McSame picked a women VP

[NickDagger]

The Supreme WAT!?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/latest-palin-gaffe-cant-n_n_130395.html

[Gatoraids]

The Supreme WAT!?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/latest-palin-gaffe-cant-n_n_130395.html

What a sad person she is.

[NickDagger]

Expand Quote

Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.

[close]

Expand Quote

I fully agree that the government is controlled primarily by special interests -- some of this control is held by corporations, along with

[close]

voting blocks, the good "old boys network" within government, etc. Some policies are just a result of politicians pandering to the masses. But whose fault is that? The special interests for buying the votes, or the politicians for selling them? I blame the government.

Reality. You has no grasp. Both are obviously to blame. Politicians are basically forced to accept as much money from whoever will give it to them-as campaigns are just a public relations money race, and whoever can raise the most money to fund the most bullshit ads-usually wins.

There are solutions to this if you give a shit. For one example, something along the lines of Campaign finance reform-certainly doesn't have to be exactly that, as I think people usually should be able to contribute at a personal level, but Corporate influence into government in these giant contributions SHOULD be stopped.

I don't have any special love for corporations, but I do see them as having a legitimate niche within a capitalist society. It's true that Adam Smith was against joint-stock companies, but he did see some government intervention within the economy as being necessary (as I do to a very limited extent.) I believe that one of those functions is to shield the average citizen from liability when they invest a small amount of money into a business. Corporations are important because of the vast amounts of capital needed to support some of America's largest and most vital institutions. Today's reality is that we cannot shut this infrastructure down and rebuild it. It's too late in the game for that. If every investor is faced with unlimited liability for investing in a corporation, capital to support these institutions would be impossible to generate.

You make a bizarre jump here. First you admit that corporations aren't so great, then you state that you do see that the government can and does have at least some role in the market(the courts creating/granting personhood status to corporations was no small move in terms of government intervention in the markets). Then you immediately jump to stating that no drastic changes will be able to made to the structure of corporations-when one was never called for in the first place. Sure I think their creation and existence in their current form is a horrible disgrace, but all I'm, and most reasonable people are calling for is regulation and monitoring along with the most basic liability-really who could argue otherwise in light of the past few weeks events?

Only a fool.

I'm not naive. Corporate greed is real. That's life. If you eliminate corporations, some of society's most vital infrastructure is gone, and still, nothing is solved. Other special interests will take the corporation's place -- organized religions, non-profit organizations, foreign countries, etc. There is a never-ending supply of people who want to control America. Hell, if you theoretically did away with the profit-motive altogether, there would just be inter-government greed and power hungry folks ready to take the money-seeker's place. This is why the only government that can be consistently successful is a small government limited by the Constitution. If there is nothing there, then it can't be sold, can it?

Same problem with your argument here. The fact that companies called Shell/Wal-Mart/Exxon/Haliburton/etc exist and offer goods that we need aren't the problem. The fact that they have been able to get so intertwined into our government to the point where they actually often write the legislation that is passed in congress is the problem. Combine that with the startling media consolidation that has occurred over the past 25 years(monopolies = not good for a free market remember?).

And really, anyone who thinks we shouldn't tax the fuck out of the rich at this point is regular:



How's that trickle down working out for the rest of you guys?


Really Newton you need to just watch The Corporation like I already suggested.

If you allow things to exist as they are now here's what will happen:

-More and more jobs will be lost in America to be sent over to countries where corporations can get away with charging 10 cents a day to children-those jobs will be replaced by awesome corporate jobs, like working the fry-o-later in mcdonalds.

-More and more wealth will continue to be transferred up, as people like you continue to press for ironic tax breaks for them, as most have great tax lawyers who avoid paying them anyway. And you know, like they're the only ones who can afford to. Plus when you give it to them they still fuck you over! Awesome brah!

-More wars will be fought, thus increasing taxes further(Iraq is predicted to cost us 3 trillion at least)-why will these wars be fought? For corporate interests, as has been documented heavily. This will also make us less safe, and the more likely terrorist attacks that we suffer as a result will be to blame for our foreign policy controlled by these corporate interests.

-More banks that have been unregulated thanks to people like yours calling for will inevitably collapse as a result of the self destructive, but temporarily profitable for those running the show policies. We will then offer, one would assume more lucrative than the 700 billion dollar bailout(what a penalty!) to be paid for by you or I in taxes. As long as rich people don't have to pay more in taxes. Right?

The future....not so bright:

[H8R part 4]

$700,000,000,000 / $500,000 = 1,400,000 people. 

