case, the economics are exactly the same.  The assets of the trusts are the liabilities of the Treasury. If you net them out, you get the net debt, but one stream of cash flow isn't causing double counting of liabilities.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Although Toro and I disagree on the Federal Reserve (which I consider to be the Great Satan), I have to admit, Toro has really handed your asses to you.


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been involved in pensions most of my career.  I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it.  Most people don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should understand exactly what I'm saying and know that the federal governments idea of "accounting" is completely spurious, besides the obvious logic flaws in their system every accountant I've talked to about it offers the same conclusion.
> 
> To defend such practices is to participate in the intentional deception that politicians and bureaucrats hoped to achieve by doing things the way they do them.  Average Joe Citizen doesn't even question their assertions when they make them and doesn't even bother to check the details which is exactly what the miscreants of the federal government want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity.  I will show you how it works later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I understand this, I also understand exactly why they consolidated the accounts, specifically so they could make the claims that you're now repeating, however it doesn't change the fact that the legal obligation to service the SSA "trust fund" exists which is the reason that they are forced to issue new debt to utilize the SSA revenue to service operating expenses, that money will have to be paid back and it will be paid back by the tax payers because non-SSA tax revenues were not sufficient to cover operating expenses at the time the money was "borrowed" from the SSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I'm explaining, not defending, the accounting. I'm also saying that simply because companies have to create GAAP- compliant financial statements, it doesn't mean governments need to as well.  Government accounting _already_ is similar to a cash flow statement under GAAP. Governments are not profit-seeking enterprises, nor do they pay taxes, which are reasons to create a GAAP compliant income statement in the first place.  This system has been in place since c1980. The idea that the government "raided" SS under Clinton is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

Defending and explaining appears to be distinction without difference (but I will take your word for it) and again as far as GAAP goes (which is not restricted to profit seeking enterprises BTW) is a valid measure to determine the validity of federal government accounting with respect to the accuracy of the financial state of the federal government as reported. I also never indicated that the government had "raided" anything, what I've been saying all along is that the federal government has a legal OBLIGATION to the SSA "trust fund" which is why it is required to "borrow" money from it in the first place. This has been true since day 1 and wasn't changed when the SSA revenue and general funds accounts were consolidated in the late 1960's. 



> The trusts have been cash flow positive for most of their existence. The argument is that because Treasury securities are considered to be the safest securities, then the trusts should only be invested in Treasury securities.


This is not in dispute, although we could have a whole different discussion about the wisdom of limiting SSA "investments" to only treasuries. 



> So the government can either create a trust fund that buys Treasury securities in the open market, or it can create a system that replicates the exact same thing without disrupting the bond market. In either case, the economics are exactly the same.  The assets of the trusts are the liabilities of the Treasury. If you net them out, you get the net debt, but one stream of cash flow *isn't causing double counting of liabilities.*


That's not the contention here, the contention here is that government isn't DOUBLE counting liabilities it's that it's not counting some liabilities at all, as in it doesn't count the legal liability it has to the SSA trust fund with respect to SSA revenue. 

If the federal government had an ACTUAL surplus at the end of the year it would be in a situation where it had some amount of cash left over after meeting all of it's legal obligations (which one would hope would be rebated to the tax payers who overpaid on their tax bills that year or at least applied to future liabilities which are not funded by projected future tax receipts), however this is not what happened, what it had at the end of the year was a pile of new debt obligations against future tax receipts, that isn't a surplus it's a deficit and it explains exactly why the National Debt increased every year under President Clinton even though the federal government tried to pass off the lie to the public that it took in more money than it spent on it's obligations. 

We could go through examples of how the exact same thing wouldn't fly with respect to private businesses and their own pension funds but I suspect you already know that.


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> This is not in dispute, although we could have a whole different discussion about the wisdom of limiting SSA "investments" to only treasuries.



I definitely agree with that.  SS should be run like a real pension plan, and people should be allowed to opt out of it and invest directly themselves.  Other countries are doing this now.  



> That's not the contention here, the contention here is that government isn't DOUBLE counting liabilities it's that it's not counting some liabilities at all, as in it doesn't count the legal liability it has to the SSA trust fund with respect to SSA revenue.



I don't understand this.  Is there something in the law I don't know about?  Otherwise, where does the data for the total debt come from you posted earlier?  The government does publish the accounts of the trusts.  You can see the most recent results here.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr13summary.pdf



> If the federal government had an ACTUAL surplus at the end of the year it would be in a situation where it had some amount of cash left over after meeting all of it's legal obligations (which one would hope would be rebated to the tax payers who overpaid on their tax bills that year or at least applied to future liabilities which are not funded by projected future tax receipts), however this is not what happened, what it had at the end of the year was a pile of new debt obligations against future tax receipts, that isn't a surplus it's a deficit and it explains exactly why the National Debt increased every year under President Clinton even though the federal government tried to pass off the lie to the public that it took in more money than it spent on it's obligations.



Again, I don't understand your argument.  The government did meet all of its legal obligations and did use the excess cash to pay off publicly-traded debt.  

The operating budget was in deficit. That's what you're arguing.  I don't disagree.  What I'm arguing is that it is accepted convention to include all receipts and disbursements to define a surplus.  Had the operating budget been in surplus, more of the public debt would have been paid down as public debt was still in the trillions and the budget surplus was in the hundreds of millions.  Bush opted to give everyone a tax cut, arguing that we could afford one given the surpluses.  Americans agreed and voted him in.  But had the operating budget been budget been in surplus, it doesn't necessarily preclude a tax cut.  

I can't remember what exactly the budget looked like, but it was something like this

Operating budget
Revenues $2000
Spending $2100
Deficit $-100

Trusts
Revenues $1000
Payments $700
Surplus $300

Consolidated surplus $200

Liabilities before the fiscal year would have looked like this
Publicly traded debt $2000
Liabilities to the trusts $1000
Total liabilities $3000

After the fiscal year, it would have looked like this
Publicly traded debt $1800
Liabilities to the trusts $1300
Total liabilities $3100

That's what happened in the 1990s.  The surplus of the trusts are a liability of the government.  This is known and published each year.  So I'm not sure where you say they don't have a legal liability.

Had the operating budget been $100 in surplus instead of $100 in deficit, the balance sheet would have looked like this

Publicly traded debt $1600
Liabilities to the trusts $1300
Total liabilities $2900

So even though the liabilities to the trusts would have risen, publicly traded debt would have declined by more, and the total debt of the government would have fallen instead of rising.  So the only difference between the operating budget being in deficit or surplus is the amount of publicly traded debt that would have been paid off.

I often here the argument that "If the government really had a surplus, they would have paid down the SS debt," which is what you are arguing in your brackets.  But that argument misunderstands the nature of the trusts.  The liabilities of the trust are the actuarial estimates of future payments to participants.  These can't be paid down.  (They can be altered by law.)  The excesses could be invested in tradable securities I guess, i.e. Treasury securities.  But this wouldn't change the liabilities of the government at all, just the composition of those liabilities.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> So, you either had grounds, but didn't sue...or was fired for cause and couldn't sue.
> 
> Either way, it's your own damn fault, isn't it?
> 
> _So stop whining about it._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or I had grounds, but didn't think suing was worth the effort.  I mean, yeah, I could have done years and years of court proceedings, but frankly, I just moved on.
> 
> It doesn't mean that I think that it was a good thing, or that we won't be better off the sooner we get the private sector the fuck out of health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> When you use your own bigotry to prove a point, all you prove is that you're a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's just reality.  If you really believe in talking snakes and burning bushes, you have a child-like ability to reason, and therefore can't be trusted.  If it weren't for the stupid fucks voting for guys who are "right with Jesus", we'd have fixed this country's problem by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, your link came from TownHall.  you might as well have posted from StormFront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, we are better off than we were in 2008.  Obama won re-election.  Facts and Logic are that you guys made your best case, and couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  the problem with your theory is that you assume that the poor and undeserving are going to compliantly die if a big corporation can't make money off of them.  Well, some do.  But most just go to an emergency room and skip out on the bill.
> 
> The number of doctors are completely irrelevent to the issue.  We have enough doctors. We just aren't using them efficiently.
> 
> 
> 
> Were we at war with Syria?  Last time I checked, we weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, it's not single payer and getting the employers and insurance companies out of the picture, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I ever tell you Communists are stupid?  True story!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the UK, Canada, Germany, Japan, France, and Italy all do it that way.
> 
> They aren't "Communist".
> 
> They all have higher life expectencies.
> They all have lower infant mortality rates.
> They all spend less per capita than we do.
> Medical Crises do not cause bankruptcies.
Click to expand...


Wow.   Just...wow.  All of it.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic, someone should have developed that car.
> 
> The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car.  They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...
> 
> So argument fail, again.
> 
> The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.
> 
> 
> 
> "By that logic, someone should have developed that car."
> 
> But no one has.  That proves your logic is faulty.
> 
> Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.
> 
> Failures, every one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

DiamondDave said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...
> 
> What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....
> 
> Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...
Click to expand...


Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.   

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.


----------



## NightFox

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not in dispute, although we could have a whole different discussion about the wisdom of limiting SSA "investments" to only treasuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with that.  SS should be run like a real pension plan, and people should be allowed to opt out of it and invest directly themselves.  Other countries are doing this now.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we can agree on one point at least. 




> nightfox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the contention here, the contention here is that government isn't DOUBLE counting liabilities it's that it's not counting some liabilities at all, as in it doesn't count the legal liability it has to the SSA trust fund with respect to SSA revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this.  *Is there something in the law I don't know about? * Otherwise, where does the data for the total debt come from you posted earlier?  The government does publish the accounts of the trusts.  You can see the most recent results here.
> 
> http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr13summary.pdf
Click to expand...

I think you know about it but are missing it, the federal government has a legal obligation to "invest" excess SSA revenue into the SSA "trust fund" (under current federal law), it's right there in the PDF you linked. They're just not accounting for that legal obligation when they report a "surplus". 



> nightfox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the federal government had an ACTUAL surplus at the end of the year it would be in a situation where it had some amount of cash left over after meeting all of it's legal obligations (which one would hope would be rebated to the tax payers who overpaid on their tax bills that year or at least applied to future liabilities which are not funded by projected future tax receipts), however this is not what happened, what it had at the end of the year was a pile of new debt obligations against future tax receipts, that isn't a surplus it's a deficit and it explains exactly why the National Debt increased every year under President Clinton even though the federal government tried to pass off the lie to the public that it took in more money than it spent on it's obligations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't understand your argument.  The government did meet all of its legal obligations and did use the excess cash to pay off publicly-traded debt.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to put the fact that an excess of debt isn't the same thing as a surplus of cash any more simply than I already have but I'll give it one last shot; the national debt (intra-governmental holdings + public debt) as reported by the treasury increased every year under Clinton which clearly demonstrates a case of the former rather than a case of the latter. In my book reporting that to the public as a "surplus" is an attempt to deceive the public into believing that it's a case of the latter.



> The operating budget was in deficit. That's what you're arguing.  I don't disagree.  What I'm arguing is that it is accepted convention to include all receipts and disbursements to define a surplus.


... and therein lies the point of contention my friend, that the federal government has redefined the meaning of surplus to include a scenario which involves an increase of outstanding debt, I (along with others more knowledgeable about accounting than I) don't agree with that definition, You apparently do, *so we'll have to agree to disagree*. 



> Bush opted to give everyone a tax cut, arguing that we could afford one given the surpluses. Americans agreed and voted him in. But had the operating budget been budget been in surplus, it doesn't necessarily preclude a tax cut.


Just a minor point of order on this , Bush + Congress didn't cut taxes , he shifted them into the future since he continued to run a net operating deficit throughout his two terms, the hope was that the increased economic activity would generate sufficient revenues to offset the "cuts", didn't work out that way. 



