Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 bongsmoka420
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 289 Posts
|
Thursday, October 06, 2011 3:48:01 PM
@Mirage6: NO SHYT there's not a lot of statistics to back up his claim. Th real stats are destroyed so that idiots like you don't take this guy seriously and other who can see through and past the propoganda distributed by the media. |
|
Mirage6
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
25 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 12:32:14 PM
This guy is well spoken, but that doesn't mean he is correct. I don't think there are a lot of statistics to back up his claims. |
|
 SumRandom1
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
795 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:13:03 AM
reporter: lets talk to the guy who is dressed as if this is civil war, he must be a nut and will say some crazy $hit on camera that will make democratic liberals look like fools
Guy in hat: I went to college and am fully prepared to eloquently make fox news feel like idiots |
|
 obhwfgirl
Female, 18-29, Western US
553 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:11:37 PM
"Capitalism is the best way to distribute wealth and goods to a group of people."
Totally agree -- when proper regulations are in place. Business's bottom line is not health, safety, or environmentalism. It's money. Government needs to put business regulation in place the same way people need laws. Without them, it's anarchy.
What needs to be reduced is corporate socialism. The government now the consumers' money and gives tax brakes to major corporations. This undermines the very foundation of capitalism -- consumers need to make the best choice for themselves. Instead, of the trickle down effect, why not try trickle up? Give money to the consumers who don't have a bottom line. Give money to the entrepreneurs, small business owners, and new technology developers so they can penetrate and develop new markets. As the money moves upwards, the best businesses will then have the most to invest.
Then, having earned all their money, maybe corporations wo |
|
 Spider_sol
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1454 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 8:32:07 PM
This man: I love him.
No homo.
Ok, a little homo... that hat: yum. |
|
 angelo0317
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
335 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:56:15 PM
LMAO @ 2:52, i find the look on his face kinda funny. |
|
 emmettyville
Female, 30-39, Australia
2723 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:27:56 AM
it's like they are not even speaking the same language. how frustrating for the protester talking to this idiot. |
|
 markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
3783 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:58:15 AM
"it's what majority of Americans want in the health care"
Almost. A majority of Americans wanted the Public Option for low income individuals and to drive down insurance costs. The reason we didn't get it is because Democrats are pussies. A few people cried, screamed and acted like crazies at their rallies and the Democrats folded. |
|
dang007
Male, 30-39, Southern US
488 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:33:41 AM
>>> it's what majority of Americans want<<
If this is true then the majority of Americans want the country to fail...If true might as well get while the getting is good. Where do I line up for my handout? |
|
 sutra46
Female, 40-49, Asia
2007 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 8:53:20 AM
Totally, completely, agree with this guy all the way.
People who voted for Obama have to recognize that the guy has to wade through quagmire of poo every minute to get any little stuff done. He needs a show of support - it's not Obama care - it's what majority of Americans want in the health care. It's not Obama bailout it's what the best economist in his administration figured is needed to save everybody's ass. It's not Obama spending it's what govtments do to creat jobs & infrastructure in dire straights. It is absolutely necessary to invest in future solutions - businesses and like all investments there is a risk of it going belly up. If you support him get out there and let the other side know that he is speaking for & on behalf of YOU. |
|
dang007
Male, 30-39, Southern US
488 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 7:57:06 AM
>>7% of all income has gone from the lower class, working class, middle class, and upper middle, to the top. <<<
Baalthazaq:
Please check this. You have equated a shift in "distribution" of total income to a shift in absolute income. They are not the same.
Say there a two foxes in an area. In the first year fox A kills 65 rabbits and fox B kills 35 rabbits. The next year fox A kills 108 rabbits and fox B kills 42, Change in rabbit kill distribution was 7% more for Fox A and 7% less for Fox B. But even then fox B came out ahead. If you look critically at the change in income vs. time for the income brackets in the US you will see a similar trend. Add to that that many of the lower income earners do not STAY lower income earners, at least not when we have an economy that is working, and statements like the one above are at the least misleading. In much the same way as the 41% pay no taxes is misleading. |
|
 CadillacJack
Male, 18-29, Southern US
104 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 4:17:12 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. |
|
CadillacJack
Male, 18-29, Southern US
104 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:56:15 AM
He wears the hat because he is Comrade! |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
769 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:59:51 AM
Baalthazag. You are doing zero-sum economics. That is errant nonsense, complete and utter garbage. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The comment on the Bush/Obama tax cuts, which (as most tax cuts) increased revenue, are particularly ignorant. |
|
 Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
4753 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:50:12 AM
Maybe there's a specific problem with understanding why a bracketed system exists...
To have a sustainable economy, you need patterns that are sustainable.
Currently, under the current tax system, wealth is being redistributed northwards, at a far higher rate than inflation.
Hell... the poorest 80% have lost a share of their income since 1967 to the top 20%. The bottom 50% have lost income in relation to inflation.
7% of all income has gone from the lower class, working class, middle class, and upper middle, to the top.
