Jon Stewart Discusses Class Warfare

Submitted by: madest 5 years ago Funny

His solution? Tax the poor! (Sorry about the rights)
There are 89 comments:
Male 525
@Yaezakura: Why do you think that I think that fraud should be legal? It`s fraud to pass food off as safe when it`s not, for the sake of cutting corners. Fraud is bad and illegal (and rightfully so); companies are held accountable for their actions--your argument is invalid.

And you seem to forget that it`s in a corporation`s interest not to kill their patrons. A corporation that has a reputation for poisoning their customers will lose to one that doesn`t.

Regulations violate individual rights; an individual should be allowed to sell his property in the way that he sees fit and not what you--or the government--say is the "proper" way.

If you don`t like the way a corporation does business, don`t buy from that person.
0
Reply
Male 20
The thing is having this tax cut for the rich actually is bad for them too. As the economy gets worse, the value of the dollar goes down. Get rid of the tax cut and improve the economy and the value of the dollar goes up, making their money worth more.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
Crakjakass agrees with M archer the virgen boy who`s going to tell you how to have sex because he thinks he knows it all from the porn he`s seen.(same hard core porn Crakrjakass`s been watching for too long)
0
Reply
Female 385
Archer, sorry, but no. Private companies should not be in charge of building and maintaining the roads that we all REQUIRE in our daily lives. Nor should they be in charge of the safety of our food when companies could pay them to lie, ensuring sub-standard food gets into the supply.

Nothing that is required to live should be handled by an entity out to do nothing but make a profit. Not without regulation, anyway--such as food safety measures and electrical grid compatibility regulations.

Because the moment a company can screw you over to make a quick buck, they will. Because the customers don`t matter--only their cash does. And once you have that, to hell with the people.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
M_Archer: Couldn`t agree with you more, Huzzah! :-)
0
Reply
Male 525
..have done is attack ridiculous scarecrows and not the woman herself.
0
Reply
Male 525
BluishOrange, because I`m in a good mood, I`m not going to insult you for saying "Only the most black-and-white teenage thinkers took her seriously. Even way back then, it was recognized that her philosophy was deformed." Because I`m an optimist, I`ll say that you somehow managed put the Appeal to Ridicule and the Argument from Intimidation fallacies into a nice package.

I read your article and I can say it has zero merit, because aside from the fact that the author thinks that Ayn Rand`s personal negative qualities somehow impacts the veracity of her theory, the author equates Objectivism and Ayn Rand with libertarianism. Ayn Rand has stated many times that she hates libertarianism.

Again, I have no problem with you criticizing Ayn Rand, but please criticize her and not straw men. All you, and the stupid article you posted, hav
0
Reply
Female 87
Try reading something by Ayn Rand? Seriously? We read it in our formative years (and Charles Dickens too). Only the most black-and-white teenage thinkers took her seriously. Even way back then, it was recognized that her philosophy was deformed. Try reading a little more yourself, Archer.


Ayn Rand in Uganda
0
Reply
Male 525
@Yaezakura: All those things (except the police force) should be run be private corporations, in an ideal society. I recommend reading something by Ayn Rand if you`re really interested in how government financing in a truly free society would work.
0
Reply
Male 525
@MCMXCIII: Public schools are not "free"--education is valuable; therefore, it must be paid for. If I don`t pay for it directly, someone else is forced at the point of the gun to pay for me. Corporations create more good than they do bad. For example, I bet the computer you`re using to bad-mouth corporations was built by corporations. The fact that I can READ your bad-mouthing from across an ocean is made only possible by corporations.

@lauriloo: Are you going to contribute something productive, or are you going to continue with your Argument from Intimidation?

@BluishOrange: Objectivism was defined by Ayn Rand, but she repudiated the name "Randism" and "Randians"; she called it Objectivism. And I know you know NOTHING about her; if you did, you`ll know she advocated independent thought and individualism. If you`re going to attack her, attack her actual ideas instead of these ridiculous scarecrows you`ve created.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
@BluishOrange

You`d be surprise at how fiscally conservative they are.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Taxes pay for all of those things and more.[/quote]

0
Reply
Female 385
Wow, Archer. I hope you never plan on using roads. Or eating food grown by someone you don`t personally know. Or use electricity. Or own a certified safe vehicle. Or are ever the victim of a crime and need police assistance. Or that your house ever catches on fire and you need the fire department.