> I often here the argument that "If the government really had a surplus, they would have paid down the SS debt," which is what you are arguing in your brackets


No it's not what I'm arguing in my brackets, what I'm pointing out there is the possibility that the federal government utilizes an actual surplus of cash to shore up it's unfunded future liabilities (which aren't limited to SS, since they also include Medicare and the other various federal pension funds), unfortunately federal law makes the "maneuverability" of this rather limited since in most cases it prohibits the federal government from purchasing marketable securities from external entities, I'm just assuming (hoping) there's some wiggle room in there somewhere that would allow for this.

Anywho, great talking to you and interesting conversation, hope you have an excellent weekend!


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...
> 
> What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....
> 
> Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.
> 
> Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.
Click to expand...


Yes.  It's fair like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

There's a very good reason we don't have direct democracy:  People like you.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...
> 
> What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....
> 
> Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.
> 
> Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's fair like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
> 
> There's a very good reason we don't have direct democracy:  People like you.
Click to expand...


Ummm....wolves don't vote.  

And frankly, if you are taking more than your fair share, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.  

This is where you guys fucked it up, you see.  If you kept letting the middle class have a comfortable lifestyle, like we had before that senile fuck Reagan, there would never have been an Obama.  

20 years, you guys will miss Obama.   Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.


----------



## Jarlaxle

NightFox said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which "societies" do you mean?  Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.
> 
> (Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)
> 
> Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.
> 
> And they work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> France some pay over 100%  how is that fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The over 100% is immaterial, the interesting part of the story is what they did that caused it to happen, the French Government in effect enacted what amounts to a taxation _Bill of Attainder_, whereby in *CY 2012* they added an additional one-time levy to income in *CY 2011* on certain people and then added the levy to their CY 2012 income tax bill.
> 
> Fortunately the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids Bills of Attainder and thus prevents our completely immoral, government worshiping statists from pulling the same sort of egregious nonsense here, Although I suspect there's a whole bunch of "progressive" think tank creatures sitting around trying to figure out how they can formulate some plausible statist apologias for proposing something similar to go back in time and re-write the past tax rates on "rich people".
Click to expand...


They do it anyway!  I got a retroactive tax bill for 2011 a couple weeks ago.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...
> 
> What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....
> 
> Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.
> 
> Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.
Click to expand...


Are you sure? It seems that the IRS was obliterating the Tea Party during the election season...

Also, how is it fair if we only had one choice? You could either vote for Obama, or vote for this other guy named Romney, who was no different from Obama.


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...
> 
> What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....
> 
> Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.
> 
> Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure? It seems that the IRS was obliterating the Tea Party during the election season...
Click to expand...


We should be so lucky...  

The only problem with the Teabaggers is that just don't know they are dupes...


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> 20 years, you guys will miss Obama.   Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.



I think you're right, but it won't be class wars, it will be Civil Wars the next time around.


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years, you guys will miss Obama.   Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're right, but it won't be class wars, it will be Civil Wars the next time around.
Click to expand...


Not really.  I mean, I remember the last time you gun whacks starting talking shit.  

It was the 1990's, and you guys all talked about forming militias and stuff.  

And then Waco and Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City happened, and you guys all scampered off with your tails betwix your legs when the FBI and ATF started paying attention to you.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Toro said:


> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.
> 
> Like I've  said multiple times if you really care about the *truth* and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.
> 
> As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been involved in pensions most of my career.  I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it.  Most people don't.
> 
> I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity.  I will show you how it works later.
Click to expand...


No need, I can explain exactly how Social Security works easily: LINK.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.
> 
> Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's fair like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
> 
> There's a very good reason we don't have direct democracy:  People like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm....wolves don't vote.
> 
> And frankly, if you are taking more than your fair share, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.
> 
> This is where you guys fucked it up, you see.  If you kept letting the middle class have a comfortable lifestyle, like we had before that senile fuck Reagan, there would never have been an Obama.
> 
> 20 years, you guys will miss Obama.   Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.
Click to expand...

D'jever notice the class war is being fought only by people with no class?






You really should't vandalize property that way.


----------



## JoeB131

Nice, Dave, you published a picture without context.  

The traffic sign would indicate this was not taken in the USA> 

Looks like somewhere in the UK.  

Incidently, I think all the forms of anarchism, whether it be the OWS movement or the Libertarians are kind of scary.  But you can kind of see why they happen when the economy doesn't work well for most of us and every day becomes a struggle, right?


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.
> 
> Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? It seems that the IRS was obliterating the Tea Party during the election season...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should be so lucky...
> 
> The only problem with the Teabaggers is that just don't know they are dupes...
Click to expand...

No, your problem with them is they know you're one.


----------



## JoeB131

So what is the equivlent to Godwin's law for folks who scream "communism" when losing an argument?  

Guy, I used to be as Right Wing as you are, until I realized there's a big old line between the bosses and the rest of us.  

And I only care about what happens on MY side of the line.


----------



## tooAlive

JoeB131 said:


> And frankly, if you are *taking more than your fair share*, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.



So, you're admitting that you feel entitled to part of the share we earned ourselves?

Because any part of our share belongs to us. Regardless of what you think is fair or not.



> This is where you guys fucked it up, you see.  If you kept letting the middle class have a comfortable lifestyle, like we had before that senile fuck Reagan, there would never have been an Obama.
> 
> 20 years, you guys will miss Obama.   Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.



I doubt that.

This last presidential race was close, and Obama doesn't seem to be gaining much support as time goes on. People have started to open their eyes, and leftism isn't doing them much good 5 years later.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> Nice, Dave, you published a picture without context.
> 
> The traffic sign would indicate this was not taken in the USA>
> 
> Looks like somewhere in the UK.


Classless:







Classless:







JoeB131 said:


> Incidently, I think all the forms of anarchism, whether it be the OWS movement or the Libertarians are kind of scary.  But you can kind of see why they happen when the economy doesn't work well for most of us and every day becomes a struggle, right?


It doesn't work for those who won't work.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> So what is the equivlent to Godwin's law for folks who scream "communism" when losing an argument?
> 
> Guy, I used to be as Right Wing as you are, until I realized there's a big old line between the bosses and the rest of us.
> 
> And I only care about what happens on MY side of the line.


  You think you're winning?



Look, you don't like being called a Communist -- stop mindlessly bleating Communist slogans.

Your call.


----------



## Hoffstra

the 100% rate was a one shot deal, you idiots.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Hoffstra said:


> the 100% rate was a one shot deal, you idiots.



So If Obama says he wants to do this as a "one-shot deal" we shouldn't worry then?

It's a travesty it even happened ONCE


----------



## Hoffstra

The2ndAmendment said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 100% rate was a one shot deal, you idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So If Obama says he wants to do this as a "one-shot deal" we shouldn't worry then?
> 
> It's a travesty it even happened ONCE
Click to expand...


I never said I supported it.

But the fact is there is no permanent tax rate of 100% in France.


----------



## auditor0007

THORAX said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have far lefties on here who may stay silent but love the idea of this.. and still some others that will openly support such things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because leftist progressives are mentally retarded children.
> 
> Many such leftist here on this forum are so retarded that they're cross eye'd and they regularly have foam build up on their mouths.
Click to expand...


We can always count on your eternal wisdom.


----------



## JoeB131

tooAlive said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And frankly, if you are *taking more than your fair share*, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting that you feel entitled to part of the share we earned ourselves?
> 
> Because any part of our share belongs to us. Regardless of what you think is fair or not.
Click to expand...


Uh, no, guy.  Nobody performs 8 figures worth of labor. 

Nobody performs 7 figures worth of labor.  

I would even go so far to say that no one being paid more than $200,000 is really earning it. 

He's just cheating the people who did the actual work.  

And that's what a progressive income tax is, and equalizer for human larceny. 





tooAlive said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you guys fucked it up, you see.  If you kept letting the middle class have a comfortable lifestyle, like we had before that senile fuck Reagan, there would never have been an Obama.
> 
> 20 years, you guys will miss Obama.   Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that.
> 
> This last presidential race was close, and Obama doesn't seem to be gaining much support as time goes on. People have started to open their eyes, and leftism isn't doing them much good 5 years later.
Click to expand...


Um, no, it wasn't really that close, and if it weren't for stupid, racist white people, Romney would have been dead five seconds after he blurted out that dumb shit about the 47%.  

If the Dems run a white person next time, you guys are screwed.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the equivlent to Godwin's law for folks who scream "communism" when losing an argument?
> 
> Guy, I used to be as Right Wing as you are, until I realized there's a big old line between the bosses and the rest of us.
> 
> And I only care about what happens on MY side of the line.
> 
> 
> 
> You think you're winning?
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you don't like being called a Communist -- stop mindlessly bleating Communist slogans.
> 
> Your call.
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, blah, Communism.  Godwins Law. No argument. Thanks for playing.  

Frankly, why should I vote for people who are on the side of managers who cheat and lie to me with impunity. 

Until you can give me a good answer to  that one, you have nothing to say.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, Dave, you published a picture without context.
> 
> The traffic sign would indicate this was not taken in the USA>
> 
> Looks like somewhere in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> Classless:
Click to expand...


Or people who are rightfully angry about the fact that they lost their jobs, their houses are underwater, and the big fat cats on wall street got a huge fucking bailout, got to keep their bonuses, and not a one of them went to prison for wrecking the economy. 




JoeB131 said:


> Incidently, I think all the forms of anarchism, whether it be the OWS movement or the Libertarians are kind of scary.  But you can kind of see why they happen when the economy doesn't work well for most of us and every day becomes a struggle, right?


It doesn't work for those who won't work.[/quote]

So let's assure that everyone who wants to work a job has a job.  Plenty of work that needs to be done with schools, bridges, roads, infrastructure, environmental clean up that no rich asshole is going to make a profit on. 

This is how FDR saved this country, by the way, by making a middle class.  

But, no, no, it's better to have a lot of angry people out there struggling, just so you can feel better that you are a little higher on the dungheap. 

And again, until my company screwed me when I got sick, I probably thought the same way.  

Shame on me.  I'm making up for it now, even though I have to argue with heartless assholes like you.


----------



## Immanuel

Hoffstra said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 100% rate was a one shot deal, you idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So If Obama says he wants to do this as a "one-shot deal" we shouldn't worry then?
> 
> It's a travesty it even happened ONCE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I supported it.
> 
> But the fact is there is no permanent tax rate of 100% in France.
Click to expand...


I do not recall reading that anyone said it was a permanent deal.  In fact, I noted a couple of times that it was a one time shot and I was not alone.  Maybe I missed the post(s) you saw that stated it was permanent.

By the way, I like the avatar and hope what it symbolizes some day becomes a reality.

Immie


----------



## Toro

NightFox said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NightFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not in dispute, although we could have a whole different discussion about the wisdom of limiting SSA "investments" to only treasuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with that.  SS should be run like a real pension plan, and people should be allowed to opt out of it and invest directly themselves.  Other countries are doing this now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad we can agree on one point at least.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you know about it but are missing it, the federal government has a legal obligation to "invest" excess SSA revenue into the SSA "trust fund" (under current federal law), it's right there in the PDF you linked. They're just not accounting for that legal obligation when they report a "surplus".
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how to put the fact that an excess of debt isn't the same thing as a surplus of cash any more simply than I already have but I'll give it one last shot; the national debt (intra-governmental holdings + public debt) as reported by the treasury increased every year under Clinton which clearly demonstrates a case of the former rather than a case of the latter. In my book reporting that to the public as a "surplus" is an attempt to deceive the public into believing that it's a case of the latter.
> 
> 
> ... and therein lies the point of contention my friend, that the federal government has redefined the meaning of surplus to include a scenario which involves an increase of outstanding debt, I (along with others more knowledgeable about accounting than I) don't agree with that definition, You apparently do, *so we'll have to agree to disagree*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush opted to give everyone a tax cut, arguing that we could afford one given the surpluses. Americans agreed and voted him in. But had the operating budget been budget been in surplus, it doesn't necessarily preclude a tax cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a minor point of order on this , Bush + Congress didn't cut taxes , he shifted them into the future since he continued to run a net operating deficit throughout his two terms, the hope was that the increased economic activity would generate sufficient revenues to offset the "cuts", didn't work out that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often here the argument that "If the government really had a surplus, they would have paid down the SS debt," which is what you are arguing in your brackets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not what I'm arguing in my brackets, what I'm pointing out there is the possibility that the federal government utilizes an actual surplus of cash to shore up it's unfunded future liabilities (which aren't limited to SS, since they also include Medicare and the other various federal pension funds), unfortunately federal law makes the "maneuverability" of this rather limited since in most cases it prohibits the federal government from purchasing marketable securities from external entities, I'm just assuming (hoping) there's some wiggle room in there somewhere that would allow for this.
> 
> Anywho, great talking to you and interesting conversation, hope you have an excellent weekend!
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=44607]NightFox[/MENTION]

I've moved this discussion to this thread since we have derailed the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/310675-social-security-discussion.html


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the equivlent to Godwin's law for folks who scream "communism" when losing an argument?
> 
> Guy, I used to be as Right Wing as you are, until I realized there's a big old line between the bosses and the rest of us.
> 
> And I only care about what happens on MY side of the line.
> 
> 
> 
> You think you're winning?
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you don't like being called a Communist -- stop mindlessly bleating Communist slogans.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, Communism.  Godwins Law. No argument. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Normal people know Communism is a bad thing.

