No Pennies For Elderly & Disabled But Tax Breaks For The Rich?

[rkelly110]

Dwight, 25% on all income would be cool, but we have state and local taxes too.

Let's see what I can list. Property, personal, county your working in tax, sales tax, tax
on your phone, TV, gas and heating oil tax. Tax on water and electricity.
These taxes are after you cash your check.

I'm sure there's hundreds more. My point is, WTF? Us worrying about the govt's tax rate
is fck'n nothing. When does it end? When we're 6 ft under, I guess.

[DwightShrute]

RK,

It's nuts at what the government thinks they can get away with when it comes to our money. Like they have some given right.

The problem is some just keep saying yes to higher taxes so the politicians feel like they have the OK to keep squeezing. I don't get it in all honesty why someone supports higher taxes on any group, whether low income, middle class or upper calls just to hand it over to a bunch of impenitent crooks to waste it.

just under decade ago in Canada I was in a 54.6% tax bracket. Then you add the user fees for everything, medical , increased insurance etc etc. I said enough. Sold everything I owned and jetted off to a simpler life.

[andywend]

another tea party rant???? I think the poor democrat that works 2 jobs pays enough taxes, dont you think?? He would actually use that money to survive... Not to buy his 25th car!!!

Its tough enough to get a useless liberal democrat like yourself to work at one job let alone 2. To answer your question, NO:
The poor democrat who works 2 jobs does NOT pay anywhere near enough taxes and they should be increased. Poor people do NOT pay anywhere near enough tax when compared to the government services they use.

KingMayan, just because you have FAILED at every single thing you have ever done in your life does not mean that those that have succeeded should be fleeced by the likes of you.

The U.S. needs far LESS KingMayan's as people like you are infecting her like a cancer.

[pavyracer]

what do you define as poor?

[nobs]

some people just think the rich need to be punished, it makes them feel better about not being rich.

[King Mayan]

Its tough enough to get a useless liberal democrat like yourself to work at one job let alone 2. To answer your question, NO:
The poor democrat who works 2 jobs does NOT pay anywhere near enough taxes and they should be increased. Poor people do NOT pay anywhere near enough tax when compared to the government services they use.

KingMayan, just because you have FAILED at every single thing you have ever done in your life does not mean that those that have succeeded should be fleeced by the likes of you.

The U.S. needs far LESS KingMayan's as people like you are infecting her like a cancer.

Bahahahahaha now i know your a troll... If it wasnt for people like me, you wouldnt have freedom.. You dont know me internet elitist...

[andywend]

KingMayan, if you're being truthful and really did serve in our armed forces, then remember the party that SPIT on you and called you baby killers as you were carrying the caskets filled with your fellow soldiers who did NOT make it back from Vietnam.

Remember which party tore into the guards at Gitmo and wanted them jailed because they didn't treat the terrorist prisoners well enough.

The democratic party is no friend to the armed forces.

Once again, if you did indeed serve, I would be MORE THAN WILLING to pay increased taxes if I knew the money was going directly to help military veterans as opposed to dead-beat life-long welfare collectors.

As the number of deadbeats (welfare collectors, 99ers, etc) increases in the U.S., we are going to have to start making some tough choices and raising taxes on the rich won't even come close to getting the job done. We need to draw a line in the sand RIGHT NOW:

If you're working full time and don't have enough to get by, then you should be entitled to financial assistance should the need arise. However, those that refuse to work should be left to starve in the streets and should be given not a nickel's worth of medical care (including no emergency treatment).

As it stands now, the welfare collectors/unemployment 99er's make more than the full-time minimum wage worker and in many cases get better medical care to boot. This is what I am against and the democratic party continues to make the mistake of wanting to give MORE AND MORE to the parasites of our society.

This is the sole reason why the unemployment rate has NOT recovered even though the rest of the country has from the financial meltdown 2 years ago.

[King Mayan]

some people just think the rich need to be punished, it makes them feel better about not being rich.