[Sleazy]

$700,000,000,000/$200,000 = $3,500,000

assuming the average cost of homes involved in subprime is 200,000, then why not just pay for the damn mortages with the money for those that can't afford it and resell the homes?

i don't get it

[Dr Newton]

30 ≠ 23% of 100

This is a mathematical fallacy, and if you've even sat in a math classroom beyond high school you should know that. This is an internal versus and external calculation. I am not going to debate it anymore, because, quite frankly, there is no debate. Math is black and white. A 23% internal tax rate is equivalent to a 30% external tax rate. Taking a good that costs $100 under the FairTax, $23 of that goes towards paying the tax. The other $77 is associated with the cost of the good. It cannot be any more simple.

[Dr Newton]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.

[close]

Expand Quote

I fully agree that the government is controlled primarily by special interests -- some of this control is held by corporations, along with

[close]

voting blocks, the good "old boys network" within government, etc. Some policies are just a result of politicians pandering to the masses. But whose fault is that? The special interests for buying the votes, or the politicians for selling them? I blame the government.

[close]

Reality. You has no grasp. Both are obviously to blame. Politicians are basically forced to accept as much money from whoever will give it to them-as campaigns are just a public relations money race, and whoever can raise the most money to fund the most bullshit ads-usually wins.

There are solutions to this if you give a shit. For one example, something along the lines of Campaign finance reform-certainly doesn't have to be exactly that, as I think people usually should be able to contribute at a personal level, but Corporate influence into government in these giant contributions SHOULD be stopped.

Expand Quote

I don't have any special love for corporations, but I do see them as having a legitimate niche within a capitalist society. It's true that Adam Smith was against joint-stock companies, but he did see some government intervention within the economy as being necessary (as I do to a very limited extent.) I believe that one of those functions is to shield the average citizen from liability when they invest a small amount of money into a business. Corporations are important because of the vast amounts of capital needed to support some of America's largest and most vital institutions. Today's reality is that we cannot shut this infrastructure down and rebuild it. It's too late in the game for that. If every investor is faced with unlimited liability for investing in a corporation, capital to support these institutions would be impossible to generate.

[close]

You make a bizarre jump here. First you admit that corporations aren't so great, then you state that you do see that the government can and does have at least some role in the market(the courts creating/granting personhood status to corporations was no small move in terms of government intervention in the markets). Then you immediately jump to stating that no drastic changes will be able to made to the structure of corporations-when one was never called for in the first place. Sure I think their creation and existence in their current form is a horrible disgrace, but all I'm, and most reasonable people are calling for is regulation and monitoring along with the most basic liability-really who could argue otherwise in light of the past few weeks events?

Only a fool.

Expand Quote

I'm not naive. Corporate greed is real. That's life. If you eliminate corporations, some of society's most vital infrastructure is gone, and still, nothing is solved. Other special interests will take the corporation's place -- organized religions, non-profit organizations, foreign countries, etc. There is a never-ending supply of people who want to control America. Hell, if you theoretically did away with the profit-motive altogether, there would just be inter-government greed and power hungry folks ready to take the money-seeker's place. This is why the only government that can be consistently successful is a small government limited by the Constitution. If there is nothing there, then it can't be sold, can it?

[close]

Same problem with your argument here. The fact that companies called Shell/Wal-Mart/Exxon/Haliburton/etc exist and offer goods that we need aren't the problem. The fact that they have been able to get so intertwined into our government to the point where they actually often write the legislation that is passed in congress is the problem. Combine that with the startling media consolidation that has occurred over the past 25 years(monopolies = not good for a free market remember?).

And really, anyone who thinks we shouldn't tax the fuck out of the rich at this point is regular:



How's that trickle down working out for the rest of you guys?


Really Newton you need to just watch The Corporation like I already suggested.

If you allow things to exist as they are now here's what will happen:

-More and more jobs will be lost in America to be sent over to countries where corporations can get away with charging 10 cents a day to children-those jobs will be replaced by awesome corporate jobs, like working the fry-o-later in mcdonalds.

-More and more wealth will continue to be transferred up, as people like you continue to press for ironic tax breaks for them, as most have great tax lawyers who avoid paying them anyway. And you know, like they're the only ones who can afford to. Plus when you give it to them they still fuck you over! Awesome brah!

-More wars will be fought, thus increasing taxes further(Iraq is predicted to cost us 3 trillion at least)-why will these wars be fought? For corporate interests, as has been documented heavily. This will also make us less safe, and the more likely terrorist attacks that we suffer as a result will be to blame for our foreign policy controlled by these corporate interests.