And then there's you.


JoeB131 said:


> Frankly, why should I vote for people who are on the side of managers who cheat and lie to me with impunity.
> 
> Until you can give me a good answer to  that one, you have nothing to say.


If you don't want to vote for people who lie and cheat, you're not going to vote for anybody.


----------



## The T

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you're winning?
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you don't like being called a Communist -- stop mindlessly bleating Communist slogans.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, Communism. Godwins Law. No argument. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal people know Communism is a bad thing.
> 
> And then there's you.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, why should I vote for people who are on the side of managers who cheat and lie to me with impunity.
> 
> Until you can give me a good answer to that one, you have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you don't want to vote for people who lie and cheat, you're not going to vote for anybody*.
Click to expand...

 
Absolutely going to leave a mark it is. Joey has a problem...I wonder if there are mirrors in his home where he can give himself a talking to?

He puts more trust in politicians than he does with people living their lives as they see fit. (And that includes himself...unless JOEY is ONE of them)?


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, Dave, you published a picture without context.
> 
> The traffic sign would indicate this was not taken in the USA>
> 
> Looks like somewhere in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> Classless:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or people who are rightfully angry about the fact that they lost their jobs, their houses are underwater, and the big fat cats on wall street got a huge fucking bailout, got to keep their bonuses, and not a one of them went to prison for wrecking the economy.
Click to expand...

Being angry doesn't give you the right to deface public and private property and to leave biohazards where you've gathered to be angry together.

That's one of the problems with progressives -- they really do believe their emotions trump everything else.

In other words:  Grow up.


JoeB131 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidently, I think all the forms of anarchism, whether it be the OWS movement or the Libertarians are kind of scary.  But you can kind of see why they happen when the economy doesn't work well for most of us and every day becomes a struggle, right?
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't work for those who won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's assure that everyone who wants to work a job has a job.  Plenty of work that needs to be done with schools, bridges, roads, infrastructure, environmental clean up that no rich asshole is going to make a profit on.
> 
> This is how FDR saved this country, by the way, by making a middle class.
> 
> But, no, no, it's better to have a lot of angry people out there struggling, just so you can feel better that you are a little higher on the dungheap.
> 
> And again, until my company screwed me when I got sick, I probably thought the same way.
> 
> Shame on me.  I'm making up for it now, even though I have to argue with heartless assholes like you.
Click to expand...

Ummm...it's not me supporting a President whose policies are keeping people out of work, genius.

That would be YOU.


----------



## daveman

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, Communism. Godwins Law. No argument. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> Normal people know Communism is a bad thing.
> 
> And then there's you.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, why should I vote for people who are on the side of managers who cheat and lie to me with impunity.
> 
> Until you can give me a good answer to that one, you have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you don't want to vote for people who lie and cheat, you're not going to vote for anybody*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely going to leave a mark it is. Joey has a problem...I wonder if there are mirrors in his home where he can give himself a talking to?
> 
> He puts more trust in politicians than he does with people living their lives as they see fit. (And that includes himself...unless JOEY is ONE of them)?
Click to expand...

Joe has made it quite clear he wants other people to do the work.  Then he'll show up, take credit, and demand the reigns be handed over to him.

Because sees himself as incompetent to run his own life, he projects that incompetence on everyone else.

Typical progressive.


----------



## Rozman

We know that there are a shitload of Libs in this country when they find out about this will just be
multi - orgasmic.And I'm sure they would love to have that here.

All monies earned belong to government first.


----------



## tooAlive

JoeB131 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And frankly, if you are *taking more than your fair share*, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting that you feel entitled to part of the share we earned ourselves?
> 
> Because any part of our share belongs to us. Regardless of what you think is fair or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Nobody performs 8 figures worth of labor.
> 
> Nobody performs 7 figures worth of labor.
> 
> I would even go so far to say that no one being paid more than $200,000 is really earning it.
> 
> He's just cheating the people who did the actual work.
> 
> And that's what a progressive income tax is, and equalizer for human larceny.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion.

And not to belittle you or anything, but from the experiences you've mentioned on here you don't know what it's like to earn $200,000. So to be frank, you're nobody to be saying what someone else should or shouldn't be earning.

Your opinion that nobody's labor should be worth more than $200,000 is based on your own limited understanding. Perhaps if you knew what it took to get there you'd have a different opinion.

Although your point of view is that of the typical jealous socialist. Anybody that earns more than you doesn't deserve it and had to have gotten it by cheating. Your mind can't conceive a way for you to obtain their success, so your first reflex is to try and destroy the success of others.

Quite a sad way to live your life. I honestly do hope you can get over that.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And frankly, if you are *taking more than your fair share*, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting that you feel entitled to part of the share we earned ourselves?
> 
> Because any part of our share belongs to us. Regardless of what you think is fair or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Nobody performs 8 figures worth of labor.
> 
> Nobody performs 7 figures worth of labor.
> 
> I would even go so far to say that no one being paid more than $200,000 is really earning it.
Click to expand...


DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you're STUPID, boy!  Plenty of people do work worth 7 (or eight) figures. (Off the top of my head: a surgeon!)


----------



## THORAX

auditor0007 said:


> THORAX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have far lefties on here who may stay silent but love the idea of this.. and still some others that will openly support such things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because leftist progressives are mentally retarded children.
> 
> Many such leftist here on this forum are so retarded that they're cross eye'd and they regularly have foam build up on their mouths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can always count on your eternal wisdom.
Click to expand...


You can count on my napkins I have next to me.

They can be useful to wipe up your tears and the foam at the corners of your mouth.


----------



## JoeB131

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, why should I vote for people who are on the side of managers who cheat and lie to me with impunity.
> 
> Until you can give me a good answer to that one, you have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> *If you don't want to vote for people who lie and cheat, you're not going to vote for anybody*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely going to leave a mark it is. Joey has a problem...I wonder if there are mirrors in his home where he can give himself a talking to?
> 
> He puts more trust in politicians than he does with people living their lives as they see fit. (And that includes himself...unless JOEY is ONE of them)?
Click to expand...


I think you miss the point. 

I trust politicians to do whatever suckup thing they need to do to get re-elected.  The ballot box is the ONE PLACE I have as much power as my scumwad ex-boss who cured me or Republican Stupidity.  

Businesses will do whatever it takes to make a profit.  A mentality that brought us Love Canal, the Ford Pinto, and a thousand other screwups.  

You guys trust big corporations that would put Carcinogens in your water, if they thought they could get away with it.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting that you feel entitled to part of the share we earned ourselves?
> 
> Because any part of our share belongs to us. Regardless of what you think is fair or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Nobody performs 8 figures worth of labor.
> 
> Nobody performs 7 figures worth of labor.
> 
> I would even go so far to say that no one being paid more than $200,000 is really earning it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you're STUPID, boy!  Plenty of people do work worth 7 (or eight) figures. (Off the top of my head: a surgeon!)
Click to expand...


No, they get PAID 7 figures.  Their work isn't WORTH 7 figures.  

I'm sorry you aren't bright enough to see the difference.


----------



## JoeB131

tooAlive said:


> [
> 
> That's your opinion.
> 
> And not to belittle you or anything, but from the experiences you've mentioned on here you don't know what it's like to earn $200,000. So to be frank, you're nobody to be saying what someone else should or shouldn't be earning.
> 
> Your opinion that nobody's labor should be worth more than $200,000 is based on your own limited understanding. Perhaps if you knew what it took to get there you'd have a different opinion.
> 
> Although your point of view is that of the typical jealous socialist. Anybody that earns more than you doesn't deserve it and had to have gotten it by cheating. Your mind can't conceive a way for you to obtain their success, so your first reflex is to try and destroy the success of others.
> 
> Quite a sad way to live your life. I honestly do hope you can get over that.



Frankly, guy, I've met people who've made that kind of money, and no, usually, they just take credit for someone else's work.  

In fact, I think I have worked for those guys.  

I'm amazed about the worship you and your sort have for the wealthy.   They just aren't all that interesting.


----------



## WillowTree

eflatminor said:


> Oh...my...God.
> 
> That is the most fucked up thing I've seen in some time.  Their ENTIRE income, gone!
> 
> Well, at least we can take solace in knowing that central governments are much more efficient in how they spend money than individuals making voluntary choices...
> 
> Now which Statists here will support this kind of crap I wonder???



So why would anyone choose to work?


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> 
> Ummm...it's not me supporting a President whose policies are keeping people out of work, genius.
> 
> That would be YOU.



Hey, retard, blaming ObamaCare for the evils that corporations do is like blaming a short skirt for a rape.  

Of course, I'd have my solution.  The minute a company announces it is cutting headcount or hours to cheat employees out of health care- 

AUTOMATIC IRS AUDIT. 

Hey, you know that love nest for the CEO's mistress that you are paying for out of a company slush fund?   Guess where that information is going.   Right to his wife and her divorce attorney.  

Make a few examples out of people, their behavior WILL improve quickly.  

Or do you think that only applies to poor people?


----------



## francoHFW

Immanuel said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> So If Obama says he wants to do this as a "one-shot deal" we shouldn't worry then?
> 
> It's a travesty it even happened ONCE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I supported it.
> 
> But the fact is there is no permanent tax rate of 100% in France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not recall reading that anyone said it was a permanent deal.  In fact, I noted a couple of times that it was a one time shot and I was not alone.  Maybe I missed the post(s) you saw that stated it was permanent.
> 
> By the way, I like the avatar and hope what it symbolizes some day becomes a reality.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Course it never actually happened, and btw the rich have plenty of deductions over there too. Same reason OUR rich pay 17% effective, and corporations 12%, a disgrace.

OP- Typical fear mongering Pubcrappe, pandering to the bloated rich and squeezing the nonrich as always. The middle class pays 24%, hater dupes...


----------



## regent

WillowTree said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...my...God.
> 
> That is the most fucked up thing I've seen in some time.  Their ENTIRE income, gone!
> 
> Well, at least we can take solace in knowing that central governments are much more efficient in how they spend money than individuals making voluntary choices...
> 
> Now which Statists here will support this kind of crap I wonder???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why would anyone choose to work?
Click to expand...


But under a Marxist economy there was to be no taxes, remember from each....


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *If you don't want to vote for people who lie and cheat, you're not going to vote for anybody*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely going to leave a mark it is. Joey has a problem...I wonder if there are mirrors in his home where he can give himself a talking to?
> 
> He puts more trust in politicians than he does with people living their lives as they see fit. (And that includes himself...unless JOEY is ONE of them)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you miss the point.
> 
> I trust politicians to do whatever suckup thing they need to do to get re-elected.  The ballot box is the ONE PLACE I have as much power as my scumwad ex-boss who cured me or Republican Stupidity.
> 
> Businesses will do whatever it takes to make a profit.  A mentality that brought us Love Canal, the Ford Pinto, and a thousand other screwups.
> 
> You guys trust big corporations that would put Carcinogens in your water, if they thought they could get away with it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for perfectly illustrating the far left's irrational hatred for business:

"Big corporations want to kill all their customers, thus maximizing profits!!"

