Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Who Will Win the Upcoming "Class War" in America?

By N0574 in Meta
Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:11:40 PM EST
Tags: MLP, taxes, class warfare, plutocracy (all tags)

When I heard news of Obama's "tax the rich" plan my first thought was "is it even legal to tax the rich in the USA today?" During the Bush Administration the wealthiest 5% of Americans got a $580 billion tax cut, live far more luxurious lives than the normal citizens, and have gotten a free ride for so long it's almost inconceivable...tax them? Hard even for Democrats to imagine it appears, since the last thing Obama said was look ""This is not class warfare. It's math." This is playing into the American right's anti-government rhetoric, and I believe the President made a serious blunder by putting it that way.

Instead, Obama should try to make it very clear what exactly his plans really are and why we need the rich to pay for these programs. Even if he does, chances are the current band of extremely anti-state conservatives in congress will do everything in its power to block the increases. OTOH, if he succeeds Obama might well get re-elected: killing a $1.3 trillion deficit largely inherited from the Bush administration's reckless spending is an epic "war" indeed.


OBSERVATION: Steve Kornacki makes a good historical point about taxes in his Salon article:
Bill Clinton, who rode to the presidency in 1992 by positioning himself as a champion of the middle class and deriding the 1980s as a decade when "the rich got richer" while everyone else fell behind. Clinton promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans, and voters responded -- even as Republicans screamed, "Class warfare!" And as president, Clinton followed through, creating a new marginal rate that affected the top 1.8 percent of income-earners -- and that passed Congress without a single Republican vote, but with dire Republican warnings that it would cost millions of jobs and plunge the country into another recession. Instead, it proved to be one of the main reasons that by the end of Clinton's term the country was running a surplus and was on course to pay off the entire national debt.

Taxes really are an effective way to generate funds and promote national prosperity. Even though his chances of succeeding are slim, hopefully Obama will prevail in his struggle to revive the economy and drag it out of a recession caused by extravagant Republican spending and certain corrupt traditions in American capitalism.

In the upcoming "class war," I for one hope the 95% of us who are losing in this economy (not to mention the 8% of us who are unemployed) prevail against the top 5% who have and always will succeed in any case.


 

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you support tax increases on the top 5% of wealthiest Americans?
o Yes, I do. 75%
o No, I do not. 20%
o I'm not an USian, so don't give a damn. 16%

Votes: 24
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o far more luxurious lives than the normal citizens
o a free ride
o said was
o "This is not class warfare. It's math.
o anti-gover nment rhetoric
o what exactly
o plans really are
o from the Bush administration's
o his Salon article
o corrupt traditions in American capitalism
o class war
o Also by N0574


Display: Sort:
Who Will Win the Upcoming "Class War" in America? | 93 comments (90 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
I think one of the big reasons Obama's tax (none / 1) (#1)
by king of fools on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:33:24 AM EST

increases won't fly in a Republican Congress is because these tax increases won't just be the closing of loopholes on millionaires and billionaires. Obama has proposed tax increases on people making 200,000 or 250,000 a year and up. This simply won't pass a Republican controlled House.

I am generally opposed to tax increases for the simple reason that I believe private individuals will spend or invest their money more efficiently than the government will. The last stimulus created 'green jobs' that cost $280,000 per job with much of it wasted or not even spent. Simply allowing private individuals to spend their money is more efficient. The money gets put back in the economy without the layer of government involvement and waste.

Granted, Republicans call the wealthy 'job creators' and don't want to tax them with the idea they will create jobs. The rich now have had low tax rates (relatively) for the last 8 years and the jobs just aren't being created. But the reason I think many businesses are not hiring is due to regulatory uncertainty and the health care bill under Obama. Employers can't predict how much a new employee will cost them under the current regime and so they are reticent to take on new employees. How much will the health care bill cost them per employee when it goes into effect? No one can really account for the costs of that massive bill.

Another example of regulatory interference: Boeing recently tried to build a plant in South Carolina that would have employed thousands but the National Labor Relations Board is interfering with their plans because it was to be a non-union operation. This happened because of Obama's ties to unions and so the folks in SC are out of these jobs as a result.

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

fade out again

I'm gonna reply to this comment (none / 0) (#5)
by N0574 on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 12:53:32 PM EST

I just have to go take a shit and get some sleep first. (Long day tomorrow).

- NCCTG N0574 CANCER PROTOCOL
[ Parent ]
actual reply (none / 1) (#29)
by N0574 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 04:33:04 AM EST

Since the Supreme Covrt ruled last year that campaign finance reform laws are illegal I think it's time to rethink the idea of unregulated capitalism in America. If the wealthy are legally able to exploit the country at that level, corporations should foot the bill for a government they use largely to their advantage.

- NCCTG N0574 CANCER PROTOCOL
[ Parent ]
here's a crazier idea (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:37:29 PM EST

limit congress' ability to influence the economy so large corporations no longer have an incentive to game the elections. you think they'd drop billions bribing congresscritters if the federal budgets was < $500 billion?

crazy, i know!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

I like the idea of working 80 hours a week (none / 1) (#40)
by greengrass on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:53:12 PM EST

with no benefits or workplace safety. That's a brilliant idea.

[ Parent ]
because the states are absolutely incapable (none / 0) (#42)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:21:48 PM EST

of enforcing employment law.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Outsourcing would just kill the Free states. (none / 0) (#71)
by Pentashagon on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 02:21:24 PM EST

The only way to ensure fair employment practices is to ensure them universally.  Otherwise it's always more economical to jump across the border and employ less-free people.