Taxes pay for all of those things and more. Taxes are what allow a SOCIETY to function on the scale of countries. With no society, there are no rich people. Just those more willing to kill you than you are to kill them.
0
Reply
Female 87
Um, Archer, objectivism is an Ayn Rand construct. Check out the Ayn Rand institute. Their entire mission is to "introduce young people to Ayn Rand’s novels" while their minds and critical faculties are still unformed. Looks like they got to you.
0
Reply
Male 356
Besides, M_Archer, corporations generate, besides abnormally huge profit, equally huge social problems. Taxes are one form for them to repay the society to help remedy the damages they caused.
But for you, I`ll start with something more simple. Do you attend a public school? It`s free, innit? Who pays for it?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"To put together things on an assembly line requires very little mental effort--to actually conceptualize and idea and to secure contracts requires more. Therefore, the billionaires are the ones who created the wealth; they`re the ones who made their ideas a reality."

See how useful that ungrateful attitude will be if you are ever the boss of other people and want them to do things for you. THAT`S why your youth is cogent in this discussion. You have yet to experience enough life to know how things actually work. The most successful people know that making OTHER people successful will, in turn, make them successful and realizing that they need other people`s help/skills to get them there.
0
Reply
Male 356
M_Archer, do you read history books? Do you remember how those "businessmen" accumulate capital in the first place? Oh right, what else but exploitation, slavery and coy deceptions?
0
Reply
Male 525
@BluishOrange: There wasn`t enough space in my last post.

I don`t believe there`s such a thing as "collective good." Why should you force your beliefs on me?

Also, businessmen did create their wealth by themselves. They did all the trade themselves, they hired workers and established contracts all by themselves. If you trace the creation of wealth back to its root, you find it ALWAYS goes back to an individual.

Willy Wonka created the chocolate, not the oompa loompas. (note that this was not intended as an insult to workers; it`s just a good analogy.) Workers are responsible and can take credit for everything their job descriptions; nothing else.

To put together things on an assembly line requires very little mental effort--to actually conceptualize and idea and to secure contracts requires more. Therefore, the billionaires are the ones who created the wealth; they`re the ones who made their ideas a reality.
0
Reply
Male 525
@BluishOrange: What`s your point? There`s no such thing as a "collective thought"; thoughts only belong to individuals. It doesn`t matter that the wealthy billionaire relies on the labor of others; it was his idea and he put it into motion. Extreme capitalism is not "ugly" and collectivism (i.e. the theory that man has no right to exist for himself) in ANY form is bad.

Also, I`m young--what`s your point?

@bliznik: I think you misunderstood me. I don`t think wealth needs to be redistributed, and I think anybody who thinks it`s their place to do so is abhorrent.

The police entering your house and putting a gun to your head if you don`t give them your money that you earned certainly sounds like slavery to me; that`s certainly what taxes are. Robbing one person to pay for another, whether it be education or health care, is NEVER morally justifiable.

Also, it`s not "Randian"--it`s "Objectivist".
0
Reply
Male 1,306
@M_Archer,

First, seeing as how it`s AMERICAN dollars created by the AMERICAN treasury. Yes, the nation is pretty intrinsically tied into the wealth made within its borders.

Second, I do agree with that. Wealth does need to be redistributed in constructive, intelligent, and productive ways. Preferably through taxes on the rich and education for the poor. Taxes are not financial slavery, they`re to pay for government services that further the common good of the country. (theoretically of course...)

Third, you sound like a Randian. Which is fine in theory, but horrendous when the rich become the looters. How much blood, sweat, and tears are spent in bribing politicians and in defrauding people who are trying to get a loan? Congress is filled with looters and moochers.

