The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The GOP - At This Point, It's Like Mocking A Clown
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Seriously folks, mocking a clown.
Clowns. And the mocking thereof.
At every point I think the GOP hits rock bottom, they break out the pickaxes. And at this point, I don't even think there's any cognitive activity going on - it's all reflex now. It's like watching a star collapse in on itself - the weight and inertia has completely overridden any attempt to break free, and the slow collapse is now inevitable. There's no moorings left on the GOP pier, and the party is on a ship of fools without a rudder.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
BECK: But your point, if I’m not mistaken is, no, no, no, you’re taking care of the children in South Carolina by not taking it. Can you explain that? […]
SANFORD: Since we don’t have any of this money that’s now being dispensed from Washington, DC; since we’re going out and printing money and we’re issuing debt to solve a problem that was created by too much debt; since that’s taking place, and since those costs will be borne by the next generation, in fact it is sort of fiscal child abuse to do what we’re doing.
BECK: Yes.
Clowns. And the mocking thereof.
I heard some top of the hour news and it made me feel uncomfortable. It's about the flooding in Fargo, North Dakota brought on by the melting snowpack and the icepack. [Reading from news item] 'As the Red River threatens to overflow, they're filling in the dikes.' Isn't there a more appropriate word? Do we have to say, I mean, we don't have any dikes here. The 'dykes' are over there...They're filling in the dikes. Couldn't we change that to 'they're filling in the contingencies' or something?...We really need to change that word.
At every point I think the GOP hits rock bottom, they break out the pickaxes. And at this point, I don't even think there's any cognitive activity going on - it's all reflex now. It's like watching a star collapse in on itself - the weight and inertia has completely overridden any attempt to break free, and the slow collapse is now inevitable. There's no moorings left on the GOP pier, and the party is on a ship of fools without a rudder.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
How is it that of all the possible diretions he could have taken the flooding (failure on obama's part, slandering enviromentalists, claiming this is canada's fault), he quibbles about how a slang term for lesbian is a simile to an age old word for a levee?
Because he's 8.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_033109/content/01125110.guest.html
I'm gonna bet a sizable chunk of Rush's audience is actually made up of liberals eager to hear the next batshit insane rant from the king of conservatism.
You could hardly call that a joke, just a real pathetic attempt at one. He should probably stick to his day job rather than consider full time comedy.
I'm looking forward to seeing the GOP's numbers for their budget, which we were supposed to get tomorrow, were we not?
On April 1st?
WAAAAAAAAAAIT-a-minute..
I think everyone under a certain point is still tax free (Though that amount probably goes down), then it's 10%, up to 100k, then it jumps to 25% for everything after 100k.
I'm a poor sucka, but I would love for the US to be able to implement that tax bracket. It'd be pretty sweet.
Maybe it's just the libertarian in me talking.
Maybe I'm just an optimist.
Sometime in 2040.
One path he really missed out on is that the worst of the flooding was in a Minnesota town right across the border from Fargo.
The name of this town...Moorhead.
Yeah, you know, like....hopefully before I die.
But hypothetically speaking, if the Clintonian surplus had been adhered to, we would have paid down the deficit, at which point I'm sure we would have refinanced certain programs, but the leftovers would have been demanded to be returned as tax cuts.
I dream of a flat tax, or at least broader brackets. I don't think it's fair that people who spend their lives building a commercial empire only to have about half their income taken away. Of course, I don't care about them because I'm not one of them, but I can certainly empathize, and I hope, down the line, we can move to a more conservative fiscal policy. I say conservative with the american definition in mind, because in other parts of the world even the conservatives in our country are fiscally liberal.
Do you even understand the concept of a progressive income tax?
Yes.
Obviously you don't because a person making $20,000 a year with 20% of it going to taxes is being inconvenienced far more than someone who pays 20% taxes on $2,000,000.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
This is the bicameral legislation argument all over again. Lower income people will argue your point, while higher income people will argue that under progressive tax codes they are required to bear a larger burden, yet receive no larger benefit for their burden.
How do you measure fair in a way that is genuinely fair for everyone?
The rich receive a much larger benefit for their contribution.
Without government, the more wealth you have the more likely the poor are to string you up and take your shit. Government is the means by which the rich are able to keep their property.
No, they don't. The rich and the poor have the same rights guaranteed them. We are all equally free citizens with the same rights and the same benefits of government.
I don't understand your point. "Without government" asserts an impossible hypothetical. Without government, nobody benefits from government. Anarchy ensues, the rich abuse the poor, the poor abuse the rich, and everyone does whatever they believe best suits their needs, however they choose to view their needs.
