Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

[elvis]

Ah I knew I could count on NYcuminhisrear to piss on some veterans again. I knew it.

Unlike some chickenshit chicken hawk like you, I actually served. I can say anything I want, as long as it's true.

Just cause you served doesn't mean you didn't just piss on vets and it doesn't me a chickenhawk either. Besides world war II, I think every war we've fought in since 1898 has been a mistake. So you miss again, asshole.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm surprised at the spike during the clinton years.

Right?

Actually it went down below 45% because Clinton raised taxes on the rich.

I guess some people can't read a graph.

Ya know what? I think you are full of shit. I think you don't believe a word of what you post.
I think you come on here to aggravate people and inflame..
I think you will go on ignore. Quite frankly, I am bored with your nonsense.
You do not produce a single fact to back anything up you post. You dig up these graphics from who knows where. You explain nothing.
You're a 6th grader.
Yes, off to the landfill you go.

 

[thereisnospoon]

USMB whack-a-loons reaction:

Then you won't mind having your taxes raised to pay for the trillions that went to the wealthy.

Right?

Actually, I wouldn't mind my taxes getting raised as part of a real deficit reduction plan.

Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would be a great start.

Then write a check and leave the decision to the rest of us individually.
Ya know you are a fool.....You do not realize that it makes no difference the amount of money collected by government they will ALWAYS spend more than government takes.
The best deficit reduction is spending control.

 

[Clementine]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

Of course, they would think it's fair. They don't understand how wealth is created and I swear some believe that the government has all the money and they dole it out unfairly. The list of demands put out by OWS looked like a joke. They want their debts erased, minimum wage over $20 an hour, free college, free medical and free everything. They had signs everywhere saying capitalism must go and be replaced by socialism. They are serious, but of course, the leaders of the group are known communists, socialists and marxists. It didn't surprise me in the least that Obama pledged support considering what their goal is. It's about redistribution, period.

Suppose the government did confiscate all the country's wealth, including seizing the bank accounts and assets of every single person and redistributed it evenly. In one year, we'd be back to having different economic classes because people handle money and plan for their futures differently. Some would have lost their homes because they didn't pay bills and spent money on drugs. Some would sacrifice and end up with more money in the bank. Most would probably stay about the same, neither falling back or getting ahead.

We have equal opportunity, but people will never be equal. That is why the government would continue to take from those who manage to accumulate wealth rather than just get by and give it to those who, many through their own faults, can't even get by. I'm not talking about the disabled and elderly. What we would see is the same thing we've seen in other socialist or communist countries. People stop trying to get ahead because the government won't let them anyway. People get tired of putting forth the effort just so someone else will benefit. Look at the countries who now have dictators. The people are expected to obey government and they basic necessities. Everything from medical care to food is doled out and there is never enough. Even those who work the hardest don't get ahead. There are no rewards for ingenuity or hard work, yet there are rewards, though scant, for doing nothing. How long does it take for people to figure out that they may as well do nothing since the quality of their lives will stay the same no matter what. It truly is the equal sharing of misery and the only ones who live comfortably are the dictators who control the entire population. When liberties are taken, there is no more speaking out or fighting against an unfair, dictorial government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Right. The argument the class envy people on the left always rely on.
Here's the rub...Government does NOT have a revenue problem. Clearly it is a SPENDING problem.
Those on the left, the "tax more" crowd, never want to answer the question "why should inefficiency be rewarded".
How is it that those on the political left have designs on the privately "share of the nation's wealth" while saying nothing in opposition to the federal government's "share of the nation's wealth"....

What the fuck are you talking about? You want to cut taxes for the rich, you'll have less revenue. Somebody's taxes have to go up to recoup that revenue...

...we could of course make some massive cuts in defense to pay for that loss of revenue.

WRONG...Historically, each time tax rates were lowered, starting with the Kennedy tax cut, revenues have increased. Al tax reductions must be accompanied by requisite reductions in spending.
Look, to you libs the point is moot. To those on the left, the real meaning behind taxation is to punish and to get even. The rhetoric from the left proves that. There are so many of you who when mentioning the wealthy do so with the spittle of anger coming from your yappers.
Most of those OWS people, all of which are of the liberal persuasion, HATE wealthy people.

 

[EriktheRed]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Want to bet?

Obama will cave...he always does

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will mean a big tax increase for the middle class right before the election. Republicans won't budge on tax increases on the rich and Obama will give in

The election would be over by then..