Given that the States can't even tax interstate commerce, they would be powerless to maintain an internal standard of living based on employment laws.

[ Parent ]

kinda like how companies are jumping the border (none / 0) (#78)
by LilDebbie on Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 06:05:04 PM EST

to china?

also i like how your definition of freedom implies strict controls on how people employ capital. you're free as long as you don't produce more than consume, eh?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

your statements contradict themselves (none / 0) (#79)
by Delirium on Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 06:36:57 PM EST

People who employ capital are precisely those who don't produce anything, only consuming as leeches.

[ Parent ]
where exactly do you think capital comes from? $ (none / 0) (#80)
by LilDebbie on Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 07:05:59 PM EST



My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
inheritance? (none / 1) (#81)
by Delirium on Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 08:07:25 PM EST

also, gambling (see: Soros, to pick one of the non-meritorious who happens to be a lefty)

[ Parent ]
Pretty much. (none / 0) (#83)
by Pentashagon on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:43:43 AM EST

All the labor unions and employment laws in the U.S. won't produce a successful, gainfully employed middle class unless the cheap outsourced labor is offset with taxes on importing cheap goods.  Individual states would be even worse off because legally they can't even write those tax laws.

My definition of absolute natural freedom is the ability to do absolutely anything to anyone or anything, whenever I want.  Everyone has that natural freedom up to the point that the natural laws of the universe stop us (including the limits of our brains being wired for some amount of empathy and social order).  What we decide to build with that freedom is collectively decided by everyone who cares to interact with other humans.

The concept of inalienable natural rights is completely fabricated from existing social structures and has no other source in the natural universe.  That doesn't mean "natural" rights and the freedom they entail are a useless concept; they are a very effective way to get people to work together with as few bloody conflicts as possible.  Probably one of the most successful in history.  I do consider the list of socially constructed human rights to be malleable over time.

Ultimately, producing more than you consume doesn't work in a global economy.  Somewhere, there has to be a negative trade balance to absorb your positive trade balance.  That net transfer of wealth out of a region is unsustainable.

[ Parent ]

ugh (none / 0) (#84)
by LilDebbie on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 07:15:08 AM EST

well thanks for being honest about your economic misunderstanding.

does the word "saving" mean anything at all to you?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

So the economy needs more investment? (none / 0) (#87)
by Blarney on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:54:54 AM EST

It seems to me that the demand for investment right now is pretty damn saturated. With savings accounts paying 0.5% and money market about 3.5%, it's not like these guys need investment funds badly enough to pay a return on them. Not that they need to, thanks to TARP giving them all the free money they need. But shit, why not just tax some of that money that there's no investment demand for?

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what 80 hour work weeks have to do (none / 0) (#43)
by Morally Inflexible on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:31:20 PM EST

with the government.  I dono about you, but for most of my career, I've been on salary.   No overtime at all.  Hell, the people who work for me as employees are also salary.  Of course, usually that means less than 40 hours, but yeah, the government is largely ineffective at reducing the number of hours.  

You know what is?  burnout.   People simply don't work well after more than 30 or so hours of actual work.   (40 hours of but-in-seat time is very optimally 30 hours or less of actual work.)

I think most of the workplace safety stuff is also handled by the courts at this point;  the only place where the mandated workmans comp thing really matters is when you are dealing with small employers like me who aren't worth suing;  you need to force us to carry insurance, otherwise the first time we get sued 'cause you lost a hand it's bankruptcy and you get nothing.   Large employers carry more insurance than is required just 'cause you could sue them for a shit ton of money if you wanted.  

Granted, the court system is the government, and in general, I disagree with Debbie that we should be cutting government services now  -  now is not the time.

Hell, I support vixie-style municipal fiber;

but yeah, I'm not sure that labor regulations are really "big government" except on the very low end.  On the high end, they are mostly lawyers smelling money.    

[ Parent ]

Burnout doesn't really affect blue collar labor. (none / 0) (#72)
by Pentashagon on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 02:28:00 PM EST

You can keep pushing a mop or putting parts together on an assembly line or picking crops for 16 hours, and sure your efficiency may drop to 75 or 50 percent at the end but it's still perfectly economical to use an employee that way if you can drive labor costs down by employing fewer people.  The labor demand (and thus wages) is lower, benefits are cheaper, management overhead is lower, etc.

The economics are never in favor of workers' rights or well-being.

[ Parent ]

in what universe (none / 1) (#75)
by Morally Inflexible on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 05:08:26 PM EST

are the "benefits" given to hourly, blue-collar workers worth 50% of their compensation?  I mean, sure, if we are talking about overpaid knowledge workers or government or some union employees, sure, those people get some really nice, expensive benefits; The non-union guy pushing a mop in the private sector, though? His benefits are usually pretty damn close to 0% of his compensation.

Hiring costs are also lower.  Hiring a knowledge worker is a long and expensive process; standard fees for a recruiter are something like 1/3rd of the guy's first year of salary. firing one usually costs you a few bucks, too.    But this simply isn't the case for low-end work.  You put a 'help wanted' sign out front, spend 20 minutes going through the applications and maybe pay a few dollars for a background check and you have someone new.  You make a mistake, you fire the guy and pick someone else from the pile of applications.