Nobody wants to punish anybody.. Bush tax cuts were not permanent...they didn't create jobs, so it was a failed experiment... This is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY.. And if Walmarts and big corporations smash mom and pop shops and pay their workers like slaves while getting record profits.. Well then it's not the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY no more.. Now it's the Land of the Rich owning America...Money creates money bro...

[King Mayan]

KingMayan, if you're being truthful and really did serve in our armed forces, then remember the party that SPIT on you and called you baby killers as you were carrying the caskets filled with your fellow soldiers who did NOT make it back from Vietnam.

Remember which party tore into the guards at Gitmo and wanted them jailed because they didn't treat the terrorist prisoners well enough.

The democratic party is no friend to the armed forces.

Once again, if you did indeed serve, I would be MORE THAN WILLING to pay increased taxes if I knew the money was going directly to help military veterans as opposed to dead-beat life-long welfare collectors.

As the number of deadbeats (welfare collectors, 99ers, etc) increases in the U.S., we are going to have to start making some tough choices and raising taxes on the rich won't even come close to getting the job done. We need to draw a line in the sand RIGHT NOW:

If you're working full time and don't have enough to get by, then you should be entitled to financial assistance should the need arise. However, those that refuse to work should be left to starve in the streets and should be given not a nickel's worth of medical care (including no emergency treatment).

As it stands now, the welfare collectors/unemployment 99er's make more than the full-time minimum wage worker and in many cases get better medical care to boot. This is what I am against and the democratic party continues to make the mistake of wanting to give MORE AND MORE to the parasites of our society.

This is the sole reason why the unemployment rate has NOT recovered even though the rest of the country has from the financial meltdown 2 years ago.

My mom used to tell about those hippies doing that shiiit... Her brother died in that war... I agree lazy fukks don't deserve shiit.. But 80% of those people were just dealt bad cards and need help to get out of those slumps...I enrolled in the marines a few months after 9/11 to protect the rich and the poor....

[PittsburghPlayer]

The democratic party is no friend to the armed forces.

I look at it differently.
We are involved in two wars that we CAN NOT WIN?
That is not being a friend to us footing the bill OR the members of the armed forces that are giving their lives and sacrificing so much.

[The Madcap]

I look at it differently.
We are involved in two wars that we CAN NOT WIN?
That is not being a friend to us footing the bill OR the members of the armed forces that are giving their lives and sacrificing so much.

We could win the wars easy. It would just require 500,000 troops instead of 50,000. But the problem is that we can't get those 500,000 troops in country without the whole damned world knowing about it because the dumbass liberals in the media would go around spilling the beans. Which means the N. Koreans, Chinese, Russians, and anyone else looking to cause trouble in some other neck of the woods knows they can get away with it because our resources would have all been pulled to the middle east.

Winning a war is about breaking the enemy's lines of communication and their morale. You can't do that with a couple platoons here and there. You need to surround them fu*ckers so that all they see are the enemy and their guns. Once they see no way out, then they'll surrender. And some are more hardened and stubborn than others. It took two nukes dropped on the Japs to get them to give up.

It wouldn't take that to get the insurgents to give it up, but it's going to take more than surprise drone attacks and a random skirmish here and there. It will also take more support at home. If they think they can break our spirit before we can break theirs, then they'll never give up. How do you think we won the Revolutionary War? We knew the Brits could only stomach so much, and we knew that from reading their papers and intercepting their mail. If King George III had more than just his own ego backing his putdown of the colonials, he probably would have succeeded.

[DwightShrute]

We could win the wars easy. It would just require 500,000 troops instead of 50,000. But the problem is that we can't get those 500,000 troops in country without the whole damned world knowing about it because the dumbass liberals in the media would go around spilling the beans. Which means the N. Koreans, Chinese, Russians, and anyone else looking to cause trouble in some other neck of the woods knows they can get away with it because our resources would have all been pulled to the middle east.

Winning a war is about breaking the enemy's lines of communication and their morale. You can't do that with a couple platoons here and there. You need to surround them fu*ckers so that all they see are the enemy and their guns. Once they see no way out, then they'll surrender. And some are more hardened and stubborn than others. It took two nukes dropped on the Japs to get them to give up.