If you look throughout human history, class inequality has brought down many, many countries. See Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, Russia. Countries have the right to protect themsel
0
Reply
Male 2,545
did buffet pledge like 99% of his wealth to charity during/after his life? personally id like to see his wealth go to an organization that uses 80% of for its mission rather then see the government wast 80% of it. its pretty clear the government cant handle money, why do we want them to have more of it?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"nobody earns a billion dollars on his (or her) own, or a million either. In the first place, he receives the upbringing and education to make it possible, either because he`s born to personal fortune that others earned before him, or because he`s lucky enough to grow up in a country that collects taxes to educate its citizens."

So true. Children of rich people have an easier time becoming wealthy themselves because they are brought up seeing how their parent`s did it, know it`s possible to be wealthy, have a better education, opportunities to travel around the world, meet people who help them achieve, etc. etc. People who grow up poor don`t know how to become wealthy and see it as more a fantasy than an achievable reality. People tend to stay in whatever path their parent`s are in unless something external shakes up their world to look at all the opportunities available. That`s why poor kids desperately need successful mentors who can show them the possibilities.
0
Reply
Male 35
So many of these comments are really melodramatic.

I keep imaging everyone announcing their comments like they were on stage performing a hack-written play where everyone is emphasizing the wrong syllables because they think it makes them more "actorish" :)
0
Reply
Female 87
I just realized M Archer is a child. Dear me.
0
Reply
Female 87
@M. Archer, nobody earns a billion dollars on his (or her) own, or a million either. In the first place, he receives the upbringing and education to make it possible, either because he`s born to personal fortune that others earned before him, or because he`s lucky enough to grow up in a country that collects taxes to educate its citizens. In the second place, he relies on the labour of others to "create" his wealth. I work eight or more hours a day to earn my living, and in the process, I "create wealth" for my very, very wealthy employers, as do many, many others. I pay tax in the top margin on a slim portion of my earnings, and I consider myself fortunate to be in that position. I never complain about paying my taxes, because, yes, I believe in the collective good. Many of your ilk embrace capitalism taken to the ugly extreme while branding very moderate collectivism as evil.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
Let us not forget that not every poor person has been poor the entire time. I was a chemical engineer when I got laid off so I had a bunch of nice stuff I bought when I was making very good money. Selling that stuff used after I was laid off wouldn`t bring in that much money so why sell it when I could keep it and have a few nice things to enjoy in life to keep my spirits up while I look for work? So people complaining that a poor person has this or that nice thing needs to take into account whether they acquired that "luxury" before they became poor or after. Sure, some poor people are lazy and irresponsible with money and will remain poor because of it but many people aren`t and with a little help can get themselves back on their feet.

I think the welfare system needs to weed out those who are taking advantage from those who are legitimately trying to get off it and on their own two feet.
0
Reply
Male 525
@Baalthazaq: I`ve never disagreed more with you.

First of all, I don`t like your tone i.e. you keep talking about the "nation`s wealth" as if it belongs to the "nation" and opposed to the individuals who earned it.

Second, you cannot even discuss the redistribution of wealth without thinking that that wealth is something you have the right to redistribute--they`re corollaries. You do not have the right to treat other human beings as financial slaves.

Third, that top 1% you speak of earned their wealth for production--they CREATED that wealth with their own blood, sweat and tears. The difference between a businessman and a Soviet Union politician is that the former created the wealth and the latter looted it.

No matter how many graphs you show, you NEVER have the right to "redistribute the money"; it`s not yours to distribute.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
@Klamaz -It not our gov`t that`s doing the censure; it`s your corporate sponsored gov`t that is.
0
Reply
Female 1,545
*aren`t as poor as *they* think they are.
0
Reply
Female 1,545
But either way, defending the mega rich in this country from a higher tax rate by saying "Well the poor aren`t really as poor as you think you are!" is...funny, actually!
0
Reply
Female 1,545
Cuthere, the poor have color TV? Christ, they have air conditioning!? Those smug bastards...

Tell me, what exactly should a poor American family look like?