That's the thing;  yes, hiring/firing an overpaid knowledge worker is an expensive thing.  But someone pushing a mop?  not so much.  

So yeah, if anything, it makes less sense to push your unskilled hourly workers to work more hours, even if you are just paying the hourly wage without overtime, just 'cause it's so easy to pick up another hourly unskilled worker to pick up the slack (and to fire them when you are done)  

[ Parent ]

Apparently blue collar workers are closer to 12% (none / 0) (#82)
by Pentashagon on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 01:22:52 AM EST

At least taking walmart in 2006 as an example.

Overall, employers spent 29% on benefits in June.  I know that manual day labor rarely comes with any benefits, but I think there's still a strong incentive for employers to overwork individual employees instead of hiring enough employees for sane working hours.

[ Parent ]

I think they are including what I'd call (none / 0) (#85)
by Morally Inflexible on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:05:10 PM EST

payroll taxes and insurance-  they  call them "legally required benefits (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation)"

Which yeah, should count.  but FICA is the bulk of that, and that's a straight percentage;  e.g. as an employer I pay the exact same FICA is I hire one guy at $10/hr for 40 hours a week as if I hire two guys at $10/hr for 20 hours a week each.

FICA is around 7.5%, (well, the employers share) so if you take that out of your 12% figure, you don't have a lot left, even if the rest really is per-employee rather than per-hour overhead.

(unemployment and workers compensation also depend on how much you pay the person, but in my industry the numbers are so small I couldn't tell you if it depends on the number of hours worked or on the hourly wage.)

Yeah, there is per-employee overhead,  but especially on the low end, that per-employee overhead is pretty small;  otherwise you wouldn't see so many part-time low-wage jobs;  if you notice, most knowledge work is full-time;  this is because the per-employee overhead is high for high-skilled workers

[ Parent ]

lies and more lies (3.00 / 3) (#6)
by Blarney on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 01:03:28 PM EST

They outsource to China because it's cheaper and they can get away with it. Sure, it'd be nice if we'd repeal even more regulations and taxes but, as you point out, it hasn't created any jobs so far. Obviously there's some sort of disconnect here between theory and reality. Why is it so hard to believe that they want these things because it helps the rich stay rich and get richer, and not because of any public spirited desire to create jobs?

As far as the health care law - phooey. Several states already have one and they're not doing any worse than states that don't. Furthermore, it's just the same scam - employers are starting to tell employees that they have to cut their pay and benefits NOW because of a tax that MAY kick in in a few years and MAY cost some money in the future. I'm not going to defend the ACA here, it has a lot of issues, but really in the end it's just bullshit -

The rich are making these excuses because

  1. They totally can.
  2. They can totally convince the dumb grits that this is the fault of a black president.


[ Parent ]
by several you mean two (none / 1) (#8)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 02:24:01 PM EST

and there is no disconnect. the rich create jobs in order to stay rich and get richer, you stupid fucktard. they don't do it out of public service. for them, public service means providing a service the public wants badly enough to pay for, not handing out other people's money to poor people.

when you create legislation which uses other people's money to create jobs, you end up with value negative jobs that destroy themselves. how fucking hard is this to comprehend? how many solyndras must we plow through before you retards realize that government cannot create wealth? for that matter, how many soviet unions must we endure before this lesson finally sinks in?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Funny (1.50 / 2) (#9)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:06:14 PM EST

Most legislation, and in fact most government expenses, are actually about keeping wealth in the hands of already rich people.

[ Parent ]
agreed (none / 1) (#11)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:35:26 PM EST

fucking rich ass boomers with their SS checks and medicare

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Idiot. (none / 1) (#13)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:12:03 PM EST



[ Parent ]
what takes up the majority of the budget? (none / 1) (#14)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:14:26 PM EST

hint: it's not farm subsidies (although those should go as well).

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
The military? (1.50 / 2) (#19)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 05:06:58 PM EST

I bet misc. takes a fair bit, too. But don't forget that the entire legal system including the police pretty much is based on the notion of property rights, i.e. protecting the rich from the poor. Hell, even social security is about protecting the rich, as paying off the poor is cheaper than fighting them.

[ Parent ]
how about instead of guessing (none / 0) (#20)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 06:13:06 PM EST

you actually look up the numbers, you tit? oh look, defense accounted for 18.74% of 2010 spending, compared to a combined 57.27% for Social Security (plus administration), unemployment, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, aka income redistribution.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Oh right (none / 0) (#28)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 04:24:41 AM EST

Military is only second, and if you lump together some other stuff without looking, they become even larger. We learned about that in school. It's called addition.

[ Parent ]
Not to mention (none / 0) (#31)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:32:16 AM EST

Bush's wars that weren't even on the books until Obama took office.

Not to mention the costs of having all these wounded vets who need care, etc. for the rest of their lives.

The wars themselves being "paid" for by borrowing from the Red Chinese.

The costs of the additional world instability from even starting those wars and running them incompetently.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

Of course, SS completely funds itself. (2.25 / 4) (#73)
by Pentashagon on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 02:50:13 PM EST

Wealth redistribution in SS is rather low, perhaps at worst you'll get 50% of your money back if you're in the higher income brackets (and when you start paying less than 1% of your income to SS tax because you make over $500K, does it really count as a tax?  You probably pay your fucking accountant more than that), and at best you can get about 200% to 300% out.