It wouldn't take that to get the insurgents to give it up, but it's going to take more than surprise drone attacks and a random skirmish here and there. It will also take more support at home. If they think they can break our spirit before we can break theirs, then they'll never give up. How do you think we won the Revolutionary War? We knew the Brits could only stomach so much, and we knew that from reading their papers and intercepting their mail. If King George III had more than just his own ego backing his putdown of the colonials, he probably would have succeeded.

awesome post! I have been saying this for years. This could have been done in under a year if dome like you say. The problem is that the USA and a few others are prepared to do what is needed to rid the world of evil and all the others do is bitch and complain. History has always proven that evil mist be destroyed otherwise things like WWl and WWll happen.

[PittsburghPlayer]

Got damn Liberals. You `non-liberals need to stop being pussies and just start shooting them! `Cause the bullshit talk will never change a thing.

[GoldenYAK]

Some want to portray this issue into the same old “tax and spend” dogma and that the very rich need tax breaks because they worked hard and deserved their money. Government spends money, and that has been the role of government for the last 300 years. If you don't like it move to Antarctica. No taxes there.

The fact is that government spending is an important component of our economy and our societal well-being. Ask anyone who has a job and pays bills, you can’t cut your way to solvency when your revenues are decreasing. The percentage increase of government spending is not the behemoth that is creating a fiscal crisis. It’s the tax system.



We are taxing the super rich less as they are making more money... Everyone else is getting poorer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

[GoldenYAK]

So no answers from the far right nut jobs?

[itchypickle]

Some want to portray this issue into the same old “tax and spend” dogma and that the very rich need tax breaks because they worked hard and deserved their money. Government spends money, and that has been the role of government for the last 300 years. If you don't like it move to Antarctica. No taxes there.

The fact is that government spending is an important component of our economy and our societal well-being. Ask anyone who has a job and pays bills, you can’t cut your way to solvency when your revenues are decreasing. The percentage increase of government spending is not the behemoth that is creating a fiscal crisis. It’s the tax system.



We are taxing the super rich less as they are making more money... Everyone else is getting poorer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

I'm not concerned about the 'super rich' or the 'top 1%' earners...how about getting away from the talking points you hear on tv and focus on the fact that less than 400,000 fall in that category....yet the provisions being considered in Congress now deal with NOT JUST them....but the millions of people who fall into the 33% bracket and it's debatable to include the 28% for families to a point simply since year by year...it's easy for them to slip in and out of the other bracket for taxable income due to investments and other holdings. Consider how a 3-5% increase in their taxable income will dent their living and forget the Paris Hiltons and Cliff Lees of the world.
When it comes to my feelings about the billionaires...it's simple....do I wish I had $4 Billion in the bank? who wouldn't! Do I worry how they spend it? Nope. Do they do a lot for charity with it? Yes they do. Should they do more??? This is where it's up to them...sure they can afford too...but at the same time, they are NOT required too and should not be penalized nor mandated to do so. Let's take the Walton family example (since we know you liked Bernie Sanders speech last week) would it be nice of the kids who basically inherited a few billion from the parents to be out there spending it all over the place for the poorer people?? Sure would! But thats up to THEM...just because we THINK they should spend their fortune a certain way doesn't give our govt the right to step in and pick on them....not in the least bit.

[GoldenYAK]

You have the right to defend billionaires. I just don't think that's what people want to hear when we have had 50 years of wealth redistribution from the middle class to the millionaires and billionaires. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything including fiscal conservatism. You can only cut taxes so far. If you want even lower taxes on the rich go live in Antarctica. America now has the largest income gap of any industrialized nation, clearly fiscal conservatism, in the sense the recent GOP has been using, it doesn't work.

Your opinion is identical to Glenn Beck's so why are you telling me to turn off the TV? I hardly ever watch TV.