Just because your idea of "poor" is more like "destitution" doesn`t mean there aren`t American families are struggling to pay for a livable (and dare I say even comfortable!) existence.
0
Reply
Male 688
Not our problem you`re government controls what you can or can not watch, LOL, they own you.
0
Reply
Male 514
Ok listen, if you are going to post a video that is clearly censored outside of the USA then at least post the clip from a youtube host instead so we can ALL see it
0
Reply
Male 688
Anyone who criticizes what I`m saying needs to keep in mind this isn`t meant to be easy to do. I`m saying it`s possible if you want it and work for it. If you`re not willing to change you`re life completely and give things up that you love then just get used to living in poverty.

I think the biggest problem isn`t even peoples laziness, I think it`s mainly their desire to live beyond their means, largely via transportation. Drop your car payment, insurance payment, gas, maintenance, "needed" upgrades. Get rid of all that just think how much every single person would save, not to mention how lazy and unhealthy cars make people. Get a bike!

Next people will tell me that people don`t choose to be fat by eating too much and not staying active and that it just happens and there is no way to avoid it.

Hard work people, HARD WORK!
0
Reply
Male 688
@GhettoNinja

Love you`re math, happy to see someone who actually does it or at the very least considers it.

As I`ve said before, It`s all about life style, you don`t get all the comforts of a good life and get to dig yourself out of poverty.

Not to mention you only pay tax rates for the amount you earned over that tax bracket, meaning 33Kish will only be taxed at 15%.

Not sure where you got 17.7 for state taxes, for 2011 highest I could find was 11% in oregon, most are much lower, some have none. Solution: leave your life behind and move to a no state tax state.

Sell your car, get a bike.
Say goodbye to your health insurance and doctor visits.

Electric will be incredibly low since you will only be home to sleep and get ready for work.

Food: Get used to spaghetti.

If you have kids while in poverty you`re an idiot and just put yourself into an even bigger hole. Makes it that much harder to get out of. Still doabl
0
Reply
Female 101
Cuthere,

My family owns a single wide trailer, not a home. That trailer is meant for only 3 people, but is currently housing 8. We don`t have air conditioning. I can`t afford a car, so I walk and take the bus. We do own 2 color TVs which are old because bought them at yard sales. I don`t even have internet access at home, I am at the library right now. I don`t smoke. I don`t buy lottery tickets or gamble. I work my ass off everyday at a job that leaves my entire body aching so I can pay my own way through school and get out of my current situation. I am one of these "poor" that you have chosen to generalize and I am certainly not the only one living in these conditions. So, you think the poor do nothing, yet expect everything? Well, I would love to see you walk a mile in someone else`s old tattered shoes.
0
Reply
Female 582
cuthere you`re drating retarded

Go read some factual, objective reports on the issues of spending and taxation rather than spouting conservative propaganda. Maybe then people will actually listen to what you have to say.
0
Reply
Male 317
Let`s not forget that the largest group in America that buy cigarettes is the "poor."

Hmmmm, Don`t have money to take care of myself and my family, but I find the money to spend more than %.29 per pack of cigarettes and destroy my health whilst expecting FREE healthcare too... Hmmm...

The largest income group to buy lottery tickets each month is also the poor!! So let`s get this straight. They have money for smoking cigarettes and buying lottery tickets... Classy! (Irony: Whine about the "rich" whilst trying to get rich themselves for doing nothing!! Hypocrites)
0
Reply
Male 317
"Poor" in America:

* 43% of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* 83% of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire country enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31% own two or more cars.
* 97% of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

0
Reply
Female 362
I admire Warren Buffett for coming out with this, and he is by no means alone. There is a huge petition going around on http://patrioticmillionaires.org/ where the super wealthy are asking for higher taxes, and they`re right. Cutting spending is an important part of not increasing the deficit, but if we want to eventually decrease it, we need to raise taxes on somebody. The middle and lower classes are already struggling in this economy, while the extremely rich barely pay anything. Raising their taxes even a small amount will help to stabilize the economy and will keep us from cutting spending where we shouldn`t, like continuing to take from the education budget.
0
Reply
Male 155
general taxation note: why not a percentage based flat income tax on everyone? every company, every person. if everyone is paying the same percentagewise, no one can really complain.
0
Reply
Male 317
You could take 100% of the income of every family in America earning more than 250k - PLUS 100% of the income of all Fortune 500 companies in America, PLUS all the sports teams, PLUS all of Hollywood and guess what? You STILL wouldn`t have enough money to cover the Democrats budget for 1 year...