So you're really talking about 37% in actual wealth redistribution programs.  Of that, Medicare makes up 12% and is also partially self-funded.  When you retire you will get a portion of your investment back.  The only programs that completely redistribute wealth are just ~25% of overall budget and getting much closer to the wealth redistribution to soldiers killing towelheads and Haliburton.

Wealth redistribution is just a naughty word for insurance, anyway.  Mandatory insurance, to be sure, but not much different than requiring insurance to drive on public roads.  Yes, welfare insurance has risk-agnostic premiums and so it's not rigorously "fair" to its purchasers, but one could make the argument that calculating (before birth) the risk of unemployment or health problems over an entire lifetime make the current scheme at least passably intelligent.

[ Parent ]

so if SS and medicare are self funded (none / 1) (#89)
by LilDebbie on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 08:06:12 PM EST

there should be no problem with me opting out and keeping that portion of my income that presently goes to FICA taxes, right?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
join a teacher's union. (none / 0) (#91)
by Morally Inflexible on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 05:24:40 AM EST

There may be similar public sector unions with similar rules, but at least in California, union teachers are exempt from paying the social security portion of FICA, and they don't get social security.  (they get a state/union pension.)

[ Parent ]
Even so, I find it kinda amusing (none / 0) (#92)
by Morally Inflexible on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 05:27:02 AM EST

that you are complaining about FICA.  FICA is a poor man's tax.  You only pay it on your first hundred grand a year or so;  hell, where I live, the median per-captia is $88K. Median.  

Is debbie advocating a tax cut for the poor?  that would be amusing.  

[ Parent ]

which is exactly why they'd lie (none / 1) (#10)
by Blarney on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:21:22 PM EST

Of course they just demand more and more tax breaks and anarchic profiteering - if they can get it - why is this even an argument? Of course they'll say that it'll create jobs, because that's something that might get them what they want - and of course it won't necessarily actually produce jobs. Why do you even dispute this? Yes they lie. Which is natural. Believing that lie, thinking that we just gotta hand out more tax breaks and privileges to the creators of Jorbs (TM) is stupidity.

Solyndria is just more pandering to the Holy Market (PBUI). The green shit is shit precisely because it's all about creating Jorbs. If the government spent half a Bil to hire people to make solar panels and put them up places, well, that's just fucking old school and you may not like it but it gets pyramids built, big ass bombs invented, and rockets landing on the Moon. Time honored. Alternatively if the government gave half a B to researchers to develop green tech, you may not like it, but that's the sort of thing that's gotten humanity tons of art and science in the past. Nothing wrong with jobs programs, or with patronage of science and the arts - you know, civilized societies do that sort of shit and overall it's pretty helpful to the species.

But this was about pleasing Market Jesus. The objective wasn't to make solar panels, or to invent any sort of improvements for them - neither infrastructure nor research - the objective was to produce profitable Jorb-creating enterprises. The government as fucking hedge fund. And of course that shit doesn't work.

[ Parent ]

what lie? (none / 0) (#12)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:46:08 PM EST

if you tax the economy, there will be less wealth with which to create jobs. if i have a pie and the government takes half of it, i only have half a pie with which to feed the family. if the government uses its half of the pie to feed my family for me after taking a slice to feed the bureaucrats, my family ends up with 5/6ths of the original pie. how fucking complicated is this?

and you really want to hold up pyramids as your ideal? the nile river valley used to be the breadbasket of the roman empire. now it's a net importer of food. do you suppose state-sponsored capital depreciation had anything to do with that or was it the evil, non-existent bankers? iraq used to be called the fertile crescent. and go tell the residents of hiroshima and nagasaki how fucking great government spending is. these places all benefited from the largesse of empire and soon we will too.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

This is the concept of classical equilibrium? (none / 0) (#15)
by Blarney on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:17:11 PM EST

One day the Pharaoh of a wealthy, food-producing country orders the construction of a pyramid funded by evil tax-and-spend policies (and also slavery, which is somewhat less evil) and 5000 years later the country cannot feed itself. Obviously there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship here! You can fool the Holy Market (PBUI) for a year or two, but give it enough goddamn millenia and it'll catch up to you! This is what economic calls a 'long-run equilibrium'!

[ Parent ]
no, it's desertification (none / 0) (#17)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:41:24 PM EST

it occurs from over-farming, the most ancient form of capital depreciation. now this is going to take a little bit of science and i'm sorry, but there's no other way to explain it, so you'll have to struggle through.

plants, when growing from seed, require nutrients, typically in the form of nitrates. once a plant matures, it can manufacture these nutrients from nitrogen pulled from the air. when the plant dies, it rots and deposits the excess nutrients into the soil. this is an oversimplification of a process called the nitrogen cycle, which is how mother nature accumulates wealth.

when you over-farm by clearing your fields in order to replant quickly, you disrupt the cycle and fail to restore nitrates to the soil in the form of decomposing plant matter. every planting draws more nitrates from the soil until it turns back into sand. this is called desertification and it destroys the productive capability of the land. the nile river delta was over-farmed in order to build stupid shit like the pyramids and feed rome's legions so it could fight endless wars.

today, we short circuit the nitrogen cycle by synthesizing nitrates in the form of fertilizers, but these deplete another capital stock in the form of hydrocarbons, another natural form of accumulated wealth we are rapidly depreciating in order to pay for endless wars, bread, and circuses. there is no equilibrium here. we are literally burning through earth's savings account at an ever increasing rate and when that well runs dry we will start burning each other.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

once again you leave out human beings (none / 0) (#24)
by Blarney on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:02:49 PM EST

Seriously you and trane ought to try to work out a coherent philosophy together - you with your abstract dollarism and he with his socialism-without-society.