[itchypickle]

You have the right to defend billionaires. I just don't think that's what people want to hear when we have had 50 years of wealth redistribution from the middle class to the millionaires and billionaires. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything including fiscal conservatism. You can only cut taxes so far. If you want even lower taxes on the rich go live in Antarctica. America now has the largest income gap of any industrialized nation, clearly fiscal conservatism, in the sense the recent GOP has been using, it doesn't work.

Your opinion is identical to Glenn Beck's so why are you telling me to turn off the TV? I hardly ever watch TV.

You are obsessed with Glenn Beck aren't you? Look, I'm speaking from a complete personal opinion...I'm not defending billionaires....notice I said let's get off the talking points (and it is JUST THAT, a talking point) of "tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires" being repeated hourly on the news....and look at this for what it is...because of the way the brackets are set up....millions upon millions of people fall into the bottom portion of them....while less than 400 thousand people are the quoted filers. Personal finance 101 tells you a needed balance to maintain a lifestyle closer too or at retirement correct? So a married couple with 2 kids...one of college age and one entering high school...with a mortgage and saving for retirement...may fall into the same bracket as Derek Jeter or someone similar simply by holdings and reported income. So to tell me that we need to burdern them even more simply to also include the upper echelon is just not a valid argument. So this couple is who I'm defending...not the billionaires. If you want to tell me "let's create a % bracket for anyone reporting over $12 million or some other arbitrary amount"...that's fine me.
Let me add once again for consistency....we keep forgetting that the blame should not be aimed at the rich right now....it should be focused on the fiduciary responsibility of our elected officials and their mismanagement of recent tax revenue. Once they get their act together...there would be no need to divide the country among income for the sake of arguing to get the focus off of them.

[lyon804]

You are obsessed with Glenn Beck aren't you? Look, I'm speaking from a complete personal opinion...I'm not defending billionaires....notice I said let's get off the talking points (and it is JUST THAT, a talking point) of "tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires" being repeated hourly on the news....and look at this for what it is...because of the way the brackets are set up....millions upon millions of people fall into the bottom portion of them....while less than 400 thousand people are the quoted filers. Personal finance 101 tells you a needed balance to maintain a lifestyle closer too or at retirement correct? So a married couple with 2 kids...one of college age and one entering high school...with a mortgage and saving for retirement...may fall into the same bracket as Derek Jeter or someone similar simply by holdings and reported income. So to tell me that we need to burdern them even more simply to also include the upper echelon is just not a valid argument. So this couple is who I'm defending...not the billionaires. If you want to tell me "let's create a % bracket for anyone reporting over $12 million or some other arbitrary amount"...that's fine me.
Let me add once again for consistency....we keep forgetting that the blame should not be aimed at the rich right now....it should be focused on the fiduciary responsibility of our elected officials and their mismanagement of recent tax revenue. Once they get their act together...there would be no need to divide the country among income for the sake of arguing to get the focus off of them.

Itchy, as usual your points are 100% accurate and relevant, but at the same time they unfortunately will fall on deaf ears in this forum amongst the libbies... Most here think if you make $50K a year you are rich and I guess they would be living in Mama's basement, but as you mentioned...those married, with kids, with mortgages,cars, boats,groceries and all other bills it just ain't much money. My wife and I make a decent income, but at the end of the day it reallly ain't any money.


For all those living in Mama's basement I feel you and know where you are coming from... I left mama's when I was 19 and was bringing home about $1600-$2000 a month and felt like I was wealthy, had no bills just straight disposable income. That was some time ago before cell phones all the little gadgets and games you people have now.

[The Madcap]

You have the right to defend billionaires. I just don't think that's what people want to hear when we have had 50 years of wealth redistribution from the middle class to the millionaires and billionaires. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything including fiscal conservatism. You can only cut taxes so far. If you want even lower taxes on the rich go live in Antarctica. America now has the largest income gap of any industrialized nation, clearly fiscal conservatism, in the sense the recent GOP has been using, it doesn't work.

Your opinion is identical to Glenn Beck's so why are you telling me to turn off the TV? I hardly ever watch TV.

This post cracks me up Yak and is the perfect illustration of all that you fail to see.