All you liberals whining about the "rich" are just playing a stupid smoke screen game. Obviously, when the combined income of every family in the country with money doesn`t cover the budget - Then the problem is not one of "not being taxed enough."

The problem is quite clearly one of spending. Or would you argue that a man who earns 50k a year, and blows his money on a 5 million dollar home, and a Lamborghini Aventador would be right in claiming his problem is that his wife didn`t get a job at the corner bar to help pay??? lol That`s how stupid this argument is.
0
Reply
Male 317
"fox news and republicans sicken me. honestly trying to defend the fact that the rich pay less of a percentage in taxes than the poor. they dont even want it to be equal, and these are the people who can afford it..."

Keep perpetuating that lie... What the deceptive Liberals keep trying to do is compare CAPITAL GAINS vs. Income tax to compare "percentages" - Some people call it fuzzy math... I call it lying. I hang out with plenty of other business owners - And I know for a fact I`m paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than any "poor" or middle class is.

Not to mention I spend more on travel, flying, gas, products, electronics... Compare how much businesses and the "rich" inject into the economy vs the "poor"
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: Let`s just say that you confiscate 99% of the top 1%`s income and redistribute it. Do you know just how little each lower income person would receive ? if you take away a billion dollars from just one of them and dived it evenly to 100 million people, that`s $10 per person.

$10 isn`t really going to help anyone, let`s say you confiscated 1 billion dollars each from the people on the Forbes 500 list, that`s still only $5,000 per person, enough to buy a used car, then what ?

Sorry, but you haven`t really thought out your argument and it makes you look stupid.
0
Reply
Male 101
fox news and republicans sicken me. honestly trying to defend the fact that the rich pay less of a percentage in taxes than the poor. they dont even want it to be equal, and these are the people who can afford it...
0
Reply
Male 2
I just paid $22.87 for an iPad2-64GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $675 which only cost me $62.81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, BidsGetdotcom
0
Reply
Male 317
Ghetto - It`s called a student loan...drrrrrrrr.... lol

Amazing how a large percentage of the now rich started out very poor. I started out in a 700 sq ft house with 5 people living there with no money for a phone in the house... Yet now I run a business and have 25 employee`s. Funny how the "poor" in this country have money for internet, cell phones, Iphones, big screens, PC`s, a car, etc... Interesting indeed. Don`t know what the word "poor" means. When I started my business, I kicked things off working 17 hours a day 7 DAYS A WEEK... The whining "poor" in this country eat better than I did. There are some truly poor in this country, but a huge percentage of them are simply in "I deserve to have everything handed to me" moode.
0
Reply
Male 52
@Bremir

If it consoles you in Canada you don`t get access either.
0
Reply
Male 886
Klamz...you may think $8300 is a large amount...but in the real world, where you go to live when you grow up, it is a pittance that will disappear very quickly.

And to think that you are going to save that $8300 every year until you have enough for college is lunacy. Avg. college tuition total for 4 years is over $48k and that number rises by 4% every year or about $500 a year.

Don`t tell people poverty is a choice when you have no clue what it costs to live independently in todays world.
0
Reply
Male 886
Insurance: Average US citizen pays $100 a month per vehicle.

Remaining: 17.3

Health Insurance: I have averaged $300 a month for insurance and I have the el cheapo insurance. Yrly amount: $3600

Remaining: 13.7

Gas: Lets say an average commute is ten miles. Lets say that is 5 days a week, and we will give the car a healthy 30 mpg. You will need, say 3.5 gallons at $3.30 a gallon (below the nat. avg.) or 11.50 a week.

$600 for fuel in a year (and that is no driving on the weekends or after you get home).

Remaining 13.1

Food. This is going to be an unaverage American, so the yearly food bill will be below average. $400 a month. $4800 a year.