You see excess consumption of resources for the purposes of government-backed projects. What you leave out is that grain does not become pyramids or Moon rockets all by itself - rather it gets eaten by human beings, who actually create this stuff along the way. If you want less grain to be grown, then less grain has to be eaten, which means there have to be less human beings . . .

Basically you're unhappy with old Pharoah, not because he taxed-and-spent, but because he found employment for otherwise unemployable workers and immigrants rather than letting them die or violently pillage his other subjects for sustenance. You blame Pharaoh for lacking a decent program of population control - your economics is merely a side issue. This is really unfair, because at least some accounts have Pharaoh attempting massive euthanasia of his lowest-class population. But anyway, yeah, you're not even talking economics anymore because economics is the study of people.

[ Parent ]

why am i not talking about both? (none / 0) (#25)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 11:20:31 PM EST

yes i believe 7 billion is an absolutely unsustainable human population. i think i've mentioned this before.

hell, i advocate reintroducing smallpox to help bring the numbers down.

that said, pharoah did not build the pyramids to employ the poor. he did it to aggrandize himself, just like the state does with bullshit wars and social programs.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

so what is your store of value? (none / 1) (#26)
by Blarney on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:19:57 AM EST

I know you like dollars. If every person on Earth died tomorrow, would the remaining dollars still be worth anything?

[ Parent ]
the single greatest event in history (none / 0) (#27)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:01:13 AM EST

to increase GDP per capita in a population was the black death.

it's not about killing everyone. it's about keeping mankind's numbers sustainable.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

BTW since when do you have a family? $ (none / 0) (#16)
by Blarney on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:17:53 PM EST



[ Parent ]
what, you thought i sprang from a rock? $ (none / 0) (#18)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:42:21 PM EST



My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
or from the head of Zeus? $ (none / 0) (#22)
by Blarney on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:52:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I thought you sprang from a broken rubber (none / 1) (#23)
by greengrass on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:54:35 PM EST



[ Parent ]
ror (none / 0) (#33)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:34:56 AM EST


--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
eh, it's a little bit more complicated than that. (none / 1) (#47)
by Morally Inflexible on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:06:08 PM EST

You see, the money I spend on employee salary, office space, benefits, etc?   I don't get taxed on that shit.  I get taxed on the money I take out to buy personal shit.  

So, uh, raising taxes on me doesn't mean I'm going to employ fewer people;  if anything, if I think taxes are temporarily higher, I'm going to spend more on my business and less on personal shit so that I can take money out when taxes are lower, later on.  

Now, what raising taxes does do is decrease consumption.  If you are taxing more of my take home money, that's less money I can spend eating out, or on a nice car.  You tax me enough, and I'll start doing more of my own services myself;  e.g. if my bill rate is similar to what a mechanic charges me to work on a car (it is) it might make sense for me to take the car in and pay an expert to do it, ('cause, well, I'm not)-  the guy is going to do a better job, and my girl is happy 'cause I can keep all my tools neatly boxed up rather than making the driveway all greasy.

but I've gotta pay that mechanic out of post-tax monies.   So if you eat three quarters my bill rate in taxes, suddenly I've gotta be billing out rather a lot more than what the mechanic charges before it makes sense for me to take the car in.

The thing is, the rich consume a smaller percentage of their income than the poor, so if you are trying to stimulate consumption, you might be best off cutting payroll taxes (which is to say, taxes that the poor pay)  rather than capital gains taxes.  

[ Parent ]

that's great if you're a small business owner (none / 0) (#67)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 12:54:42 PM EST

but where do you think the vast majority of investment capital comes from? okay, you can deduct 401k and IRA contributions, but that just means more money is going to be funneled through those devices instead of straight into the market. either way your tax base will decrease in response to a rate increase, and you'll be left with less revenue than you started with.

and i'm all for payroll tax cuts, just so long as they're permanent. people aren't stupid. they know the best thing to do with a temporary cut is to hold on to it for when their share of income goes back down.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

go see my comments on solyndra (none / 1) (#69)
by Morally Inflexible on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 06:21:27 PM EST

there is a big difference in how "startups"  that are built to flip rather than to make money are funded vs. how small businesses that are built to make money long term are started.

Angels and up?  not interested in "dipshit companies"  that actually want to make money;  they are only interested in the long-shot possible big winners that they can turn around and sell to a greater fool.  

And for anyone smaller than an "angel investor"  who doesn't make something like more than a quarter mil a year or who isn't sitting on a huge multi-million dollar pile of cash?  it's actually (well, sort of, but not really.  It's complicated.) illegal for them to invest in non-public companies.

Really, capital gains cuts are going to stimulate the stock market more than anything else, and as far as I can tell, it is actually more likely for a company to buy back shares from the stock market than for it to a company to sell shares on the stock market to fund expansion beyond the IPO.

Eh, and maybe you are right, I mean, a hotter stock market is going to increase consumption in the same way a hot housing market is going to increase consumption, and that will massively benefit the sort of people who sell shit to  'startups' (and I am on the dirt bottom end of that market)  because companies having a high stock price means they can use stock to buy startups.   (One thing that SOX has done is that it has made large corporations the final "greater fool"  for startups because an actual IPO is now so damn difficult.)  