Don't get me wrong.
It is fine for the Top 20% to get 50% of American income. That is actually an irrelevant figure.
When that share is growing or shrinking, it suggests financial burdens that do not sync with a sustainable economic model. |
|
 xCYBERDYNEx
Male, 18-29, Southern US
4798 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:47:50 AM
Why the hell is he wearing that hat? |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
4753 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:31:52 AM
Specific Social Security reform is gotten by adding together both major proposed reforms of social security. (Raising the age and the concept of slow raises on social security benefits over time. Together they are around 290B according to the CBO).
All the Bush tax cuts add in total over a ten year period $2.64T. Keeping them in place for all but the wealthiest loses $2.08T by comparison.
CBO estimates therefore on a 10 year projection is actually $560B. Smaller figure I used was outdated apparently (Pre-extension figures lower due to lower overall income of the wealthy, who have since rebounded). |
|
 Oldfrt
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
611 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:22:59 AM
@Baalthazaq, to continue, I think we need to fix the long term entitlements mess first, including but not limited to, means testing, promotion of private retirement funds for younger citizens,and if necessary, increasing the retirement age. Short term fixes, like tax increases, will make more sense when we have a better idea of the long term outlook.
BTW, I'm not necessarily against tax increases. My complaint earlier was against people thinking that taxing "the rich" will solve all our problems. Their quest for fairness seems to me to be rooted in jealousy rather than an sincere attempt to address the problems. |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
4753 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:17:30 AM
I don't know where Madest got his 14% figure from, but I've seen ranges from 10%(NYT) to 18%(Williams, CBO) but he's far closer to right than the ridiculous post 40% numbers claiming they pay "no taxes".
There's a reason the news has to say "Federal" and "Income" before they announce the figure. You should be paying attention.
It's what makes you go on forums and lie about how "40% pay no taxes". It's that you don't understand the full story. That becomes painfully obvious when you disregard things in the title like that. |
|
Oldfrt
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
611 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:15:10 AM
@Baalthazaq: So, ignore everything under $480 billion then because "that's not enough"? ...Like say, the cost of the Libyan war? (0.4B, not 400B), Obamacare ($-200B to $200B even taking Fox figures), Social Security Reform (would only save $290b, mainly on the backs of the poor), etc.
You're usually pretty good about sources for your numbers, I'd like to know where the $480B came from (I assume that's what you're expecting from tax increases, which I am doubtful about). Also, you seem to be assuming a specific Social Security reform to come up with $290B, and I suspect it is insufficient. My concern is the long term Trillions in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. Your numbers seem to be looking at just 1 year.
While I certainly do not want to have solutions that mainly fall on "the backs of the poor", we also can't afford to fund every thing we currently want to. |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
4753 Posts
|
Monday, October 03, 2011 11:58:09 PM
"How about instead of makeing the rich pay more, we make the 41% who are not paying ANY federal taxes pay there fair share"
Sure, make the bottom 40% pay the same %. That raises $120B. Cripples your main consumers.
Getting rid of tax breaks for the top 2% raises triple that.
Your opinion has no place in a discussion on math any more than math has a place in your opinion.
41% don't pay FED.INCOME tax. Taxes are not solely made up of income tax.
1) Other taxes apart from income reduce that figure.
2) Only half the people in that 40% stat don't pay due to low income.
3) Half use tax loopholes, and are spread throughout the income brackets. It benefits the rich more than the poor.
4) Tax breaks are part of the cause of the high figure.
5) The final figure for "Who escapes all fed tax" is under 10%. |
|
Baalthazaq
Male, 18-29, Asia
4753 Posts
|
Monday, October 03, 2011 11:18:42 PM
"but you can't tax the rich enough to get us out of this mess."
So, ignore everything under $480 billion then because "that's not enough"?
Anything *under* that figure you think we should be concentrating on? Anything you've complained about? Because you see, if there is, that makes you a tiny bit of a hypocrite.
Small amount "Rawr", big amount "Meh ignore it".
Like say, the cost of the Libyan war? (0.4B, not 400B), Obamacare ($-200B to $200B even taking Fox figures), Social Security Reform (would only save $290b, mainly on the backs of the poor), etc.
So, those things all off the table according to you as they're "not enough" so why bother? |
|
 LoofahBoy
Male, 18-29, Western US
3481 Posts
|
Monday, October 03, 2011 10:45:36 PM
I absolutely support what the protesters stand for. But I just can't see what this could accomplish. They could make all the noise they want, and all corporate America would do is momentarily look out their ivory towers down on the crowd of protesters for a moment and laugh, before going back to counting their dollar bills. |
|
 earthshone
Male, 18-29, Western US
1699 Posts
|
Monday, October 03, 2011 10:36:06 PM
well said. |
|
Simbosan
Male, 40-49, Asia
97 Posts
|
Monday, October 03, 2011 10:06:04 PM
@tedgp-Lol@protesters that think they can change things. Protip: you cant and you wont.
You remember that 'American Revolution' thing? |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}