You say we've had 50 years of "wealth redistribution" from the middle class to the millionaires and billionaires. Yeah. And how has that money been redistributed? What is the only entity large enough to facilitate such a thing? THE GOVERNMENT. But not in the way you think.

Here's how it has actually worked:

The government taxes and taxes and taxes us. We get mad. So the gov't lowers one tax and ups another. All the while massively increasing the budget and expenditures. While some of those expenditures come back to us in the form of social security, much of its is funneled, through public works projects, energy initiatives, the military industrial complex, bailouts, etc to the biggest corporations and wealthiest families. Money that has made them even richer. Money that was ours that should have stayed ours. Money that they took, or perhaps more accurately, that we gave them, through taxes.

See there was a time when taxes were fairly even and middle class and upper middle class people kept a comparable percentage of their wealth. But then we got more taxes, and different types of taxes. Taxes that became harder and harder for middle class people to avoid. Taxes that crippled the upper mobility of middle class Americans. And a gap started to form. A gap between the super rich and the moderately rich. While the wealthy still had enough large chunks of money to keep getting richer, the moderately rich didn't get any richer. Things like estate/death/property taxes that are more easily incured by the wealthy, began to handicap the middle rich. And they became stagnant. They didn't have as much to invest or put away or leave to their children. They couldn't make their money grow. And in not being able to make their money grow, there weren't as many companies springing up to compete with the large corporations that were running the show. And so they consolidated their power and influence in the market making it even harder for start-up companies to make it big. (Until Bill Gates and Steve Jobs came along. But that is another story.)

Anyway, back to taxes. Some Americans realized that use of the tax code was how wealth was being transferred from the middle class to the rich. That the rich disguised this transfer by giving crumbs of these taxes as gifts to the poor (welfare/tanf), the elderly (social security) and the working class (public works jobs). And upon realizing this, these Americans got pissed off, and went about finding a solution. That solution was to cut taxes and cut the budget. Because these Americans believed in themselves. They didn't need the wealthy, what they needed was just to keep their own wealth.

Only some Americans didn't see it this way. Some Americans continued to be suckers for the ploys of the wealthy, allowing their sympathies to be preyed upon by elitists out for more of their money. Elitists don't like self-made men. They don't want them rising up in fame and fortune. Because eventually they'd have to see them at their social clubs and hobnobbing functions. And so they set-out to destroy the self-made man by pitting him against his lower class brethren. They made it harder for him to rise up by increasing the tax burden on him. They and their sympathizers took over the schools and universities to instill ideas of government compelled altruism, further embittering the strong risers and weaker followers against one another. And the fight still wages today.

You want to see taxes rise on the wealthiest one percent, but you fail to see that those making $250,000 a year are not wealthy. They might be "rich," or "richer," but they are not wealthy. Nor are folks like my dad whose law firm partnership is crippled by the tax laws, because they make more than $250,000--even though he hasn't brought home more than $100,000 in a year since Reagan was in office.

Nor are the folks making $130,000 a year wealthy. They may be richer than most, but they are not wealthy. Not by any means. And they lose upwards of 50% of their annual income through the tax code. Whether it's income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, whatever. He manages to get by with a middle class living. Sort of. And that's not supposed to be the maximum limit of being middle class. And it is today. And it has nothing to do with the rich being taxed less, it has to do with the fact that the middle class is taxed beyond their growth rate. And that is what must be reversed. And the only way to do that is to cut the budget. To cut taxes. To keep that money in middle class pockets and middle class bank accounts. And get back to that time when the wealthy had to earn our money honestly, through the creation of their own goods and services, and not by using the government to force us to buy their goods and services. A lot of Americans realize this. Americans that are older than you that have been around a while. Americans that have worked for themselves and started their own businesses. Americans that have through their own initiative and experience realize what creates success and failure. Americans that have heard enough excuses to have a pretty good BS detector. And they are the folks voting for the GOP.