Hey, genius:  If all the customers are dead, who's going to buy their products?


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Nobody performs 8 figures worth of labor.
> 
> Nobody performs 7 figures worth of labor.
> 
> I would even go so far to say that no one being paid more than $200,000 is really earning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you're STUPID, boy!  Plenty of people do work worth 7 (or eight) figures. (Off the top of my head: a surgeon!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they get PAID 7 figures.  Their work isn't WORTH 7 figures.
> 
> I'm sorry you aren't bright enough to see the difference.
Click to expand...

You must get terribly frustrated that no one cares what you think they should make.

Really, dood.  _No one cares_.  What they get paid is between them and the person/company paying them.  

If your phone doesn't ring, that's the company not calling to see what you think.


----------



## eagle1462010

Let me get this straight...............................

France has gone BACK IN TIME to tax............................

By a Leader that wasn't in power.....................

Because he didn't get his way.........................

And the Liberals on this board actually try and defend it?????????????

On the last line.  It's not a surprise to me as they have been calling for massive taxation on the Rich here forever...................


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ummm...it's not me supporting a President whose policies are keeping people out of work, genius.
> 
> That would be YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, retard, blaming ObamaCare for the evils that corporations do is like blaming a short skirt for a rape.
> 
> Of course, I'd have my solution.  The minute a company announces it is cutting headcount or hours to cheat employees out of health care-
> 
> AUTOMATIC IRS AUDIT.
> 
> Hey, you know that love nest for the CEO's mistress that you are paying for out of a company slush fund?   Guess where that information is going.   Right to his wife and her divorce attorney.
> 
> Make a few examples out of people, their behavior WILL improve quickly.
> 
> Or do you think that only applies to poor people?
Click to expand...

Wow, you really DO want an all-powerful totalitarian government.

What an imbecile.


----------



## eagle1462010

You need to look no further than Detroit to see what happens when the Liberals take Full Control.

They Drive Business out. They tax what is left of them to death.  Jobs go away.  The people leave, and the City is Bankrupt.

Over half of Detroit has left.

On a State Level.  California.  The State has taxed and Regulated Business to death.  So for DECADES businesses have been leaving to other states or countries to escape being punished for opening a business there.  Now California has a Very Large Debt, and so they attack what's left and more leave.  

Then they wonder why are they leaving............................

Texas.  Conservatively run.  No State Taxes. Very Business Friendly, and has a thriving economy.

Reality is a bitch Liberals.  YOU ARE WRONG.


----------



## Rozman

Liberals want to take money away from rich people and have it distributed to the masses so they can have more money to spend so that they can buy stuff.

But they are livid still that Reagan lowered the tax rate so people could keep more of the money "they"
earned....

Weird....


----------



## daveman

NOT ONE SINGLE person from the left has been able to explain this.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Nobody performs 8 figures worth of labor.
> 
> Nobody performs 7 figures worth of labor.
> 
> I would even go so far to say that no one being paid more than $200,000 is really earning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you're STUPID, boy!  Plenty of people do work worth 7 (or eight) figures. (Off the top of my head: a surgeon!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they get PAID 7 figures.  Their work isn't WORTH 7 figures.
> 
> I'm sorry you aren't bright enough to see the difference.
Click to expand...


So...in Joey-world, what would, say, an expert heart surgeon be paid?  How about one of the three or four people in the WORLD able to do, say, pediatric neurosurgery?

DAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYUM, you are fucking dumb!


----------



## tooAlive

Obviously SOMEONE thinks a surgeons job is worth 7 figures, otherwise they wouldn't get paid that much.

Ever heard of supply and demand?


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> Thank you for perfectly illustrating the far left's irrational hatred for business:
> 
> "Big corporations want to kill all their customers, thus maximizing profits!!"
> 
> Hey, genius:  If all the customers are dead, who's going to buy their products?



Did say I, "All". 

But that was the point with the Ford Pinto.  

It would have cost $11.00 per unit to fix the gas tank problem that made the Pinto the "Barbaque that Seats Four".   

And someone at Ford ran the numbers, and figured that paying out 100 claims on fatalities was cheaper than recalling 2 million cars.  Until the government FORCED them to do a recall, that is. 

And don't get me started on the Tobacco Industry, which knew for decades their products caused cancer.  

Or the people who manufactured asbestos, who knew as far back as the 1940's that it was a carcinogen, and insisted in putting it in pretty much everything.


----------



## JoeB131

tooAlive said:


> Obviously SOMEONE thinks a surgeons job is worth 7 figures, otherwise they wouldn't get paid that much.
> 
> Ever heard of supply and demand?



Guy, by that logic, kidnappers deserve seven figure ransoms.  

Someone has a gun to your head, you will pay anything they want.  

Medical issues, yeah, you will pay everything you have to keep from dying or keeping your loved ones from dying.  

Which is why we spend more than any other nation and get the worst results.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> [
> 
> So...in Joey-world, what would, say, an expert heart surgeon be paid?  How about one of the three or four people in the WORLD able to do, say, pediatric neurosurgery?
> 
> DAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYUM, you are fucking dumb!



That just tells me we don't have enough specialists. 

You kind of are making my point.  Why should you be held hostage to someone else's greed.  

Strikes me, he should be paid for his expertise, but if he could charge what people actually could pay, he wouldn't have any customers.  

This is why private insurance is collapsing, because a lot of these medical professionals are as greedy as the insurance CEO's.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> NOT ONE SINGLE person from the left has been able to explain this.



No, there really is no Explanation for a guy like Uncle Tom Sowell, who would be riding on the back of the bus if it weren't for liberals he hates so much.  

I'm thinking much like Mia Love (whatever happened to her? Oh yeah, who cares!), he's just a self-loathing black person.  

Sorry, guy, if you are up in the 7 and 8 figure range of wealth, you aren't earning anything, you are taking the fruits of someone else's labor.  

You pay your taxes and don't whinge about it.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> You need to look no further than Detroit to see what happens when the Liberals take Full Control.
> 
> They Drive Business out. They tax what is left of them to death.  Jobs go away.  The people leave, and the City is Bankrupt.
> 
> Over half of Detroit has left.
> 
> On a State Level.  California.  The State has taxed and Regulated Business to death.  So for DECADES businesses have been leaving to other states or countries to escape being punished for opening a business there.  Now California has a Very Large Debt, and so they attack what's left and more leave.
> 
> Then they wonder why are they leaving............................
> 
> Texas.  Conservatively run.  No State Taxes. Very Business Friendly, and has a thriving economy.
> 
> Reality is a bitch Liberals.  YOU ARE WRONG.



Guy, you live in your own reality.  

Texas is still nearly a third world country, if you spun it off as its own nation.   The fact that businesses go there is because it's a nice conduit for all that poorer than shit labor from Mexico.  

Liberalism didn't destroy Detroit.  Detroit lost to Volkswagon and Toyota.  Companies where the workforces are unionized and the unions even have a say in who the CEO is.  

And the CEO's of those companies DON'T make 8 figures.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to look no further than Detroit to see what happens when the Liberals take Full Control.
> 
> They Drive Business out. They tax what is left of them to death.  Jobs go away.  The people leave, and the City is Bankrupt.
> 
> Over half of Detroit has left.
> 
> On a State Level.  California.  The State has taxed and Regulated Business to death.  So for DECADES businesses have been leaving to other states or countries to escape being punished for opening a business there.  Now California has a Very Large Debt, and so they attack what's left and more leave.
> 
> Then they wonder why are they leaving............................
> 
> Texas.  Conservatively run.  No State Taxes. Very Business Friendly, and has a thriving economy.
> 
> Reality is a bitch Liberals.  YOU ARE WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you live in your own reality.
> 
> Texas is still nearly a third world country, if you spun it off as its own nation.   The fact that businesses go there is because it's a nice conduit for all that poorer than shit labor from Mexico.
> 
> Liberalism didn't destroy Detroit.  Detroit lost to Volkswagon and Toyota.  Companies where the workforces are unionized and the unions even have a say in who the CEO is.
> 
> And the CEO's of those companies DON'T make 8 figures.
Click to expand...


Oh. So the only reason for Texas Success is Mexican Labor.  LOL

And I'm the one who is supposed to live in my own reality.

The Unions in Detroit destroyed the auto industry there, by ALWAYS WANTING MORE, MORE, MORE pushing labor costs through the roof.  You quote examples of Toyota and Volkswagon whose labor costs were much lower than Detroit.

Then you wonder why the companies got beat.  You should also wonder why the auto plants in the country have moved to the south instead of the Traditional North.

Oh, but it wasn't LIBERAL LEADERS and Unions that caused the mass exit of over a Million people from Detroit.  Were you dropped on your head at birth or something?


Finally, in California.  Since the only reason the Economy in Texas is Mexican Labor, then there MUST BE NO MEXICANS IN CALIFORNIA.  Last I heard, I think California borders Canada or something.

You really hang it all out there don't you, for your LIBERAL MANTRA.  Denying the Reality of your BS, even when shown data to the contrary.  I've seen it all over threads now on this board.

Marx would be happy with ya.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So...in Joey-world, what would, say, an expert heart surgeon be paid?  How about one of the three or four people in the WORLD able to do, say, pediatric neurosurgery?
> 
> DAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYUM, you are fucking dumb!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just tells me we don't have enough specialists.
> 
> You kind of are making my point.  Why should you be held hostage to someone else's greed.
> 
> Strikes me, he should be paid for his expertise, but if he could charge what people actually could pay, he wouldn't have any customers.
> 
> This is why private insurance is collapsing, because a lot of these medical professionals are as greedy as the insurance CEO's.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because it's EASY to train a neurosurgeon! 

Dude, does it hurt to be THIS FUCKING *STUPID?*


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. So the only reason for Texas Success is Mexican Labor.  LOL
> 
> And I'm the one who is supposed to live in my own reality.
> 
> The Unions in Detroit destroyed the auto industry there, by ALWAYS WANTING MORE, MORE, MORE pushing labor costs through the roof.  You quote examples of Toyota and Volkswagon whose labor costs were much lower than Detroit.
> 
> Then you wonder why the companies got beat.  You should also wonder why the auto plants in the country have moved to the south instead of the Traditional North.
> 
> Oh, but it wasn't LIBERAL LEADERS and Unions that caused the mass exit of over a Million people from Detroit.  Were you dropped on your head at birth or something?
> 
> 
> Finally, in California.  Since the only reason the Economy in Texas is Mexican Labor, then there MUST BE NO MEXICANS IN CALIFORNIA.  Last I heard, I think California borders Canada or something.
> 
> You really hang it all out there don't you, for your LIBERAL MANTRA.  Denying the Reality of your BS, even when shown data to the contrary.  I've seen it all over threads now on this board.
> 
> Marx would be happy with ya.



Guy, I've worked in the Automotive Supply industry.  Three of my last four employers provided goods or services to the auto-industry.  

The Auto Industry was not wrecked by union workers insisting on making a whopping $28.00 an hour. 

The Auto Industry was wrecked by CEO insisting on continuing to build gas-guzzling hogs because they were more profitable to sell, even when the WORLD market was moving away from them. 

I just wonder why you think it's okay for CEO's to get 8 figure salaries as not being greedy, but an autoworker to get a fair living wage as being greedy.  Really trying to understand that logic. 

Because, honestly, I doubt you're rich.  

So with the class warfare waging, why do you insist on siding with the enemy?


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So...in Joey-world, what would, say, an expert heart surgeon be paid?  How about one of the three or four people in the WORLD able to do, say, pediatric neurosurgery?
> 
> DAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYUM, you are fucking dumb!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just tells me we don't have enough specialists.
> 
> You kind of are making my point.  Why should you be held hostage to someone else's greed.
> 
> Strikes me, he should be paid for his expertise, but if he could charge what people actually could pay, he wouldn't have any customers.
> 
> This is why private insurance is collapsing, because a lot of these medical professionals are as greedy as the insurance CEO's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because it's EASY to train a neurosurgeon!
> 
> Dude, does it hurt to be THIS FUCKING *STUPID?*
Click to expand...