Remaining: 8.3

$8300 remaining....and I havent take into account variable expenses such as gas or oil heat. Maintainence on vehicles. Doctors visits. God forbid this average single person should have a child without dual parental support as is happening more and
0
Reply
Male 886
Grr...post was eaten, so this rant will be condensed.

Starting figures are used from Klamz post, but I am going to round them to nice even numbers.

46k annual income - 25% average federal tax%

That leaves $34,500. But state tax is taken at the same time as federal, so 46k times 17.7% (average state income tax)

Now we have, lets call it 26,350 after those taxes.

Dont forget Medicare and SSI, those so called "entitlement" programs that haunt every US politician. But lets not even figure those into it...we will pretend they are not paid for by us.

So, we have 26,350 to cover our cost of living which includes rent/lease, fuel for our daily commute, food, medical, maintainence on home and vehicle, insurance (health and car) and unexpected expenses...

Lets say, they are paying roughly the same as I am for a lease, $540/month, and I`ll use my average electrical bill of $120.

That alone is nigh $8,000. Which l
0
Reply
Male 392
Why am I not ******* surprised I can`t watch another video on this site?
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Dear rich Christian Republicans:

Matthew 19:20
[quote]
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 934
Klamz, you`ve obviously never had to work 16 hours a day. Also, you probably haven`t had to look for a job lately. Either you`re trolling, or you`re completely out of touch with reality.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Klamz: Agreed. Long term poverty is a choice in this country.
0
Reply
Male 303
Why does C4 block all the John Stewart clips in the UK and then refuse to show any daily show stuff!

They claim its to protect there broadcast rights, but if there not drating broadcasting it they there just being massive twats.
0
Reply
Male 688
"You sir, have 50 hours per day, I wonder how you do it."

Once again, do the math. Work 16 hours a day, sleep 5-6 hours. Life obviously isn`t going to be amazing if you`re poor. working 16 hours a day lets say 8 dollars an hour, every single day of the year = 46,720 a year before taxes.

Depending on your state and your life style choices you can save at least 10K a year upwards of 20K. 2 years of that and you`ll have enough to pay you`re way through a state university for 4 years. So drop 1 job and do 1 job + college.

Not really that hard to do, you just have to make sacrifices, don`t expect digging yourself out of an unemployed, in debt, uneducated hole to be quick or fun.

IMO this is very doable, poor people choose to be poor because they don`t want to give up things they like doing and work. You have only yourself to blame.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Sachi: Jesus` actions were not politically motivated was my point. He wasn`t trying to lead. He was trying to teach. Let`s not de-evolve this into a religious debate lol.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
No they don`t Madest. Those things were part of the balanced budget amendment, that the liberals in the senate blocked.
0
Reply
Male 599
continued.... pacifist. Religion has and always will be part of politics. Thus no apples and oranges.
0
Reply
Male 599
@auburnjunkey
Actually religion is ingrained in politics. Such as right wing Christian conservatism. Which is in opposition to the religion Christ taught. To give service to help your fellow men both temporal and spiritually. Christ needed no money for power and wealth. He walked among the needy and gave freely in service. Those with excess wealth need to learn this in order to share with those less fortunate. This is in order for more exaltation in regards to self sacrifice to teach mens spirits in order to be more perfect in Christ. That is why the disciples did not take in income for service to fellow men.

No matter what ideology you want to call it. Giving up your temporal things to follow the Savior is mandatory. Such contradiction that Right Wing Christians conservatives live. They think Calvinism principles of being wealthy is evident of being in the context of righteousness and next to God. When in fact it is the complete opposite. Christ was a socialist and pacif
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]There should be tax reform, loopholes closed, tax havens ended, I don`t think anyone argues against that.[/quote]
----------------
Republicans argue against that. Aren`t you paying attention?
0
Reply
Male 273
Some people really seem to think that money is more important than anything else in life...