You think the GOP only represents 2% of the population. And you think that because you are a sucker. And you've fallen hook line and sinker for the liberal fairy tale. Most Americans wake up and realize it's a fairy tale and they've been suckered. And that's why most Americans get more conservative as they get older. You probably will one day too. And it's ok. We'll welcome you with open arms.

[BeatingBaseball]

YAK - The intense clarity of your argument has convinced me. It took a while but - thanks to you - I now get it. I have finally grasped the luminous concept you have been trying to communicate to us.

It's incredible that our Founding Fathers could have missed this. Had they only been as brilliant as Obama and yourself they would never have introduced that stupid concept of limited government. F\*\*k, we might have even had the greatest nation in human history if we only realized early on that more and more government is the answer.

So from here on - I'm with you. We clearly need more government. I actually think we can have a utopian society if we only listen to you and turn more of our money over to the benevolent Democrats that we must elect to public office. Like yourself, those guys are intelligent. And they're certainlly a lot more capable and more virtuous than the rest of us - especially more so than those evil people who don't go into "public service" and who have too much money. I now see that those rich pigs in the private sector only have so much because they stole it from us. I no longer believe that bullshit about them earning any of it by producing goods and services in a free market. I now see that we need to take it from them and redistribute it to the more virtuous and deserving people you and the government officials can easily identify for us. Man, these are really great new ideas you have. It's amazing no one ever thought of these things before. Do you know if Obama thought of this all by himself? I have heard that he's amazingly intelligent.

I'm thinking that these ideas could be as successful in turning our nation's economy around as Obama's amazing diplomatic talents have been in solving that terrible problem we used to have of other nations hating us.

Now I see why you guys dig yourselves so much. Who wouldn't? Count me in, comrade.

[lyon804]

This post cracks me up Yak and is the perfect illustration of all that you fail to see.

You say we've had 50 years of "wealth redistribution" from the middle class to the millionaires and billionaires. Yeah. And how has that money been redistributed? What is the only entity large enough to facilitate such a thing? THE GOVERNMENT. But not in the way you think.

Here's how it has actually worked:

The government taxes and taxes and taxes us. We get mad. So the gov't lowers one tax and ups another. All the while massively increasing the budget and expenditures. While some of those expenditures come back to us in the form of social security, much of its is funneled, through public works projects, energy initiatives, the military industrial complex, bailouts, etc to the biggest corporations and wealthiest families. Money that has made them even richer. Money that was ours that should have stayed ours. Money that they took, or perhaps more accurately, that we gave them, through taxes.

See there was a time when taxes were fairly even and middle class and upper middle class people kept a comparable percentage of their wealth. But then we got more taxes, and different types of taxes. Taxes that became harder and harder for middle class people to avoid. Taxes that crippled the upper mobility of middle class Americans. And a gap started to form. A gap between the super rich and the moderately rich. While the wealthy still had enough large chunks of money to keep getting richer, the moderately rich didn't get any richer. Things like estate/death/property taxes that are more easily incured by the wealthy, began to handicap the middle rich. And they became stagnant. They didn't have as much to invest or put away or leave to their children. They couldn't make their money grow. And in not being able to make their money grow, there weren't as many companies springing up to compete with the large corporations that were running the show. And so they consolidated their power and influence in the market making it even harder for start-up companies to make it big. (Until Bill Gates and Steve Jobs came along. But that is another story.)

Anyway, back to taxes. Some Americans realized that use of the tax code was how wealth was being transferred from the middle class to the rich. That the rich disguised this transfer by giving crumbs of these taxes as gifts to the poor (welfare/tanf), the elderly (social security) and the working class (public works jobs). And upon realizing this, these Americans got pissed off, and went about finding a solution. That solution was to cut taxes and cut the budget. Because these Americans believed in themselves. They didn't need the wealthy, what they needed was just to keep their own wealth.

Only some Americans didn't see it this way. Some Americans continued to be suckers for the ploys of the wealthy, allowing their sympathies to be preyed upon by elitists out for more of their money. Elitists don't like self-made men. They don't want them rising up in fame and fortune. Because eventually they'd have to see them at their social clubs and hobnobbing functions. And so they set-out to destroy the self-made man by pitting him against his lower class brethren. They made it harder for him to rise up by increasing the tax burden on him. They and their sympathizers took over the schools and universities to instill ideas of government compelled altruism, further embittering the strong risers and weaker followers against one another. And the fight still wages today.