Guy, it strikes me that you are probably the one who needs a nuerosurgeon...your brain doesn't work right.  

If there was only ONE Neurosurgeon on the entire planet, he should not make 8 figures.  He should make a fair wage for his expertise.  nothing more, nothing less.  

Which IS the way the rest of the world does it.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. So the only reason for Texas Success is Mexican Labor.  LOL
> 
> And I'm the one who is supposed to live in my own reality.
> 
> The Unions in Detroit destroyed the auto industry there, by ALWAYS WANTING MORE, MORE, MORE pushing labor costs through the roof.  You quote examples of Toyota and Volkswagon whose labor costs were much lower than Detroit.
> 
> Then you wonder why the companies got beat.  You should also wonder why the auto plants in the country have moved to the south instead of the Traditional North.
> 
> Oh, but it wasn't LIBERAL LEADERS and Unions that caused the mass exit of over a Million people from Detroit.  Were you dropped on your head at birth or something?
> 
> 
> Finally, in California.  Since the only reason the Economy in Texas is Mexican Labor, then there MUST BE NO MEXICANS IN CALIFORNIA.  Last I heard, I think California borders Canada or something.
> 
> You really hang it all out there don't you, for your LIBERAL MANTRA.  Denying the Reality of your BS, even when shown data to the contrary.  I've seen it all over threads now on this board.
> 
> Marx would be happy with ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I've worked in the Automotive Supply industry.  Three of my last four employers provided goods or services to the auto-industry.
> 
> The Auto Industry was not wrecked by union workers insisting on making a whopping $28.00 an hour.
> 
> The Auto Industry was wrecked by CEO insisting on continuing to build gas-guzzling hogs because they were more profitable to sell, even when the WORLD market was moving away from them.
> 
> I just wonder why you think it's okay for CEO's to get 8 figure salaries as not being greedy, but an autoworker to get a fair living wage as being greedy.  Really trying to understand that logic.
> 
> Because, honestly, I doubt you're rich.
> 
> So with the class warfare waging, why do you insist on siding with the enemy?
Click to expand...


YAWN

You wouldn't be cherry picking data now would you...................................

Showing the wages after Concessions made....................................

GM - UAW Settlement Includes Jobs for Concessions


----------



## eagle1462010

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

That figure &#8212; repeated on television and in newspapers as the average pay of a Big Three autoworker &#8212; has become a big symbol in the fight over what should happen to Detroit. To critics, it is a neat encapsulation of everything that&#8217;s wrong with bloated car companies and their entitled workers.

To the Big Three&#8217;s defenders, meanwhile, the number has become proof positive that autoworkers are being unfairly blamed for Detroit&#8217;s decline. &#8220;We&#8217;ve heard this garbage about 73 bucks an hour,&#8221; Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said last week. &#8220;It&#8217;s a total lie. I think some people have perpetrated that deliberately, in a calculated way, to mislead the American people about what we&#8217;re doing here.&#8221;

So what is the reality behind the number? Detroit&#8217;s defenders are right that the number is basically wrong. Big Three workers aren&#8217;t making anything close to $73 an hour (which would translate to about $150,000 a year).

But the defenders are not right to suggest, as many have, that Detroit has solved its wage problem. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler workers make significantly more than their counterparts at Toyota, Honda and Nissan plants in this country. Last year&#8217;s concessions by the United Automobile Workers, which mostly apply to new workers, will not change that anytime soon.

And yet the main problem facing Detroit, overwhelmingly, is not the pay gap. That&#8217;s unfortunate because fixing the pay gap would be fairly straightforward.

The real problem is that many people don&#8217;t want to buy the cars that Detroit makes. Fixing this problem won&#8217;t be nearly so easy.

The success of any bailout is probably going to come down to Washington&#8217;s willingness to acknowledge as much.

Let&#8217;s start with the numbers. The $73-an-hour figure comes from the car companies themselves. As part of their public relations strategy during labor negotiations, the companies put out various charts and reports explaining what they paid their workers. Wall Street analysts have done similar calculations.

The calculations show, accurately enough, that for every hour a unionized worker puts in, one of the Big Three really does spend about $73 on compensation. So the number isn&#8217;t made up. But it is the combination of three very different categories.

The first category is simply cash payments, which is what many people imagine when they hear the word &#8220;compensation.&#8221; It includes wages, overtime and vacation pay, and comes to about $40 an hour. (The numbers vary a bit by company and year. That&#8217;s why $73 is sometimes $70 or $77.)

The second category is fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. These benefits have real value, even if they don&#8217;t show up on a weekly paycheck. At the Big Three, the benefits amount to $15 an hour or so.

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit&#8217;s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It&#8217;s a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda&#8217;s or Toyota&#8217;s (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.

The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix &#8212; dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so &#8212; and end up at roughly $70 an hour.

The crucial point, though, is this $15 isn&#8217;t mainly a reflection of how generous the retiree benefits are. It&#8217;s a reflection of how many retirees there are. The Big Three built up a huge pool of retirees long before Honda and Toyota opened plants in this country. You&#8217;d never know this by looking at the graphic behind Wolf Blitzer on CNN last week, contrasting the &#8220;$73/hour&#8221; pay of Detroit&#8217;s workers with the &#8220;up to $48/hour&#8221; pay of workers at the Japanese companies.

These retirees make up arguably Detroit&#8217;s best case for a bailout. The Big Three and the U.A.W. had the bad luck of helping to create the middle class in a country where individual companies &#8212; as opposed to all of society &#8212; must shoulder much of the burden of paying for retirement.

So here&#8217;s a little experiment. Imagine that a Congressional bailout effectively pays for $10 an hour of the retiree benefits. That&#8217;s roughly the gap between the Big Three&#8217;s retiree costs and those of the Japanese-owned plants in this country. Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour &#8212; the same as at Honda and Toyota.

Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle? Only about $800.

That&#8217;s because labor costs, for all the attention they have been receiving, make up only about 10 percent of the cost of making a vehicle. An extra $800 per vehicle would certainly help Detroit, but the Big Three already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies, analysts at the International Motor Vehicle Program say. Even so, many Americans no longer want to own the cars being made by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.

My own family&#8217;s story isn&#8217;t especially unusual. For decades, my grandparents bought American and only American. In their apartment, they still have a framed photo of the 1933 Oldsmobile that my grandfather&#8217;s family drove when he was a teenager. In the photo, his father stands proudly on the car&#8217;s running board.

By the 1970s, though, my grandfather became so sick of the problems with his American cars that he vowed never to buy another one. He hasn&#8217;t.

Detroit&#8217;s defenders, from top executives on down, insist that they have finally learned their lesson. They say a comeback is just around the corner. But they said the same thing at the start of this decade &#8212; and the start of the last one and the one before that. All the while, their market share has kept on falling.

There is good reason to keep G.M. and Chrysler from collapsing in 2009. (Ford is in slightly better shape.) The economy is in the worst recession in a generation. You can think of the Detroit bailout as a relatively cost-effective form of stimulus. It&#8217;s often cheaper to keep workers in their jobs than to create new jobs.

But Congress and the Obama administration shouldn&#8217;t fool themselves into thinking that they can preserve the Big Three in anything like their current form. Very soon, they need to shrink to a size that reflects the American public&#8217;s collective judgment about the quality of their products.

It&#8217;s a sad story, in many ways. But it can&#8217;t really be undone at this point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have bought more of their cars.


----------



## JoeB131

Did you actually compehend that word dump before you posted it? 

Here's the problem. Nissan has a lower hourly wage because they haven't been operating in the US long enough to have a large pension obligation.   (I know. Pensions! What a concept.  Don't you know we should get workers to invest in a 401K so that Wall Street can go to the casino!)  

And how is it that the FIRST thing they look at when a company restructures is never the pay and perks of Executives?


----------



## eagle1462010

While you are right that the market changed due to higher gas prices, you don't add in the fact that the UAW members had some of the best packages around.  So rightly so, LABOR COSTS were higher than their competitors.

Even had the Big 3 started earlier on mpg cars, they would have still been at a disadvantage to the competitors due to labor costs.

Now, after being bailed by the Gov't, they are making the economy auto's but still losing out to the competition, and a lot of that is due to COSTS

While I'm not in the auto business, I've actually met those down here who were from Detroit.  One in particular, who used to work with the UAW.  He stated that the Auto Maker made the mistake by offering BETTER INSURANCE PACKAGES, over wages.  He stated at the time, the UAW was willing to take small pay rate increases instead.  Then the Gold Plated Insurance packages started costing a hell of lot more than anticipated, and drove the cost of Labor up significantly.  

That same individual has a home up there.  It's underwater, and he can't live there as there is no work.  He stated that he didn't want to ruin his credit, but couldn't afford to live across the country and still pay for a home where there was no work.

aka He was considering letting the house go and let the chips fall where they may.

Bottom line Detroit is in RUIN.  Run by Dems, and RUN BY UNIONS.  In every aspect up there, the UNIONS RULE THE ROOST, and they drove up Gov't cost across the board.  Not just in the Auto Industry.

And now the city is Bankrupt, and the people are gone.

I live in Alabama.  We have new car plants here.  They are THRIVING.  Not as well due to the economy, but they are not in danger of Going under.  This is a right to work state.  The employees there get good wages and packages.  The Workers have a stable financial situation in those places.

.................AND DETROIT IS IN ASHES...............................


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Did you actually compehend that word dump before you posted it?
> 
> Here's the problem. Nissan has a lower hourly wage because they haven't been operating in the US long enough to have a large pension obligation.   (I know. Pensions! What a concept.  Don't you know we should get workers to invest in a 401K so that Wall Street can go to the casino!)
> 
> And how is it that the FIRST thing they look at when a company restructures is never the pay and perks of Executives?



Apples to Oranges.  Nissan has had pensions in Japan for a very long time.  They still produce a butt load of autos there.  But let's ignore that.


----------



## eagle1462010

BTW

Nissan operates in 50 countries around the globe.  I guess we should ignore any of that data or 401k issues as well.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Thank you for perfectly illustrating the far left's irrational hatred for business:
> 
> "Big corporations want to kill all their customers, thus maximizing profits!!"
> 
> Hey, genius:  If all the customers are dead, who's going to buy their products?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did say I, "All".
> 
> But that was the point with the Ford Pinto.
> 
> It would have cost $11.00 per unit to fix the gas tank problem that made the Pinto the "Barbaque that Seats Four".
> 
> And someone at Ford ran the numbers, and figured that paying out 100 claims on fatalities was cheaper than recalling 2 million cars.  Until the government FORCED them to do a recall, that is.
> 
> And don't get me started on the Tobacco Industry, which knew for decades their products caused cancer.
> 
> Or the people who manufactured asbestos, who knew as far back as the 1940's that it was a carcinogen, and insisted in putting it in pretty much everything.
Click to expand...

And the Marxism you advocate killed 100 million people.  

So you don't care about how many people are killed.  You just want them killed the "right" way.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT ONE SINGLE person from the left has been able to explain this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there really is no Explanation for a guy like Uncle Tom Sowell, who would be riding on the back of the bus if it weren't for liberals he hates so much.
> 
> I'm thinking much like Mia Love (whatever happened to her? Oh yeah, who cares!), he's just a self-loathing black person.
> 
> Sorry, guy, if you are up in the 7 and 8 figure range of wealth, you aren't earning anything, you are taking the fruits of someone else's labor.
> 
> You pay your taxes and don't whinge about it.
Click to expand...

Negged for being a racist.

Meanwhile, you failed to explain the dichotomy.

But then, racists are stupid, so you're simply not equipped.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> The Auto Industry was not wrecked by union workers insisting on making a whopping $28.00 an hour.



Indeed it wasn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=0

The calculations show, accurately enough, that for every hour a unionized worker puts in, one of the Big Three really does spend about $73 on compensation. So the number isnt made up. But it is the combination of three very different categories.