I'm just saying, increased investment in the stock market doesn't usually mean that companies that actually exchange goods and services for money go out and hire more people.  

[ Parent ]

How did you get your pie, anyway? (none / 1) (#74)
by Pentashagon on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 03:15:21 PM EST

Why should someone else pay you 1 pie to do something instead of just doing it themselves and keeping their pie?  Perhaps you grew your wheat and apples and pigs and harvested wood for cooking fuel and turned them into a pie.  While you were busy doing that, who kept bandits from stealing your wheat and apples and pigs?  Who kept a foreign country from sending soldiers to tax you 5/6ths of a pie instead of only 3/6ths?

Obviously you should only spend some of your pie if you ultimately get more pie-equivalents in return than the closest alternative.  Additionally, while you may not necessarily care about the next generations, society as a whole does.  The primary purpose of human life so far has been to propagate itself.  To the best of my estimation, that will continue to be its primary goal.  All others are secondary, and most people realize this.  If we wanted to spend all our wealth in a huge orgy of consumerism in this generation, you might be right.  Very few people want that.

A stable society where everyone is at least guaranteed 1/6th of a pie by working as a bureaucrat (or putting up with the rigamarole of being on the dole) has a far better chance of surviving to the next generation than a libertarian free-for-all where any segment of the country might decide it's time for a little more power and start a civil war.

If there's no general guarantee of social welfare available then it makes the most sense to become a farmer so that you directly control the means of production of your most basic necessities.  Why trust an economy to provide food and shelter in exchange for skilled labor when essentially it's just the whim of your employer or the market that keeps you alive?  The Great Depression taught us that there's no guarantee of a job tomorrow.  The risk of having no social safety-net will actually retard economic growth in the long term.

[ Parent ]

i do care about the next generation (none / 1) (#88)
by LilDebbie on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 08:02:42 PM EST

so much so that i don't want to enslave them with debt from our orgy of consumerism.

as to your point about becoming a farmer, guess what my long term plans are? unfortunately i have insufficient pie to acquire the pie-equivalent of a self-sufficient farm, as that is quite a lot of pie. but it is not my employer who gives me uncertainty. my employer loves me, as did my last employer. however, my last employer could no longer afford the pie-equivalent of my labor due to the economy sucking balls, and the economy sucks balls because the government is eating all the pie.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Not entirely (none / 1) (#32)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:33:58 AM EST

It's really about making Obama look bad so they can get a Republican elected. Hence all the obstructionism so things get worse.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
yeah they create jobs... (none / 0) (#90)
by Zombie Schrodingers Cat on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 11:02:05 AM EST

... in China.

The rich have no loyalty to any country. The government (hopefully) does have loyalty to the country.

Also I think that the whole mess we're in was caused by the rich having too much money. They had so much money to invest in stuff there wasn't anything left to invest in. So they started investing in sub-prime mortgages and the like, which didn't really work out.

The financial sector has become this huge scam where they encourage people to put their retirement funds into bad investments, while saving the good investments for themselves. They create bubbles, make loads of money off it, then pull out before it bursts, letting people's retirement funds take the hit. This is not a sign of a healthy financial sector.

In capitalism you want a good balance between investors and consumers. If there's too many consumers there will be demand for stuff that can't be made because companies can't borrow the money needed to build factories to build stuff. Of course this will correct itself over time because when there is a shortage of products, then companies will increase the price, which results in higher profits which results in more money companies can invest. Shortage -> Price Increase -> Transfer of money from the consumers to the Investors. Ideally you'd rather have just the right amount of money in the financial sector to make sure there isn't shortages at all. But even when there is shortages, its a temporary situation which the market can correct.

But what we're seeing now is investors have huge amounts of money, but consumers don't have enough. So people aren't buying stuff which results in no new factories being built (in fact factories closing down), and that means there's nothing to invest that money in. We've learned from the Great Depression that the market doesn't have the ability to correct this situation.

So if you want to error on the side of caution, you should be lowering taxes on the lower and middle class, while raising taxes on the upper class. If the lower and middle class has too much money, the market will correct that. If the rich have too much money, the market can't correct it. So its always safe to tax the rich. The worst that can happen is you have temporary shortages, which the market can correct.

You really need to stop thinking of capitalism as a religion. It is just a tool that our society uses to get stuff done. Its not a magic wand that you just wave around and it solves all of our problems. Like any tool it works well for some purposes but not so well for other purposes. And you need to maintain it. Put a little grease in the cogs every now and then. If you let any machine run without any maintenance whatsoever, it will break down.

Capitalism is breaking down. Its been over a decade since they last changed the oil and the engine light is on. And you're saying that the problem is caused by that damn mechanic that always want to mess around with the engine. But you've managed to keep him away for a decade, but shit, now he's back again telling you that you need an oil change. I know! Let's weld the hood shut and that will solve the problem forever!