You want to see taxes rise on the wealthiest one percent, but you fail to see that those making $250,000 a year are not wealthy. They might be "rich," or "richer," but they are not wealthy. Nor are folks like my dad whose law firm partnership is crippled by the tax laws, because they make more than $250,000--even though he hasn't brought home more than $100,000 in a year since Reagan was in office.

Nor are the folks making $130,000 a year wealthy. They may be richer than most, but they are not wealthy. Not by any means. And they lose upwards of 50% of their annual income through the tax code. Whether it's income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, whatever. He manages to get by with a middle class living. Sort of. And that's not supposed to be the maximum limit of being middle class. And it is today. And it has nothing to do with the rich being taxed less, it has to do with the fact that the middle class is taxed beyond their growth rate. And that is what must be reversed. And the only way to do that is to cut the budget. To cut taxes. To keep that money in middle class pockets and middle class bank accounts. And get back to that time when the wealthy had to earn our money honestly, through the creation of their own goods and services, and not by using the government to force us to buy their goods and services. A lot of Americans realize this. Americans that are older than you that have been around a while. Americans that have worked for themselves and started their own businesses. Americans that have through their own initiative and experience realize what creates success and failure. Americans that have heard enough excuses to have a pretty good BS detector. And they are the folks voting for the GOP.

You think the GOP only represents 2% of the population. And you think that because you are a sucker. And you've fallen hook line and sinker for the liberal fairy tale. Most Americans wake up and realize it's a fairy tale and they've been suckered. And that's why most Americans get more conservative as they get older. You probably will one day too. And it's ok. We'll welcome you with open arms.

Damn, that is a fine post. You are scary smart and very articulate. What do you do for a living might I ask?

[lyon804]

YAK - The intense clarity of your argument has convinced me. It took a while but - thanks to you - I now get it. I have finally grasped the luminous concept you have been trying to communicate to us.

It's incredible that our Founding Fathers could have missed this. Had they only been as brilliant as Obama and yourself they would never have introduced that stupid concept of limited government. F\*\*k, we might have even had the greatest nation in human history if we only realized early on that more and more government is the answer.

So from here on - I'm with you. We clearly need more government. I actually think we can have a utopian society if we only listen to you and turn more of our money over to the benevolent Democrats that we must elect to public office. Like yourself, those guys are intelligent. And they're certainlly a lot more capable and more virtuous than the rest of us - especially more so than those evil people who don't go into "public service" and who have too much money. I now see that those rich pigs in the priivate sector only have so much because they stole it from us. I no longer believe that bullshit about them earning any of it by producing goods and services in a free market. I now see that we need to take it from them and redistribute it to the more virtuous and deserving people you and the government officials can easily identify for us. Man, these are really great new ideas you have. It's amazing no one ever thought of these things before. Do you know if Obama thought of this all by himself? I have heard that he's amazingly intelligent.

I'm thinking that these ideas could be as successful in turning our nation's economy around as Obama's amazing diplomatic talents have been in solving that terrible problem we used to have of other nations hating us.

Now I see why you guys dig yourselves so much. Who wouldn't? Count me in, comrade.

patronizing the fools here

[The Madcap]

Damn, that is a fine post. You are scary smart and very articulate. What do you do for a living might I ask?

My main job at the moment, sad to say, is working for my municipal Parks and Rec department. But I pick up sidework writing for local publications and doing the occasional political consulting.

[Grandmaster B]

so people making $250,000 a year are NOT wealthy?

is that the current spin going on here?

[BeatingBaseball]

lyon804 -

Thanks for the points, my friend. Much appreciated.

But what's with the generosity? I thought all you conservatives were selfish, greedy bastards!

BB

[Grandmaster B]

lyon804 -

Thanks for the points, my friend. Much appreciated.