-More banks that have been unregulated thanks to people like yours calling for will inevitably collapse as a result of the self destructive, but temporarily profitable for those running the show policies. We will then offer, one would assume more lucrative than the 700 billion dollar bailout(what a penalty!) to be paid for by you or I in taxes. As long as rich people don't have to pay more in taxes. Right?

The future....not so bright:

I'm trying to work my way through this post, but all I see is insane ranting.

I'm going to give you a quiz:

1. What percent of the tax burden do the top 1% of income earners pay each year?
2. What percent of the tax burden do the top 20% of income earners pay each year?
3. What percent of the tax burden does the bottom 20% pay each year?

[NickDagger]

LoLz.

Remember when you posted the definition of ad hominem?

Should I post the definition of ironic?

Anyway, everything I said is factual, so respond to my post or get lost faggot.

If you have the courage to make the effort I might even explain to you how people who make the the top 1% are often smart enough to hire whole teams of lawyers to shuffle their money around in off shore bank accounts, among countless other awesome techniques. They can afford to do this because...you know, they got a third of the countries wealth. And tax rates are only one area of discussion of which I covered.

[Dr Newton]

LoLz.

Remember when you posted the definition of ad hominem?

Should I post the definition of ironic?

Anyway, everything I said is factual, so respond to my post or get lost faggot.

If you have the courage to make the effort I might even explain to you how people who make the the top 1% are often smart enough to hire whole teams of lawyers to shuffle their money around in off shore bank accounts, among countless other awesome techniques. They can afford to do this because...you know, they got a third of the countries wealth. And tax rates are only one area of discussion of which I covered.

There's no personal attack here. Either you can look the answers up and post them, or I'll just post them for you and use them to further cement my argument. I'm not insulting your ignorance. I am sure you have access to Google.

Every year there is a top 1% of taxpayers who cannot afford to get out of this bracket, and every year this group takes on approximately 30% of all income taxes while earning only 14% of the wealth. You're right. These are not the richest people in America. Bill Gates reports NO income some years. These are people in the upper middle class, who, for whatever reason -- be it a bonus, a good year running a small to mid-size business, or possibly even a lucky lottery winning, ended up making the most income that year. CEOs make up a very small percentage of this group. Thanks to the fucked up idea that we should tax income instead of consumption, the real rich, who live off their wealth after aquiring so much of it and make no income most of the time, often pay nothing in income taxes.

The top 10% of earners are responsible for 70% of the income tax burden, while making only 40% of all income. Again, these are small to mid-size business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. This is the upper middle class. This is also the group employing 80% of this country.

The bottom 50% of income earners pay virtually nothing in income taxes. The average federal tax rate for most Americans is seriously 03%. A lot of them are literally paying nothing every year.

[Nihilist]

cant believe we might get stuck with peggy hill as our vice president
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

[able]

wow! I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if she had a nervous breakdown at the debate on Thursday. That lady has written a check that her brain just can't cash.

[NickDagger]

Expand Quote

LoLz.

Remember when you posted the definition of ad hominem?

Should I post the definition of ironic?

Anyway, everything I said is factual, so respond to my post or get lost faggot.

If you have the courage to make the effort I might even explain to you how people who make the the top 1% are often smart enough to hire whole teams of lawyers to shuffle their money around in off shore bank accounts, among countless other awesome techniques. They can afford to do this because...you know, they got a third of the countries wealth. And tax rates are only one area of discussion of which I covered.

[close]

There's no personal attack here. Either you can look the answers up and post them, or I'll just post them for you and use them to further cement my argument. I'm not insulting your ignorance. I am sure you have access to Google.

Every year there is a top 1% of taxpayers who cannot afford to get out of this bracket, and every year this group takes on approximately 30% of all income taxes while earning only 14% of the wealth. You're right. These are not the richest people in America. Bill Gates reports NO income some years. These are people in the upper middle class, who, for whatever reason -- be it a bonus, a good year running a small to mid-size business, or possibly even a lucky lottery winning, ended up making the most income that year. CEOs make up a very small percentage of this group. Thanks to the fucked up idea that we should tax income instead of consumption, the real rich, who live off their wealth after aquiring so much of it and make no income most of the time, often pay nothing in income taxes.

The top 10% of earners are responsible for 70% of the income tax burden, while making only 40% of all income. Again, these are small to mid-size business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. This is the upper middle class. This is also the group employing 80% of this country.

The bottom 50% of income earners pay virtually nothing in income taxes. The average federal tax rate for most Americans is seriously 03%. A lot of them are literally paying nothing every year.

Respond to the many claims in my post and then I'll destroy your little tax rate argument.

Also, die.