[ Parent ]

why is china cheaper? (none / 0) (#77)
by QuantumG on Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 02:37:27 AM EST

Go learn about that any you might start to understand the world today. Hint: it's related to the national deficit.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Obama (1.50 / 4) (#3)
by Lexx Core on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 12:25:08 PM EST

Want to be a two term president. He has to raise taxes on somebody to fix the economy and he knows it. Class warfare is when the poor rise up against the rich and has nothing to do with taxes.

what his plans really are? (2.00 / 3) (#7)
by LilDebbie on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 02:07:30 PM EST

you realize obama hasn't even signed a budget in over two (2) years? the last thing resembling a budget was the continuing appropriations act which simply "continued" the 2010 budget.

the only thing he has resembling a "plan" is the fucking jobs act, which racks up another half trillion in debt so we can extend the payroll tax cut, which will only be effective if it's permanent, and create temporary government makework digging ditches fixing schools. does that dipshit realize they are closing schools because of declining enrollment or is his entire economic model based on shoveling money to the nicest politically sounding groups?

maybe if we give companies like solyndra another half billion we'll turn this ship around HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

I almost agree with you (none / 0) (#30)
by N0574 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:39:43 AM EST

but with more cushy government jobs the population as a whole would benefit: jobs and a sense of job security is what is needed most right now.

- NCCTG N0574 CANCER PROTOCOL
[ Parent ]
how exactly will we benefit (none / 0) (#51)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:44:12 PM EST

from more useless government employees running up the debt?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
How exactly will we beneift (none / 0) (#53)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:59:35 PM EST

from more homeless and starving unemployed who aren't BUYING BUYING BUYING?

A retard is yuo.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

BECAUSE DEMAND CREATES SUPPLY (none / 0) (#55)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:23:05 PM EST

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
That's a cute satire of yourself (none / 0) (#58)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:57:53 PM EST

and free-marketism in general.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
The sense you'll actually get with that: (none / 0) (#54)
by Enlarged to Show Texture on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:08:36 PM EST

Entitlement


"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
[ Parent ]
I'm actually with Debbie on this one (none / 0) (#86)
by Morally Inflexible on Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 04:21:11 PM EST

There are several problems with solving the problem with 'secure' government jobs.  

The biggest problem is that you can't get rid of those people once the economy warms up again and it really is time to cut spending and pay down the debt.  

I think it's also bad for labor flexibility to compensate employees in such a way that they lose a large percentage of their compensation if they leave before retirement age,  but that's a minor problem compared to the fact that you can't cut government employees when times are good, and as much as we need government help now, we need to cut it out and pay back the money we borrowed when the economy starts doing okay again.

I mean, I'm all for the government creating jobs when times are bad, but there needs to be an automatic 'sunset' that kills the stimulus program once the private sector is doing okay again.  

[ Parent ]

job security means economic stability (none / 0) (#93)
by N0574 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:41:33 PM EST

State jobs are the only secure jobs at this point, and even they're not very secure. And as the economy becomes more unstable, more people will resist the urge to buy houses, cars, etc. and keep the economy alive. If we had more stably employed state workers (even very low paid ones) at least part of the economy would still be alive.

Your point about 'sunset periods' would be valid if it weren't for the fact that capitalism is a demonstrated boom-and-bust animal. After the sunset is another night, after all. When night comes government workers act like a shock absorber that promotes stability...In Taiwan it's like this, though Taiwan still produces some things (great HDTVs!).

- NCCTG N0574 CANCER PROTOCOL
[ Parent ]

You know why they didn't have a budget? (none / 0) (#34)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:36:37 AM EST

Republican obstructionism.  Their constant abuse of the filibuster so that nothing could get done.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
actually (none / 0) (#50)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:43:23 PM EST

the republican house submitted three budgets (IIRC) which were all killed by the democratic senate, who has yet to vote on a budget of their own.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Senate: Republican filibusters (none / 0) (#52)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:56:15 PM EST

House: Republican radicalism.

PROTIP: Budgets have to originate in the House.  Way to show your ignorance.

Perhaps if the House would put on their big-boy pants and submit a budget that wasn't full of wingnuttery it'd have a chance of getting passed.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

wingnuttery like reduced spending? (none / 0) (#56)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:24:25 PM EST

the part that kills me is they didn't even attempt to eliminate the deficit, but noooooooooooooooo we have to spend ourselves into the toilet as fast as fucking possible!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Wingnuttery like making the poor suffer even more (none / 0) (#57)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:57:03 PM EST

like trying to gut EPA.  Like abdicating their Constitutional responsibilities and listening only to an unelected nobody (Grover Norquist).

Put on your big boy pants, Debs.  If the Republicans actually wanted to get something done, they should have taken the "Grand Bargain" that had $4T of deficit reductions.  They're more interested in getting the uppity nigger out of the White House.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

get things done? (none / 1) (#59)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:31:34 PM EST

the only thing they should get done is bring the federal government to a standstill. in case you have noticed, barack the magic negro's stimulus has FAILED IN EVERY WAY CONCEIVABLE YOU BLIND FUCK.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
For those of us who are sane adults (none / 1) (#60)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:37:51 PM EST

no, having the government collapse is a Bad Thing.  There are things it does which aren't at all good, but stopping the whole works is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

See, this is what happens when a Republican's got the Mommy Plan to back him up and never had to get anywhere himself.  You just don't understand how things work outside your own head.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

no, you're right (none / 0) (#61)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 12:17:47 AM EST

we need the government to arrest and imprison all those potheads, take my money to give to a bunch of fuck pensioners, and execute drone strikes on a bunch of brown people on the other side of the world.

GOD FORBID WE INTERRUPT ANY OF THIS IMPORTANT WORK.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

You're too stupid and emotional to read (none / 1) (#63)
by Nimey on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 07:56:41 AM EST

I specifically said that there are Bad Things the gov't does, but that doesn't mean the whole thing should be done away with.