Edit:Caught your reply to this, nevermind.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You have the entire interweb at your disposal fingerboy...

Show us your wealth statistics that dispute anything I posted. Or else pull up IRS statistics on income distribution in this country

Wealth is NOT distributed. You can post all the silly class warfare graphs and charts you wish.
Absolute waste of time.

Look it up

Look up what?
Look, fart gas for brains, you insist there is wealth distribution.....Therefore YOU must show where it exists and how it exists. You must also show tangible proof of how wealth is distributed.

 

[Cowman]

Wealth is NOT distributed. You can post all the silly class warfare graphs and charts you wish.
Absolute waste of time.

Look it up

Look up what?
Look, fart gas for brains, you insist there is wealth distribution.....Therefore YOU must show where it exists and how it exists. You must also show tangible proof of how wealth is distributed.

Fart gas for brains?

Every fucking conservative on these boards are terrible at insults. Grade school playground shit.

 

[Article 15]

Then you won't mind having your taxes raised to pay for the trillions that went to the wealthy.

Right?

Actually, I wouldn't mind my taxes getting raised as part of a real deficit reduction plan.

Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would be a great start.

Then write a check and leave the decision to the rest of us individually.
Ya know you are a fool.....You do not realize that it makes no difference the amount of money collected by government they will ALWAYS spend more than government takes.
The best deficit reduction is spending control.

Right, because we've always made individual decisions on the taxes we pay.

As usual, you fail.

Oh, and Clinton handed Bush a surplus so you're full of shit as well.

 

[mskafka]

Right. The argument the class envy people on the left always rely on.
Here's the rub...Government does NOT have a revenue problem. Clearly it is a SPENDING problem.
Those on the left, the "tax more" crowd, never want to answer the question "why should inefficiency be rewarded".
How is it that those on the political left have designs on the privately "share of the nation's wealth" while saying nothing in opposition to the federal government's "share of the nation's wealth"....

What the fuck are you talking about? You want to cut taxes for the rich, you'll have less revenue. Somebody's taxes have to go up to recoup that revenue...

...we could of course make some massive cuts in defense to pay for that loss of revenue.

WRONG...Historically, each time tax rates were lowered, starting with the Kennedy tax cut, revenues have increased. Al tax reductions must be accompanied by requisite reductions in spending.
Look, to you libs the point is moot. To those on the left, the real meaning behind taxation is to punish and to get even. The rhetoric from the left proves that. There are so many of you who when mentioning the wealthy do so with the spittle of anger coming from your yappers.
Most of those OWS people, all of which are of the liberal persuasion, HATE wealthy people.

"Spittle" from the yappers on the left, and SHITTLE from the bungholes on the right. They both smell really bad, and are useless. Yes, we're talking about you too, buddy.

Who in the hell produced all these "overnight geniuses"? Oh....GOOGLE! That's right. Instead of showing up for high school, they showed up to "school high". And now....30 years later they DEMAND to be taken seriously. YAWWWWNNNNNNNN!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Look it up

Look up what?
Look, fart gas for brains, you insist there is wealth distribution.....Therefore YOU must show where it exists and how it exists. You must also show tangible proof of how wealth is distributed.

Fart gas for brains?

Every fucking conservative on these boards are terrible at insults. Grade school playground shit.

Got you all pissed off....Mission accomplished.
Now, how about that wealth distribution thing. Care to take a crack at it there, Mr. Bovine?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, I wouldn't mind my taxes getting raised as part of a real deficit reduction plan.

Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would be a great start.

Then write a check and leave the decision to the rest of us individually.
Ya know you are a fool.....You do not realize that it makes no difference the amount of money collected by government they will ALWAYS spend more than government takes.
The best deficit reduction is spending control.

Right, because we've always made individual decisions on the taxes we pay.

As usual, you fail.

Oh, and Clinton handed Bush a surplus so you're full of shit as well.

Yeah yeah yeah...Just because you believe it, does not make it so.
You stated you would not mind YOUR taxes going up. I simply suggested you write a check.
Then you were schooled regarding a solution to government deficits...That is government must not spend more than the revenue it collects.
For some reason you libs are infuriated by that reality.
Why is that?
Oh, blaming Bush is OFF LIMITS...This is Obama's watch. Deal with it.