Monopolies are often restricted because that`s bad for competition and the economy as a whole but 10% of the population owning 90% of the wealth is ok, it`s screwing the economy over, you could say it`s against the good being of the country (un-patriotic ?) but hey fixing this would be socialist, communist, marxist etc... it`s just pure evil ! Those propaganda videos from the cold war sure did their job right.
0
Reply
Male 78
"In the US, poor people stay poor because they don`t want to work for money. It`s not hard to get 2-3 jobs, put yourself through college and get a higher paying job, "

You sir, have 50 hours per day, I wonder how you do it.

Idiot...
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Sachi: Apples to oranges. Jesus` motivation wasn`t political. A Marxist requires the populace to weaken themselves to acquire power over them.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Crakrjak
"Class warfare is all about Marxism, motivating lower income people to revolt and create a socialist state, It`s a means to an end."

Yes so I guess Jesus Christ was a Marxist as one of the poor who chastised the wealthy man into selling all his possessions and follow him.


That evil hypocrite telling the poor to rid his wealth. Tsk, tsk, tsk


0
Reply
Male 688
I personally think redistribution & higher taxes are a good thing but to Baalthazaq and anyone else who wants to throw arbitrary numbers are without actually doing the math, DO THE MATH! 10% of the weath for 1% of the people gives them a net worth of.... Not as much as you think!

Unless you don`t support the ability to actually achieve monetary wealth through any means whatsoever.

In the US, poor people stay poor because they don`t want to work for money. It`s not hard to get 2-3 jobs, put yourself through college and get a higher paying job, unless of course you can`t manage to speak proper English and act in a civilized manner, which is the main problem why people stay in poverty.

We give people the opportunity, there is nothing wrong with being rich, and if you think that because they work hard to get what they have, it`s wrong of them to have it, you are an idiot. Do the math, stop throwing out percentages, it`s not much.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Let me make this very, very, very, very simple for you Crakr.

Is redistribution of wealth bad? (You`ve been trained to say yes, so I`m going to go ahead and assume yes here).

Then why, the heavenly drat, are you defending the fact that 10% of the entire wealth of the entire country, has been taken out of the hands of 99% of the population, and into the hands of the top 1%.

Seriously, pay attention, to the income share:

Source.

That is income redistribution. It is not stable. It is not the poor who it has been redistributed to.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
"Class warfare is all about Marxism"

You use the word Marxism the same way the Smurfs use the word "Smurf".

0
Reply
Male 25,416
Unavailable in my location... eek they now where i am... paranoia. Ninja skill on....
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Class warfare is all about Marxism, motivating lower income people to revolt and create a socialist state, It`s a means to an end.

There should be tax reform, loopholes closed, tax havens ended, I don`t think anyone argues against that.

Attempting to demonize rich people is wrong, the same goes for calling poor people lazy, those are false statements being used to divide people. Historically divided civilizations become ripe for revolution and/or conquering by other nations.
0
Reply
Male 156
Did you guys see the top two countries on that list in the show? Sweden? Norway? Two of the evil socialist countries, perhaps most evil countries in the world! *snicker*
0
Reply
Male 3,364
America has grown faster the higher the top tax rate has been. Think about our highest growth decades: the 1960s and the 1950s — the same ones during which the top rate was between 60 and 80%. Clearly, given that a top rate rise from 36 to 39.6% would have returned $700bn towards erasing our deficit, it would have been worth it; people don’t move out of the country to tax havens over a 3.6% rise.

Obama said during the whole debate over the tax cut extension: “I believe it is a mistake for us to borrow $700 billion to make tax cuts permanent for millionaires and billionaires. It won’t significantly boost the economy and it’s hugely expensive, so we can’t afford it.” The main point here is that it doesn’t boost the economy much — because very rich people don’t return their money to the market,
0
Reply
Male 14,775
The USA needs to go down the laundry list of its spending and tax cuts and decide where its priorities lie, then repeal the laws that provided for those that matter less. That would be political suicide for whomever gets involved, but it has to be done. Chronic overspending by the societies, both government and people, is the way civilisations fail. Sadly, the USA needs such a radical cultural change to permit good government and good governance that I fear it may be impossible.
0
Reply
Male 1,920
Oh and btw of that $1.645 trillion in overspending, the proposed taxing of the rich would take care of .070 trillion.
1.645t
-0.070t
-------
1.575t