Yet which of these two do you think will miss having the government protect their shit more?
Which of these two will miss having the government to feed them more?
The poor have no "shit" to desire protection for.
Which is why they should get the tax breaks.
I'd rather have a happy working class than a happier wealthy class, seeing as how the country lives and dies with the working classes ability to both produce and consume.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Have you seen our justice system? There is a dramatic difference in how our society treats the wealthy and powerful and how they treat the poor.
Everyone gets taxed the same on the same amount of income? The guy making 2,000,000 pays the same amount of tax on the first 20,000 as the guy making 20,000 total does.
The fact remains that you can't sustain the kind of government spending people wants with a flat tax. Either you don't tax enough, and can't afford the programs, or you tax at the current "high income" level and poor people can't even afford food, let alone anything else.
You might be able to get away with a two-bracket system, but why bother?
Maybe you're not getting the point here.
The poor will miss their food, and then do you know what they'll do? They'll decide to go take it from the rich folk, along with whatever else they have. The point is that government prevents mobs of people from declaring whatever they want as theirs by force; Guess who has more to lose (Hint: not the poor) and who has a greater desire to form unruly mobs to take it from them and has vastly greater numbers to do it with? (Hint: not the rich.)
No there isn't. There's a dramatic difference between the quality of public defenders versus private defense attorneys. There appears to be a difference in how the justice system treats upper and lower class people because:
1) poor people can't afford Johnny Cochran
2) racial disparity lines up with economy disparity
3) "good" lawyers work for private firms, in order to make a lot more money.
And I feel the same way. That doesn't mean I think that a larger tax burden on the rich is "fair," though, simply the lesser of two evils.
I'm not gonna knock the "working class" since I'm part of it but the reality is the country easily owes as much, if not far more to the wealthy since they actually hire the working class to produce and therefore consume. Without the wealthy jobs simply don't exist.
Also, are you equating the poor with the working class? Because I think they may often be not one and the same.
Do we really need this debate again? If I'm an employer my tax dollars get customers to my door on roads, give me educated employees, keep roving bands of thugs from taking my shit, enforce copyrights which make any software I'm selling have value, enforce contracts with my distributors so they can't fuck me, and give my currency a value making it possible to trade with people from other countries.
If I'm ... well, me, my tax dollars get me a hell of alot less. If government ceased to exist my social standing would likely improve, because I'm pretty good with a gun and I'm a big guy.
Anyway, there's a bunch of other threads about this, most notably the objectivist one... we can resume this there, but onto the GOP.
What the fuck? The thing that strikes me is nearly constantly, like 24 fucking 7 in world of warcraft in trade chat it's non stop GOP dick sucking. It's generally just 2 or 3 people going on about NOBAMA or socialism and revolution... holy christ is it infuriating. I don't think it's a majority of people, but I think it's a really goddamn loud minority.
I think this is an extension of the talking heads, they seem to be stirring up the hives with divisive rhetoric we haven't seen since Palin. I think it is bleeding them supporters, but their loyalists are starting to get scary.
I'm not seeing how anything I said relates to this canned response. I was pointing out that rich people help drive the economy by actually employing people. I'm all for tax cuts for everybody and I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be any taxes but this notion that the wealthy just sit at the top of the food chain doing nothing productive is generally false, and those that aren't productive generally don't remain wealthy, at least over the course of several generations.
Unless they have investments or a trust fund, in which case they really do make money for doing nothing, with perhaps a little on the side by suing whoever leaked the sex tape.
That's hard work! You think the guy who works on your car works hard? Think of the Jiffylube CEO who has to actually reach for a pen every now and then!
EDIT: And I'm not implying EVERYONE who's rich is a lazy shit who could care less what happens beneath him. There are a lot of CEOs, owners, etc. who all worked their asses off to get to where they are.
These people probably understand that they make way more, they should probably PAY way more in taxes.
Trying to stay on topic, I can't believe what we're seeing just a few months into the presidency. I imagine a lot of frothing at the mouth in a year's time.
Yeah because a mechanic deserves just as much money as the guy who runs a billion dollar corporation with a massive payroll and thousands of customers. This is because the mechanic "works hard".
The Flat tax and the Progressive Income tax both achieve this. Heck even VAT's achieve this. I'm not arguing for either side. Personally I don't have a problem with progressive taxation and actually prefer it to a flat tax, so long as it isn't disguised as some welfare program where those who don't actually pay anything in to the system somehow get tax cuts.
You know what an "investment" is right?