Quit making decisions with your emotions, you bleeding pussy faggot.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

so as long as the feds maintain the interstate (none / 0) (#64)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 11:25:18 AM EST

you're okay with them murdering hundreds of thousands of brown children?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
DRAMA QUEEN (none / 0) (#65)
by Nimey on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 12:16:41 PM EST

DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN DRAMA QUEEN

You need meds almost as badly as Crawford does, and remedial reading even worse.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

recommendations? (none / 0) (#66)
by LilDebbie on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 12:49:56 PM EST

reading, that is. right now i'm reading the totally neocon book soul on ice, but if you have any good agitprop suggestions, i'm all eyes.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
My comments, for instance. $ (none / 0) (#68)
by Nimey on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:12:20 PM EST


--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
GAY SEX HOOKUP DETECTED (none / 0) (#76)
by Enlarged to Show Texture on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 11:11:37 PM EST




"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
[ Parent ]
Next on the EIB Network and WHNE Talk Radio (2.57 / 7) (#21)
by tdillo on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:18:59 PM EST

it's the LilDebbie show!

"...the rich create jobs in order to stay rich and get richer, you stupid fucktard..."

He's keeping America RED White & BLUE

"...we are literally burning through earth's savings account at an ever increasing rate and when that well runs dry we will start burning each other."

Join LilDebbie and his guests, Michelle Bachmann, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove as they rip the Liberal Left a new one!

"What, you thought I sprang from a rock?"

On the LilDebbie show!

The phone lines are open!

And now ladies and gentlemen . . .

IT's

LIL DEBBBBBBBIIIEEE!

I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to go fuck yourself.

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

Class warfare (2.40 / 5) (#35)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:39:35 AM EST

It's pretty cute that the Republicans appropriated that as their slogan considering that this is exactly what they're doing to the middle and working classes with their "tax the rich less so they can give jobs to Chinese and Indians who will work for peanuts and make the rich richer" policies.

It's another example of the Big Lie at work.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

and let's not forget (3.00 / 4) (#36)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:00:52 AM EST

while the poor and middle class are down with high unemployment thanks in part to their policies, kicking them by making them pay more for essential government services or simply denying them.

Debbers doesn't care because if he gets unemployed he's got the Mommy Plan: move back in and sponge off his parents; he's likely never experienced true poverty anyway.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

If you don't like it, kill yourself $ (none / 0) (#38)
by Enlarged to Show Texture on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:40:20 AM EST




"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
[ Parent ]
wait, what? Obama never even (3.00 / 4) (#41)
by Morally Inflexible on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:12:19 PM EST

suggested taxing the rich.  He's talking about raising the high end of payroll taxes, which is to say, raising taxes on the upper middle classes.   Doctors, Lawyers, people with small, privately held businesses that have done well, etc...

The rich pay capital gains tax, and nobody has talked about raising that at all.  Obama has even talked about cutting it as a 'stimulus'  (which is a shit on the chest for all of us trying to actually run a business selling goods or services in exchange for money, rather than building a "startup" to sell to investors.)  

Really? (none / 0) (#44)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:51:09 PM EST

The noise I've been hearing is raising capital-gains taxes so that the idle rich pay as much in taxes as those of us who actually work for a living.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
From anyone serious? Link? (none / 0) (#45)
by Morally Inflexible on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:55:32 PM EST



[ Parent ]
google://obama buffett rule (none / 0) (#46)
by Nimey on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:02:58 PM EST


--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
I know buffett has been talking about that (none / 0) (#48)
by Morally Inflexible on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:08:19 PM EST

since forever, but nobody listens to that crazy fuck.  

Wow... so Obama is listening to him?  brave new world.  

[ Parent ]

sort of indirectly (none / 1) (#62)
by Delirium on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:22:20 AM EST

The angle he seems to be going for is to use an AMT-like rhetorical frame (there should be some minimum tax rate that wealthy pay, regardless of deduction shenanigans), to slip in a capital-gains tax hike, by including capital gains within this new "Buffet rule" floor (whereas the AMT since 1987 excludes them).

[ Parent ]
As long as... (none / 0) (#49)
by Pnarp on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 05:44:29 PM EST

...he taxes everyone but me, I'm happy. I hope he really taxes the hell out of that old curmudgeon of a neighbor of mine, too. That guy really deserves it!

∼ Phillip Norbert Årp
Powered by the love of the voluptuous insect goddess, Strahazazhia Kalamazoo-Kintaki-Meeps, She of the six-legged delights.


✿✿✿ Pnårp’s docile & perfunctory page! ✿✿✿
   ❝It’s docile! It’s perfunctory! It’s phlogistically fantastical! But… is it one of those blog things?❞
    All wrights preserved. No purchase estuary. Lawn gnomes not included. You won’t be disconcerted. Deployed where prohibited by snore.

❤   Pnårp learned this week that the world was still here. Will it ever end?

[ Current entry | Random entry ]
This is clearly a mistake (3.00 / 5) (#70)
by thiswillbegreat on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 09:51:54 PM EST

This post appears to be somewhat relevant to the world at large.  Its appearance on the front page is clearly a gigantic mistake.
Semper ubi sub ubi.
sendgrid review best ipad 3 case best kindle fire hd case
Who Will Win the Upcoming "Class War" in America? | 93 comments (90 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!