The first category is simply cash payments, which is what many people imagine when they hear the word compensation. It includes wages, overtime and vacation pay, and comes to about $40 an hour. (The numbers vary a bit by company and year. Thats why $73 is sometimes $70 or $77.)

The second category is fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. These benefits have real value, even if they dont show up on a weekly paycheck. At the Big Three, the benefits amount to $15 an hour or so.

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroits unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. Its a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Hondas or Toyotas (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.

The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix  dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so  and end up at roughly $70 an hour.​


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually compehend that word dump before you posted it?
> 
> Here's the problem. Nissan has a lower hourly wage because they haven't been operating in the US long enough to have a large pension obligation.   (I know. Pensions! What a concept.  Don't you know we should get workers to invest in a 401K so that Wall Street can go to the casino!)
> 
> And how is it that the FIRST thing they look at when a company restructures is never the pay and perks of Executives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples to Oranges.  Nissan has had pensions in Japan for a very long time.  They still produce a butt load of autos there.  But let's ignore that.
Click to expand...


Japan also has universal health care... which means that they have no health care obligation. 

Japanese Auto Workers are also unionized, and the unions in Japan have a say in who is on the Board of Directors. 

So if you really, really want to go there, I'm game.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT ONE SINGLE person from the left has been able to explain this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there really is no Explanation for a guy like Uncle Tom Sowell, who would be riding on the back of the bus if it weren't for liberals he hates so much.
> 
> I'm thinking much like Mia Love (whatever happened to her? Oh yeah, who cares!), he's just a self-loathing black person.
> 
> Sorry, guy, if you are up in the 7 and 8 figure range of wealth, you aren't earning anything, you are taking the fruits of someone else's labor.
> 
> You pay your taxes and don't whinge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negged for being a racist.
> 
> Meanwhile, you failed to explain the dichotomy.
> 
> But then, racists are stupid, so you're simply not equipped.
Click to expand...


I explained it perfectly.  

People are taxed to pay for the benefits of living in a civilized society.  

The wealthy having more wealth they didn't earn, SHOULD be taxed at a higher rate.  

And Stepandfetchit up there would know this if he wasn't too busy licking boots.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there really is no Explanation for a guy like Uncle Tom Sowell, who would be riding on the back of the bus if it weren't for liberals he hates so much.
> 
> I'm thinking much like Mia Love (whatever happened to her? Oh yeah, who cares!), he's just a self-loathing black person.
> 
> Sorry, guy, if you are up in the 7 and 8 figure range of wealth, you aren't earning anything, you are taking the fruits of someone else's labor.
> 
> You pay your taxes and don't whinge about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for being a racist.
> 
> Meanwhile, you failed to explain the dichotomy.
> 
> But then, racists are stupid, so you're simply not equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it perfectly.
> 
> People are taxed to pay for the benefits of living in a civilized society.
> 
> The wealthy having more wealth they didn't earn, SHOULD be taxed at a higher rate.
> 
> And Stepandfetchit up there would know this if he wasn't too busy licking boots.
Click to expand...

^^^^ How the left treats blacks who don't do as they're told.  Racist asshole.

Like all progressives, you're greedy for that which you haven't earned.  You try to hide it with lofty-sounding phrases, but it all boils down to "Give me free money!!"

How very _pathetic_.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negged for being a racist.
> 
> Meanwhile, you failed to explain the dichotomy.
> 
> But then, racists are stupid, so you're simply not equipped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it perfectly.
> 
> People are taxed to pay for the benefits of living in a civilized society.
> 
> The wealthy having more wealth they didn't earn, SHOULD be taxed at a higher rate.
> 
> And Stepandfetchit up there would know this if he wasn't too busy licking boots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^ How the left treats blacks who don't do as they're told.  Racist asshole.
> 
> Like all progressives, you're greedy for that which you haven't earned.  You try to hide it with lofty-sounding phrases, but it all boils down to "Give me free money!!"
> 
> How very _pathetic_.
Click to expand...


No, it's more along the lines of "Give me what I've worked hard for and earned."  

Nobody in the world is producing 8 figures of value.  Nobody.  

There are people earning that kind of money, usually off the sweat and innovations of others.  

The problem with you guys is that you mistake parasites for vital organs.  

You think Paris Hilton is a "Maker" because she's rich, and the poor woman changing dirty sheets in her hotels is a taker because she needs MedicAid and Section 8 because Paris isn't paying her enough.  

And people like Thomas Sowell, who would be changing those bedsheets if it werent' for liberals demanding equal rights on the basis of race, do kind of sicken me.  

BUt even when I was Right Wing, I thought black conservatives were generally kind of self-loathing.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it perfectly.
> 
> People are taxed to pay for the benefits of living in a civilized society.
> 
> The wealthy having more wealth they didn't earn, SHOULD be taxed at a higher rate.
> 
> And Stepandfetchit up there would know this if he wasn't too busy licking boots.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ How the left treats blacks who don't do as they're told.  Racist asshole.
> 
> Like all progressives, you're greedy for that which you haven't earned.  You try to hide it with lofty-sounding phrases, but it all boils down to "Give me free money!!"
> 
> How very _pathetic_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's more along the lines of "Give me what I've worked hard for and earned."
> 
> Nobody in the world is producing 8 figures of value.  Nobody.
> 
> There are people earning that kind of money, usually off the sweat and innovations of others.
> 
> The problem with you guys is that you mistake parasites for vital organs.
> 
> You think Paris Hilton is a "Maker" because she's rich, and the poor woman changing dirty sheets in her hotels is a taker because she needs MedicAid and Section 8 because Paris isn't paying her enough.
> 
> And people like Thomas Sowell, who would be changing those bedsheets if it werent' for liberals demanding equal rights on the basis of race, do kind of sicken me.
> 
> BUt even when I was Right Wing, I thought black conservatives were generally kind of self-loathing.
Click to expand...

It's always amusing when people who think for themselves try to dictate what other people are thinking.  

I don't think Hilton is a maker.  I don't think of her at all.  I DAMN sure don't sit around fuming about all the money she's got.  

Oh, and yes, you're a racist.  Undeniably.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it perfectly.
> 
> People are taxed to pay for the benefits of living in a civilized society.
> 
> The wealthy having more wealth they didn't earn, SHOULD be taxed at a higher rate.
> 
> And Stepandfetchit up there would know this if he wasn't too busy licking boots.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ How the left treats blacks who don't do as they're told.  Racist asshole.
> 
> Like all progressives, you're greedy for that which you haven't earned.  You try to hide it with lofty-sounding phrases, but it all boils down to "Give me free money!!"
> 
> How very _pathetic_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's more along the lines of "Give me what I've worked hard for and earned."
> 
> Nobody in the world is producing 8 figures of value.  Nobody.
> 
> There are people earning that kind of money, usually off the sweat and innovations of others.
> 
> The problem with you guys is that you mistake parasites for vital organs.
> 
> You think Paris Hilton is a "Maker" because she's rich, and the poor woman changing dirty sheets in her hotels is a taker because she needs MedicAid and Section 8 because Paris isn't paying her enough.
> 
> And people like Thomas Sowell, who would be changing those bedsheets if it werent' for liberals demanding equal rights on the basis of race, do kind of sicken me.
> 
> BUt even when I was Right Wing, I thought black conservatives were generally kind of self-loathing.
Click to expand...


The dry-cleaner called, boy.  Your white sheet and hood are ready.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Thank you for perfectly illustrating the far left's irrational hatred for business:
> 
> "Big corporations want to kill all their customers, thus maximizing profits!!"
> 
> Hey, genius:  If all the customers are dead, who's going to buy their products?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did say I, "All".
> 
> But that was the point with the Ford Pinto.
> 
> It would have cost $11.00 per unit to fix the gas tank problem that made the Pinto the "Barbaque that Seats Four".
> 
> And someone at Ford ran the numbers, and figured that paying out 100 claims on fatalities was cheaper than recalling 2 million cars.  Until the government FORCED them to do a recall, that is.
> 
> And don't get me started on the Tobacco Industry, which knew for decades their products caused cancer.
> 
> Or the people who manufactured asbestos, who knew as far back as the 1940's that it was a carcinogen, and insisted in putting it in pretty much everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Marxism you advocate killed 100 million people.
> 
> So you don't care about how many people are killed.  You just want them killed the "right" way.
Click to expand...


100,000,000 is an underestimate. CHina is over 80 million, Russian over 40, the Fascist branch of Marxism (Nazi Germany0 took upwards of 10.

And those are the violent deaths. How about those millions that simply died from starvation because of the destitution and poverty that was wreaked about them?


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> [
> 
> 100,000,000 is an underestimate. CHina is over 80 million, Russian over 40, the Fascist branch of Marxism (Nazi Germany0 took upwards of 10.
> 
> And those are the violent deaths. How about those millions that simply died from starvation because of the destitution and poverty that was wreaked about them?



The fact that you can't tell the difference between Fascism and Marxism tells me you probbly shouldn't be talking about politicswith the grownups.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> It's always amusing when people who think for themselves try to dictate what other people are thinking.
> 
> I don't think Hilton is a maker.  I don't think of her at all.  I DAMN sure don't sit around fuming about all the money she's got.
> 
> Oh, and yes, you're a racist.  Undeniably.




Dave, I have never accused you of "thinking".  I'm sure you just believe whatever hate radio tells you, as you seem to repeat whatever was said on Rush's show that afternoon like it was an original idea.  

And most black folks have nothing but contempt for "Uncle Tom" Sowell and his ilk.


----------



## daveman

The2ndAmendment said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did say I, "All".
> 
> But that was the point with the Ford Pinto.
> 
> It would have cost $11.00 per unit to fix the gas tank problem that made the Pinto the "Barbaque that Seats Four".
> 
> And someone at Ford ran the numbers, and figured that paying out 100 claims on fatalities was cheaper than recalling 2 million cars.  Until the government FORCED them to do a recall, that is.
> 
> And don't get me started on the Tobacco Industry, which knew for decades their products caused cancer.
> 
> Or the people who manufactured asbestos, who knew as far back as the 1940's that it was a carcinogen, and insisted in putting it in pretty much everything.
> 
> 
> 
> And the Marxism you advocate killed 100 million people.
> 
> So you don't care about how many people are killed.  You just want them killed the "right" way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100,000,000 is an underestimate. CHina is over 80 million, Russian over 40, the Fascist branch of Marxism (Nazi Germany0 took upwards of 10.
> 
> And those are the violent deaths. How about those millions that simply died from starvation because of the destitution and poverty that was wreaked about them?
Click to expand...

When Iosef Vissarionovich131 sees this, he will wail and gnash his teeth at the terrible slander being heaped upon his beloved Party.  Then he will post links to the Workers World Party website showing the truth about how good Communism has been to the people under its benevolent control.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> It's always amusing when people who think for themselves try to dictate what other people are thinking.
> 
> I don't think Hilton is a maker.  I don't think of her at all.  I DAMN sure don't sit around fuming about all the money she's got.
> 
> Oh, and yes, you're a racist.  Undeniably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, I have never accused you of "thinking".  I'm sure you just believe whatever hate radio tells you, as you seem to repeat whatever was said on Rush's show that afternoon like it was an original idea.
Click to expand...

You know the only talk radio I listen to?

NPR.  


JoeB131 said:


> And most black folks have nothing but contempt for "Uncle Tom" Sowell and his ilk.


I'll bet they're relieved to have a white liberal speak for them.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [
> When Iosef Vissarionovich131 sees this, he will wail and gnash his teeth at the terrible slander being heaped upon his beloved Party.  Then he will post links to the Workers World Party website showing the truth about how good Communism has been to the people under its benevolent control.



Guy, Cold War ended a long time ago...  

You all sound as boring as somene saying McKinely is letting the Spanairds into the cupboard.  