 

[Cowman]

Look up what?
Look, fart gas for brains, you insist there is wealth distribution.....Therefore YOU must show where it exists and how it exists. You must also show tangible proof of how wealth is distributed.

Fart gas for brains?

Every fucking conservative on these boards are terrible at insults. Grade school playground shit.

Got you all pissed off....Mission accomplished.
Now, how about that wealth distribution thing. Care to take a crack at it there, Mr. Bovine?

Pissed off? Is this like one of those "you're afraid of sarah palin" defenses? I'm just commenting on a really pathetic insult.

I don't get pissed off easily. Don't mistake my profanity for being pissed off. If I had a child I'd tell him to eat his fucking cereal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What the fuck are you talking about? You want to cut taxes for the rich, you'll have less revenue. Somebody's taxes have to go up to recoup that revenue...

...we could of course make some massive cuts in defense to pay for that loss of revenue.

WRONG...Historically, each time tax rates were lowered, starting with the Kennedy tax cut, revenues have increased. Al tax reductions must be accompanied by requisite reductions in spending.
Look, to you libs the point is moot. To those on the left, the real meaning behind taxation is to punish and to get even. The rhetoric from the left proves that. There are so many of you who when mentioning the wealthy do so with the spittle of anger coming from your yappers.
Most of those OWS people, all of which are of the liberal persuasion, HATE wealthy people.

"Spittle" from the yappers on the left, and SHITTLE from the bungholes on the right. They both smell really bad, and are useless. Yes, we're talking about you too, buddy.

Who in the hell produced all these "overnight geniuses"? Oh....GOOGLE! That's right. Instead of showing up for high school, they showed up to "school high". And now....30 years later they DEMAND to be taken seriously. YAWWWWNNNNNNNN!

I am amazed at your ability to grasp the facts and participate in debate on an intelligent level.
I am not your 'buddy'..
As a matter of fact I want you to dislike me.

 

[Article 15]

Then write a check and leave the decision to the rest of us individually.
Ya know you are a fool.....You do not realize that it makes no difference the amount of money collected by government they will ALWAYS spend more than government takes.
The best deficit reduction is spending control.

Right, because we've always made individual decisions on the taxes we pay.

As usual, you fail.

Oh, and Clinton handed Bush a surplus so you're full of shit as well.

Yeah yeah yeah...Just because you believe it, does not make it so.

Physician, heal thyself.

You stated you would not mind YOUR taxes going up.

Actually, I stated:

"I wouldn't mind my taxes getting raised as part of a real deficit reduction plan.

Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would be a great start."

I simply suggested you write a check.

And I flatly rejected that stupidity.

Then you were schooled regarding a solution to government deficits...That is government must not spend more than the revenue it collects.
For some reason you libs are infuriated by that reality

Yeah yeah yeah...Just because you believe it, does not make it so.

Oh, blaming Bush is OFF LIMITS...This is Obama's watch. Deal with it.

Missed the point. When Clinton left office we had a surplus, or in other words we were taking in more than we were spending which blows up this retarded absolute statement you made:

"the amount of money collected by government they will ALWAYS spend more than government takes"

But have a Merry Christmas anyway, Neo

 

[Dragon]

WRONG...Historically, each time tax rates were lowered, starting with the Kennedy tax cut, revenues have increased.

And each time taxes have been raised, revenues have increased. And each time taxes have been neither cut nor raised, revenues have increased. Except when there's a recession, like after the Reagan tax cut of 1981. Then revenues go down -- whether tax rates go up, go down, or stay the same.

Why does this happen? Because the population grows. It has nothing to do with any effect of the tax cut. Or increase. Or neither.

On the other hand, each time tax rates were lowered, the federal deficit has gone up. Now that, unlike the factoid you presented, actually means something.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When I think about the wealthy in America, I think about the hard work, the risk and the sacrifice it takes to succeed. I think about all the people able to feed their children and send them to school because they have jobs created by the successful risk-takers. I don't hold a grudge against the big time rich -- except for limousine liberal millionaires in Hollywood.

This is typical of the ignorance and stupidity of the right:

No one ‘holds a grudge’ against the rich. Americans simply want the wealthy to pay their fair share, nothing more, nothing less. When it comes to addressing the budget deficit, for example, Americans don’t want to see taxes increased on the Middle Class – or benefits reduced for the elderly, disabled, and children – to balance the budget with the wealthy not contributing.