The rich aren`t the problem, it`s the out of control spending in Washington.
0
Reply
Male 234
@auburn Stewart has constantly said and I many agree with him that we need a combination of increased revenue plus spending cuts. 700 billion is 700 billion, combine that we spending cuts will be the best solution. Anytime someone wants to raise taxes they are instantly criticized and called a socialist. You can`t expect taxes to be at their lowest rates year after year when there is more needed funding for infrastructure, clean water, prisons, research, etc. The highest tax rate has gone from 90%, to 70%, to 50, to 38, to 33, to 31, back up once to 39.6 under clinton`s boom, and then decreased to its now 35%. Tax rates need to go up eventually, you can`t expect cuts year after year and still get everything the government does pay for (those roads, cheap gas from subsidies, clean water, and medical research) without raising revenue.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Liberal reply to Mr. Peabody`s post:

"Dave Ramsey is a Christian! He can`t possibly know anything about economics!"
0
Reply
Male 1,920
The source to my comment below was cut off, so here it is: Source
0
Reply
Male 1,920
The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011. That’s their income, and it sounds pretty good. Until, that is, you factor in that the federal government will spend $3.818 trillion during the year. So, just like many families, the government’s outgo exceeds their income—to the tune of $1.645 trillion in overspending. That’s called the deficit. Altogether, the government has $14.2 trillion in debt.

What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Here’s how their financial situation would stack up:

If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made! That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!
Male 934
Lets keep voting the status quo candidates into office and see what happens when it all becomes completely unsustainable. Hope you own a gun...
0
Reply
Male 10,339
"I`ve got an idea that`ll make everyone happy: cut taxes (for everyone, but mostly rich people) and then cut spending by twice as much. End of discussion."

DING DING DING DING DING! This is the logical first step. Too bad the idiots in Washington will never let it happen.
0
Reply
Male 525
Found the video on Comedy Central:

I don`t like Jon anymore. The only thing with which I agreed with him was his criticism of the Fox News people saying "cutting millions would help." It wouldn`t. Taxes aren`t the only place people have this attitude: "Oh my god, I lost a pound!" vs. "I gained some weight--it`s only a pound.."

I can`t believe people take him seriously (or maybe they don`t--he`s a comedian after all). His "criticism" of people who called Warren Buffet a socialist was textbook appeal to ridicule fallacy; the man has made that fallacy an artform.

I`ve got an idea that`ll make everyone happy: cut taxes (for everyone, but mostly rich people) and then cut spending by twice as much. End of discussion.
0
Reply
Male 144
@M_Archer:

Seriously? Can`t watch from Canada? That`s odd. I`m in Japan and usually I get a lot of that region BS, but not here.
0
Reply
Male 985
Not available in my location :(
Would anyone happen to have a different link, I love Jon Steward :)
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Last guy was right. Raising the tax levels of people who make more than 250k to where the liberals want it, would raise about 70 billion a year. We spend, oh I dunno, 4 trillion a year RIGHT NOW and that is expected to rise another trillion due to Obamacare. So let`s do that math.

4+4+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5=48 trillion in spending over the next ten years. What is the projected income over the next ten years? Well, the Federal Government makes about 40 billion a month, so that`s 480 billion a year in revenue. X 10 = 4.8 trillion in revenue over 10 years. Add the 700 billion in revenue that taxing the "rich" would add, and you have a whopping 5.5 trillion in revenue over the next ten years, leaving us with a true deficit of 42.5 TRILLION. TAXING WON`T DO poo! PROMOTE JOB GROWTH AND CUT PROGRAMS! CUT DEPARTMENTS THAT DON `T DO ANYTHING! TRIM THE FAT!

Also,
0
Reply
Male 525
Seriously? Nikkuchan from Asia can watch this from his region, but I can`t?

There`s something wrong with the world...
0
Reply
Male 144
That was honestly sad to watch
0
Reply
Male 934
Really should post part 2 on this one.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: Jon Stewart Discusses Class Warfare [Rate Link] - His solution? Tax the poor! (Sorry about the rights)
0
Reply