Meanwhile, out here in the real world, we have gun companies selling guns to crazy people who shoot up schools and theatres.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> When Iosef Vissarionovich131 sees this, he will wail and gnash his teeth at the terrible slander being heaped upon his beloved Party.  Then he will post links to the Workers World Party website showing the truth about how good Communism has been to the people under its benevolent control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, Cold War ended a long time ago...
> 
> You all sound as boring as somene saying McKinely is letting the Spanairds into the cupboard.
> 
> Meanwhile, out here in the real world, we have gun companies selling guns to crazy people who shoot up schools and theatres.
Click to expand...

And you want only the government to have all the guns.

How's that worked out in history?


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> When Iosef Vissarionovich131 sees this, he will wail and gnash his teeth at the terrible slander being heaped upon his beloved Party.  Then he will post links to the Workers World Party website showing the truth about how good Communism has been to the people under its benevolent control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, Cold War ended a long time ago...
> 
> You all sound as boring as somene saying McKinely is letting the Spanairds into the cupboard.
> 
> Meanwhile, out here in the real world, we have gun companies selling guns to crazy people who shoot up schools and theatres.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you want only the government to have all the guns.
> 
> How's that worked out in history?
> 
> []
Click to expand...


Actually, pretty much the way you'd expect in civilized countries.  Most industrialized countries have limited privategun ownership, as much freedom as we do, and not a fraction of their crime rates. 

In uncivilized ones, Guns don't make a bit of difference.  You don't think there weren't a shitload of guns lying around China after WWII?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> The fact that you can't tell the difference between Fascism and Marxism tells me you probbly shouldn't be talking about politicswith the grownups.



Fascism only allows you to have private control of an industry (or at least some), if the industry itself is determined to be beneficial to the nation, so it still smacks of Marxist control over the economy.

Would you care to enlighten us to any other of the (non-subtle) differences?

Also, good job defending China and Russia demociding their populations.


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't tell the difference between Fascism and Marxism tells me you probbly shouldn't be talking about politicswith the grownups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism only allows you to have private control of an industry (or at least some), if the industry itself is determined to be beneficial to the nation, so it still smacks of Marxist control over the economy.
> 
> Would you care to enlighten us to any other of the (non-subtle) differences?
Click to expand...


Huge amounts of them, not the least of which is that the wealthy are left in control of the sources of capital.  

The wealthy of Germany and Italy were very happy under Hitler and Mussolini, at least until the allies started blowing up their shit.  

There was certainly not the kind of "wealth redistribution" that has you shitting your pants at night.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't tell the difference between Fascism and Marxism tells me you probbly shouldn't be talking about politicswith the grownups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism only allows you to have private control of an industry (or at least some), if the industry itself is determined to be beneficial to the nation, so it still smacks of Marxist control over the economy.
> 
> Would you care to enlighten us to any other of the (non-subtle) differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huge amounts of them, not the least of which is that the wealthy are left in control of the sources of capital.
> 
> The wealthy of Germany and Italy were very happy under Hitler and Mussolini, at least until the allies started blowing up their shit.
> 
> There was certainly not the kind of "wealth redistribution" that has you shitting your pants at night.
Click to expand...


So your claim is the Communist leaders of Russia and China did not/do not live like Royalty and Super Wealthy Tycoons?


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism only allows you to have private control of an industry (or at least some), if the industry itself is determined to be beneficial to the nation, so it still smacks of Marxist control over the economy.
> 
> Would you care to enlighten us to any other of the (non-subtle) differences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huge amounts of them, not the least of which is that the wealthy are left in control of the sources of capital.
> 
> The wealthy of Germany and Italy were very happy under Hitler and Mussolini, at least until the allies started blowing up their shit.
> 
> There was certainly not the kind of "wealth redistribution" that has you shitting your pants at night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your claim is the Communist leaders of Russia and China did not/do not live like Royalty and Super Wealthy Tycoons?
Click to expand...


In China, they are practicing a form of Crony Capitalism, which is far more like the Fascist model than the Soviet one.  

But if your point is that Communists act more like Capitalists when they get real power, I'm not sure what your point is, exactly?  

Aren't we just arguing over names, then?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> In China, they are practicing a form of Crony Capitalism, which is far more like the Fascist model than the Soviet one.
> 
> But if your point is that Communists act more like Capitalists when they get real power, I'm not sure what your point is, exactly?
> 
> Aren't we just arguing over names, then?



Correct.

The true name is Totalitarianism, we're arguing over the various shades thereto.


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In China, they are practicing a form of Crony Capitalism, which is far more like the Fascist model than the Soviet one.
> 
> But if your point is that Communists act more like Capitalists when they get real power, I'm not sure what your point is, exactly?
> 
> Aren't we just arguing over names, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The true name is Totalitarianism, we're arguing over the various shades thereto.
Click to expand...


The true name is "human nature", and frankly, people have been murdering each other over stuff since Oog bashed in Grog's head to get his mammoth meat.  

And sometimes we kill over political systems, and sometimes we kill over which sky pixie to worship, and sometimes, we just go straight out and admit we are killing people to take their stuff. (you know, like we tried to do in Iraq.) 

I think it's hilarious that you guys whine and whine about Stalin's "murders", and if someone brings up slavery or the genocide of native Americans you'll scream about how progressives are teaching kids to hate America.  

Fucking hilarous.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In China, they are practicing a form of Crony Capitalism, which is far more like the Fascist model than the Soviet one.
> 
> But if your point is that Communists act more like Capitalists when they get real power, I'm not sure what your point is, exactly?
> 
> Aren't we just arguing over names, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The true name is Totalitarianism, we're arguing over the various shades thereto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true name is "human nature", and frankly, people have been murdering each other over stuff since Oog bashed in Grog's head to get his mammoth meat.
> 
> And sometimes we kill over political systems, and sometimes we kill over which sky pixie to worship, and sometimes, we just go straight out and admit we are killing people to take their stuff. (you know, like we tried to do in Iraq.)
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you guys whine and whine about Stalin's "murders", and if someone brings up slavery or the genocide of native Americans you'll scream about how progressives are teaching kids to hate America.
> 
> Fucking hilarous.
Click to expand...


Speaking of genocide in America, do you call the government sponsored murder of 43,000,00 foetuses (more than 65% of which are BLACK) Genocide? Or is it that simply a "Woman's right to Choose?"

Also, what as the alternative to the Constitution? Had compromises on slavery not been made, we wouldn't have it a Constitution at all. Is Freedom of the Press bad because it was ratified during a time of slavery? Is the Fifth Amendment bad because we were exterminating the Native Americans?


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> Speaking of genocide in America, do you call the government sponsored murder of 43,000,00 foetuses (more than 65% of which are BLACK) Genocide? Or is it that simply a "Woman's right to Choose?"
> 
> Also, what as the alternative to the Constitution? Had compromises on slavery not been made, we wouldn't have it a Constitution at all. Is Freedom of the Press bad because it was ratified during a time of slavery? Is the Fifth Amendment bad because we were exterminating the Native Americans?



No there probably is still a good reason for the fifth Amendment.  

There's no good reson for the 2nd, or at least not for the NRA"s bizarre interpretation of it.


----------



## Jarlaxle

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In China, they are practicing a form of Crony Capitalism, which is far more like the Fascist model than the Soviet one.
> 
> But if your point is that Communists act more like Capitalists when they get real power, I'm not sure what your point is, exactly?
> 
> Aren't we just arguing over names, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> The true name is Totalitarianism, we're arguing over the various shades thereto.
Click to expand...


Fascism and communism are not the same.  You know: kind of like a septic tank and a cesspool are not the same...but both are, of course, full of SHIT!


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, Cold War ended a long time ago...
> 
> You all sound as boring as somene saying McKinely is letting the Spanairds into the cupboard.
> 
> Meanwhile, out here in the real world, we have gun companies selling guns to crazy people who shoot up schools and theatres.
> 
> 
> 
> And you want only the government to have all the guns.
> 
> How's that worked out in history?
> 
> []
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, pretty much the way you'd expect in civilized countries.  Most industrialized countries have limited privategun ownership, as much freedom as we do, and not a fraction of their crime rates.
> 
> In uncivilized ones, Guns don't make a bit of difference.  You don't think there weren't a shitload of guns lying around China after WWII?
Click to expand...

Typical dumbass Communist:  "It'll be FINE here!  No, really!"

Did I mention Communists are dumbasses?  I only ask because I know how personally you take criticism of Communists.

I wonder why...?


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of genocide in America, do you call the government sponsored murder of 43,000,00 foetuses (more than 65% of which are BLACK) Genocide? Or is it that simply a "Woman's right to Choose?"
> 
> Also, what as the alternative to the Constitution? Had compromises on slavery not been made, we wouldn't have it a Constitution at all. Is Freedom of the Press bad because it was ratified during a time of slavery? Is the Fifth Amendment bad because we were exterminating the Native Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there probably is still a good reason for the fifth Amendment.
> 
> There's no good reson for the 2nd, or at least not for the NRA"s bizarre interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

It's simply not going away, now matter how much you cry like a little girl about it.

Sheesh.  Did you turn in your balls to Supply when you mustered out of the Army?


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you want only the government to have all the guns.
> 
> How's that worked out in history?
> 
> []
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, pretty much the way you'd expect in civilized countries.  Most industrialized countries have limited privategun ownership, as much freedom as we do, and not a fraction of their crime rates.
> 
> In uncivilized ones, Guns don't make a bit of difference.  You don't think there weren't a shitload of guns lying around China after WWII?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical dumbass Communist:  "It'll be FINE here!  No, really!"
> 
> Did I mention Communists are dumbasses?  I only ask because I know how personally you take criticism of Communists.
> 
> I wonder why...?
Click to expand...


Guy, haven't met a communist since college. 

I mean, Jesus, talk about someone who lives in the fucking past.  

Hey, here's the thing.  You guys defeated "communism" by enabling Islamic Jihadism.. 

I feel so much safer, don't you?


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> [q
> It's simply not going away, now matter how much you cry like a little girl about it.
> 
> Sheesh.  Did you turn in your balls to Supply when you mustered out of the Army?



Guy, you are becoming a part of an increasingly smaller and hated minority.  

If you had a lick of sense, you'd be all for common sense gun laws to keep them out of the hands of Loughner and HOlmes and Lanza.... 

So why aren't you?


----------



## Jarlaxle

You are becoming increasingly delusional and loopy.

Is your supplier spiking the crack with idiot powder again?


----------



## MeBelle

JoeB131 said:


> Nobody in the world is producing 8 figures of value.  Nobody.



Sure guy, just because you can't * earn* eight figures, doesn't mean no one else can.

Who the hell are you to decide how much a person can *earn*?

You should be railing at all the rich elected officials...ALL of them.


...skipping over your racist rants...


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> You are becoming increasingly delusional and loopy.
> 
> Is your supplier spiking the crack with idiot powder again?



Less than 30% of American households have guns in them. You are in the minority.


----------



## JoeB131

MeBelle60 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody in the world is producing 8 figures of value.  Nobody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure guy, just because you can't * earn* eight figures, doesn't mean no one else can.
> 
> Who the hell are you to decide how much a person can *earn*?
> 
> You should be railing at all the rich elected officials...ALL of them.
> 
> 
> ...skipping over your racist rants...
Click to expand...


Obviously, you don't understand the concept here. 

Sure they CAN slice the pie so they get the majority of it.  

They just shouldn't.  Because it's a really terrible idea.  

Just ask the Romanovs or Bourbons....


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are becoming increasingly delusional and loopy.
> 
> Is your supplier spiking the crack with idiot powder again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 30% of American households have guns in them. You are in the minority.
Click to expand...


And less than 5% of Americans fought in the American Revolution, yet...


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are becoming increasingly delusional and loopy.
> 
> Is your supplier spiking the crack with idiot powder again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 30% of American households have guns in them. You are in the minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And less than 5% of Americans fought in the American Revolution, yet...
Click to expand...


Meaningless.  

If you guys really think you are going to bully the rest of us with your guns, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 30% of American households have guns in them. You are in the minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And less than 5% of Americans fought in the American Revolution, yet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> If you guys really think you are going to bully the rest of us with your guns, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.
Click to expand...