As for taxes in New York, that’s antidotal, non-representative, and irrelevant. An utter non-issue.

 

[mskafka]

WRONG...Historically, each time tax rates were lowered, starting with the Kennedy tax cut, revenues have increased. Al tax reductions must be accompanied by requisite reductions in spending.
Look, to you libs the point is moot. To those on the left, the real meaning behind taxation is to punish and to get even. The rhetoric from the left proves that. There are so many of you who when mentioning the wealthy do so with the spittle of anger coming from your yappers.
Most of those OWS people, all of which are of the liberal persuasion, HATE wealthy people.

"Spittle" from the yappers on the left, and SHITTLE from the bungholes on the right. They both smell really bad, and are useless. Yes, we're talking about you too, buddy.

Who in the hell produced all these "overnight geniuses"? Oh....GOOGLE! That's right. Instead of showing up for high school, they showed up to "school high". And now....30 years later they DEMAND to be taken seriously. YAWWWWNNNNNNNN!

I am amazed at your ability to grasp the facts and participate in debate on an intelligent level.
I am not your 'buddy'..
As a matter of fact I want you to dislike me.

You're "amazed at my ability to grasp the facts and participate in debate on an intelligent level." Why thank ya, friend. If I didn't KNOW that you dislike me, I would think that you were complimenting me. You should have put (sarcasm) at the end of the sentence. Or perhaps you should've written: "I'm amazed at your INABILITY to grasp the facts and participate in debate on an intelligent level."

Sorry, buddy. It's difficult to dislike someone whom I don't personally know. Even if you stoop to the level of calling me something orginal...such as "moron, idiot, dumbass, etc..." or any of the other ORIGINAL terms that you angry white men call those who disagree with them, I still won't dislike you. Call me something vulgar, or joke about my disease, and you will see how I still don't get offended.

The only thing that really sucks, is having to work the holidays for the last 16 years for ingrates.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Right, because we've always made individual decisions on the taxes we pay.

As usual, you fail.

Oh, and Clinton handed Bush a surplus so you're full of shit as well.

Yeah yeah yeah...Just because you believe it, does not make it so.

Physician, heal thyself.


Actually, I stated:

"I wouldn't mind my taxes getting raised as part of a real deficit reduction plan.

Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would be a great start."


And I flatly rejected that stupidity.


Yeah yeah yeah...Just because you believe it, does not make it so.

Oh, blaming Bush is OFF LIMITS...This is Obama's watch. Deal with it.

Missed the point. When Clinton left office we had a surplus, or in other words we were taking in more than we were spending which blows up this retarded absolute statement you made:

"the amount of money collected by government they will ALWAYS spend more than government takes"

But have a Merry Christmas anyway, Neo

Umm. There never has been a time when the federal government had an actual surplus in REAL dollars.
Budgets are baseline. Budgets are written in such a way so as to allow exclusion of certain expenditures. They are also based on potential revenue and predicted revenue.
So for example, if a budget is based on more expected revenue it's considered a surplus. Even though the money is not really in the hands of the Treasury.
Conversely, should there be a remarkable economic correction and GDP grows 5% instead of the predicted 1.5% for 2012, the federal deficit would decrease based on the additional revenue from economic activity

 

[thereisnospoon]

WRONG...Historically, each time tax rates were lowered, starting with the Kennedy tax cut, revenues have increased.

And each time taxes have been raised, revenues have increased. And each time taxes have been neither cut nor raised, revenues have increased. Except when there's a recession, like after the Reagan tax cut of 1981. Then revenues go down -- whether tax rates go up, go down, or stay the same.

Why does this happen? Because the population grows. It has nothing to do with any effect of the tax cut. Or increase. Or neither.

On the other hand, each time tax rates were lowered, the federal deficit has gone up. Now that, unlike the factoid you presented, actually means something.

Except when there's a recession.
Umm Tax increases remove money from the economy.
There should be one question politicians must answer before increasing taxes......"How is this tax increase going to be paid for"...
BTW, why is it you people on the Left insist on feeding a glutenous federal government which has shown no signs even considering fiscal responsibility?
Tax cuts alone are inflationary. As are rebates such as the $600 checks couples received a few years ago. That was a political band aid which solved nothing.
We banked the check and used it to pay our federal taxes. We ended up giving the $600 right back to the government.
Real smart. There should have been a requisite spending reduction with the rebate.
All tax cuts should be coupled with spending cuts.