What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?


----------



## JoeB131

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> And less than 5% of Americans fought in the American Revolution, yet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> If you guys really think you are going to bully the rest of us with your guns, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?
Click to expand...


No, weare going to call the Army...  They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".


----------



## DiamondDave

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> If you guys really think you are going to bully the rest of us with your guns, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, weare going to call the Army...  They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".
Click to expand...


Methinks you point the ir contempt in the wrong direction, there commie


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> No, weare going to call the Army...



Why would the army support you in your war against the Constitution, comrade?



> They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".



How does that help you in your recreation of the Soviet Union on U.S. soil? Most military persons support the Constitution against people like you.


----------



## JoeB131

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, weare going to call the Army...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the army support you in your war against the Constitution, comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that help you in your recreation of the Soviet Union on U.S. soil? Most military persons support the Constitution against people like you.
Click to expand...


When I was in the Army, if they said, "We've got a bunch of assholes with guns who are rebelling against the government",  yeah, most of the guys would have taken them out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> When I was in the Army, if they said, "We've got a bunch of assholes with guns who are rebelling against the government",  yeah, most of the guys would have taken them out.



When you were in the Soviet army, things were different, Comrade. Americans have different views, particularly American servicemen. (And women.)


----------



## JoeB131

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in the Army, if they said, "We've got a bunch of assholes with guns who are rebelling against the government",  yeah, most of the guys would have taken them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you were in the Soviet army, things were different, Comrade. Americans have different views, particularly American servicemen. (And women.)
Click to expand...


Oh, really? 

Ever hear of Waco? 

Kent State?  

The problem isn't getting troops to fire on their own citzens, it's getting them not  to.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, really?
> 
> Ever hear of Waco?
> 
> Kent State?
> 
> The problem isn't getting troops to fire on their own citzens, it's getting them not  to.



Neither Waco nor Kent State involved regular troops. Further, the agitators at Kent State were hurling bricks and Molotov cocktails, shooting them was simple self-defense. 

And of course Waco was assaulted by the FBI. While Army COE provided logistic support, it was the FBI who set the children in the nursery on fire, not the army.


----------



## JoeB131

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?
> 
> Ever hear of Waco?
> 
> Kent State?
> 
> The problem isn't getting troops to fire on their own citzens, it's getting them not  to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Waco nor Kent State involved regular troops. Further, the agitators at Kent State were hurling bricks and Molotov cocktails, shooting them was simple self-defense.
> 
> And of course Waco was assaulted by the FBI. While Army COE provided logistic support, it was the FBI who set the children in the nursery on fire, not the army.
Click to expand...


2 of the 4 people killed at Kent State weren't even involved in the Demostration.  

And the Davidians killed themselves after the FBI and teh Army let them know they weren't getting away with and their Messiah was going to be someone's prison bitch.


----------



## The T

The2ndAmendment said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> And less than 5% of Americans fought in the American Revolution, yet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> If you guys really think you are going to bully the rest of us with your guns, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?
Click to expand...

 
Just shit like the Occupy (Bowel) Movement of last Summer.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, pretty much the way you'd expect in civilized countries.  Most industrialized countries have limited privategun ownership, as much freedom as we do, and not a fraction of their crime rates.
> 
> In uncivilized ones, Guns don't make a bit of difference.  You don't think there weren't a shitload of guns lying around China after WWII?
> 
> 
> 
> Typical dumbass Communist:  "It'll be FINE here!  No, really!"
> 
> Did I mention Communists are dumbasses?  I only ask because I know how personally you take criticism of Communists.
> 
> I wonder why...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, haven't met a communist since college.
> 
> I mean, Jesus, talk about someone who lives in the fucking past.
Click to expand...

No, that would be you progressives, who want the United States to "progress" to the condition of the USSR circa 1964.


JoeB131 said:


> Hey, here's the thing.  You guys defeated "communism" by enabling Islamic Jihadism..


No, we defeated communism by forcing their economy to collapse.  You can thank Ronald Reagan for that...sorry, that's one thing you hate him for, isn't it?


JoeB131 said:


> I feel so much safer, don't you?


You support both of them.


----------



## The T

JoeB131 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really?
> 
> Ever hear of Waco?
> 
> Kent State?
> 
> The problem isn't getting troops to fire on their own citzens, it's getting them not to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Waco nor Kent State involved regular troops. Further, the agitators at Kent State were hurling bricks and Molotov cocktails, shooting them was simple self-defense.
> 
> And of course Waco was assaulted by the FBI. While Army COE provided logistic support, it was the FBI who set the children in the nursery on fire, not the army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 of the 4 people killed at Kent State weren't even involved in the Demostration.
> 
> And the Davidians killed themselves after the FBI and teh Army let them know they weren't getting away with and their Messiah was going to be someone's prison bitch.
Click to expand...

 Dividians KILLED THEMSELVES? Really Gracie? Have any proof?


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> It's simply not going away, now matter how much you cry like a little girl about it.
> 
> Sheesh.  Did you turn in your balls to Supply when you mustered out of the Army?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are becoming a part of an increasingly smaller and hated minority.
Click to expand...

...says the Communist.  


JoeB131 said:


> If you had a lick of sense, you'd be all for common sense gun laws to keep them out of the hands of Loughner and HOlmes and Lanza....
> 
> So why aren't you?


Only Loughner obtained his gun legally.  The other two broke the law.

I'm all for common sense gun laws.  But you want raging retard gun laws.

I will not give up my rights to assuage your irrational hyper-emotionalism.  

Suck it up, Buttercup.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are becoming increasingly delusional and loopy.
> 
> Is your supplier spiking the crack with idiot powder again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 30% of American households have guns in them. You are in the minority.
Click to expand...


The Communist Party USA has about 2,000 members.

YOU'RE in the minority, Red Boi.


----------



## daveman

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> If you guys really think you are going to bully the rest of us with your guns, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, weare going to call the Army...  They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".
Click to expand...

Fight your own fight, sissy.


----------



## dcraelin

I believe Republican Eisenhower had a top marginal rate of 91%..the economy worked well...it was fairly good days in America then. And Eisenhower was NOT a communist.


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical dumbass Communist:  "It'll be FINE here!  No, really!"
> 
> Did I mention Communists are dumbasses?  I only ask because I know how personally you take criticism of Communists.
> 
> I wonder why...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, haven't met a communist since college.
> 
> I mean, Jesus, talk about someone who lives in the fucking past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that would be you progressives, who want the United States to "progress" to the condition of the USSR circa 1964.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's the thing.  You guys defeated "communism" by enabling Islamic Jihadism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we defeated communism by forcing their economy to collapse.  You can thank Ronald Reagan for that...sorry, that's one thing you hate him for, isn't it?
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel so much safer, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You support both of them.
Click to expand...


Um, no, actually enabling Jihadism really did bring them down.  You know, how proud you guys were that he was arming guys in Afghanistan because them damn dirty commies were teaching girls how to read.  

(Pssst.  Pssst.  The fall of the USSR had nothing to do with Communism.  Just like the fall of American Imperialism has nothing to do with Capitalism.  Empires fall when people get sick of maintaining them.)  

In related news, no one wants to bomb Syria....


----------



## JoeB131

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, weare going to call the Army...  They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fight your own fight, sissy.
Click to expand...


Why would I want to do that.  

You work on the assumption that you wannabes are well loved.  

You're not.  

Everyone cheered when the Branch Davidians Compound burned to the ground.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Although it was supposed to be "temporary" this 100% tax rate is going to be "extended" once again.


----------



## The T

JoeB131 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> If you guys really think you are going to bully the rest of us with your guns, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, weare going to call the Army... They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".
Click to expand...

 You dumbass...the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, NOT the Government on whole. You really think they would turn guns on the citizens? If you do, then you seriously need a check up from the neck up.

The Constitution was crafted to protect liberty of the people, NOT those that lord over us.


----------



## RKMBrown

Matthew said:


> We should reward our innovators and successful...
> 
> A society that rewards our lazy or violent is going to get more of that.



Who is this, and does matthew know you have his password?


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> Everyone cheered when the Branch Davidians Compound burned to the ground.



I don't know a single person who cheered when that happened.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

RKMBrown said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should reward our innovators and successful...
> 
> A society that rewards our lazy or violent is going to get more of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this, and does matthew know you have his password?
Click to expand...



I've been suspicious of his account having been hacked now for quite some time.


----------



## JoeB131

The T said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're going to fling tissue paper at us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, weare going to call the Army... They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumbass...the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, NOT the Government on whole. You really think they would turn guns on the citizens? If you do, then you seriously need a check up from the neck up.
> 
> The Constitution was crafted to protect liberty of the people, NOT those that lord over us.
Click to expand...


Guy, here's the thing.  If my CO had said, "Hey, we need to take out some nutbags who want to overthrow the government,", we'd have all said, "Lock and Load!" 

You nutters are not well liked and basically, you are scaring the children.  


Did you learn nothing from the 1990's, the last time you all started talking smack and got slapped down?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JoeB131 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, weare going to call the Army... They've got guns and tanks and frankly, have nothing but contempt for you "wannabes".
> 
> 
> 
> You dumbass...the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, NOT the Government on whole. You really think they would turn guns on the citizens? If you do, then you seriously need a check up from the neck up.
> 
> The Constitution was crafted to protect liberty of the people, NOT those that lord over us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, here's the thing.  If my CO had said, "Hey, we need to take out some nutbags who want to overthrow the government,", we'd have all said, "Lock and Load!"
> 
> You nutters are not well liked and basically, you are scaring the children.
> 
> 
> Did you learn nothing from the 1990's, the last time you all started talking smack and got slapped down?
Click to expand...


Your problem right now is this, most in the military can think they'll never defend  a government that gives an unlawful/ unconstitutional order.


----------



## JoeB131

bigrebnc1775 said:


> [
> 
> Your problem right now is this, most in the military can think they'll never defend  a government that gives an unlawful/ unconstitutional order.



No, you see, the problem is, when you have fringe nutbags who say, "We didn't get our way in an election, let's take up arms against the government before they make us get health insurance or something", most in the armed forces, and hell, I'd go so far as to say most even in the Republican Party, would consider that nuts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Your problem right now is this, most in the military can think they'll never defend  a government that gives an unlawful/ unconstitutional order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see, the problem is, when you have fringe nutbags who say, "We didn't get our way in an election, let's take up arms against the government before they make us get health insurance or something", most in the armed forces, and hell, I'd go so far as to say most even in the Republican Party, would consider that nuts.
Click to expand...




> No, you see, the problem is, when you have fringe nutbags who say, "We didn't get our way in an election, let's take up arms against the government before they make us get health insurance or something"



We don't need your opinion what you think someone may have said. What we need is proof that your opinion is right.
Got link?
other than that I stand on what I said most in the military can think and will not defend a government that gives an unlawful/ unconstitutional order.


----------



## Politico

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone cheered when the Branch Davidians Compound burned to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single person who cheered when that happened.
Click to expand...


Well that's not totally true.



The2ndAmendment said:


> I've been suspicious of his account having been hacked now for quite some time.



I assure you his account is fine. His brain is another story.


----------



## RKMBrown

Politico said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone cheered when the Branch Davidians Compound burned to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single person who cheered when that happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's not totally true.
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been suspicious of his account having been hacked now for quite some time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you his account is fine. His brain is another story.
Click to expand...


I'll bite, who do I know that cheered when that happened?


----------



## Politico

Just because you don't know of one doesn't mean there weren't many.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, here's the thing.  If my CO had said, "Hey, we need to take out some nutbags who want to overthrow the government,", we'd have all said, "Lock and Load!"



That's one of the differences between North Korea and us, Comrade Stalin.

American soldiers would refuse such an order. No surprise that you dream of the chance to murder civilians, though.



> You nutters are not well liked and basically, you are scaring the children.



Yeah, not like you jackbooted thugs.... 



> Did you learn nothing from the 1990's, the last time you all started talking smack and got slapped down?



What the fuck are you babbling about?


----------