But what's with the generosity? I thought all you conservatives were selfish, greedy bastards!

BB

they take care of their own

[lyon804]

My main job at the moment, sad to say, is working for my municipal Parks and Rec department. But I pick up sidework writing for local publications and doing the occasional political consulting.

I can see that the way you write. Outstanding grammer and very articulate

lyon804 -

Thanks for the points, my friend. Much appreciated.

But what's with the generosity? I thought all you conservatives were selfish, greedy bastards!

BB

[BeatingBaseball]

they take care of their own

Not a bad idea. You guys should give it a try - rather than putting them on the government teat.

[Grandmaster B]

Not a bad idea. You guys should give it a try - rather than putting them on the government teat.

spoken like a true racist

[Grandmaster B]

entertaining video where a chickenhawk gets owned

[BeatingBaseball]

spoken like a true racist

Oh yeah. I forgot. Anyone who believes in individual responsibility, enforcing the law or securing our border is defintely a racist.

Funny - I happen to love Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell - but hate Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich - also love Marco Rubio and Col. Allen West down in Florida. But sure, GrandB, I'm a racist.

You guys need to quit defining people by their color (or their income).

[The Madcap]

so people making $250,000 a year are NOT wealthy?

is that the current spin going on here?

Wealth is relative. 250K doesn't go as far as it used to. And if you're a small business owner, it really doesn't go as far as it used to, as most small businesses owners have to use their own resources to improve their businesses.

Yes 250K is a lot of money compared to what most of us make, but it's not like it's this massive sum of money that makes one independently wealthy. If you've got a house payment, and four kids you're putting through college, and their car payments, and phone payments etc, and a boat or a beach house, then there isn't a whole lot left over to sustain growth. And that's the whole point. Back in the day upper middle class people could afford to put their kids through college, have a vacation home, and some other small luxuries, and still have a lot of money left over to reinvest in themselves, local businesses, non-profits etc. And this money became a large backbone of the country's economic growth. That money is now going to the government. And by proxy, to the richest people who syphon that money out of the government coffers through bailouts, public works, energy investments, technological research, etc.

Being "rich" and "wealthy" are two completely different things. True wealth basically means being able to buy whatever you want whenever the hell you want. It means never having to worry about how much something costs. Folks making 250K a year still have to make a reasonable budget and stick to it.

[Grandmaster B]

Wealth is relative. 250K doesn't go as far as it used to.

Folks making 250K a year still have to make a reasonable budget and stick to it.

[The Madcap]

Oh yeah. I forgot. Anyone who believes in individual responsibility, enforcing the law or securing our border is defintely a racist.

Funny - I happen to love Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell - but hate Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich - also love Marco Rubio and Col. Allen West down in Florida. But sure, GrandB, I'm a racist.

You guys need to quit defining people by their color (or their income).

Sowell's books are some of the most interesting shit I've ever read. "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" forever changed my concept of racism. The data presented in "Civil Rights" reaffirms so much about the nature of economic development in America. "The Vision of the Anointed" made me laugh out loud just about every chapter, when I wasn't stewing in anger. There's so much poignant shit in there. I wish everybody would read his books. Unfortunately, we've got so many zealots I doubt a lot of them are open minded to accept the realities he points out.

I gave one of his books to a classmate of mine and he dismissed it as "racist cracker crap." Then I told him Sowell was black. And he started stammering and what not, "oh, oh, well, he must be some rich elitist black." Then I told him he was born to a poor family in rural NC and he changed his tune again to something about him being a self-loathing uncle Tom. It was pathetic. The facts will never matter when one has ceded his reason for his ideology.

I think that's the main difference between most conservatives and liberals these days. Liberals like to base their opinions on emotionally based assumptions they make early on in life, then promote whatever facts validate their emotional responses and discard the rest. Conservatives meanwhile, are non-political and independent, spending their whole lives gathering the facts, and eventually the facts become so overwhelming, that the conservativism inside them wins out. Hence why most conservatives find their full conclusions later in life. It's like Churchill says, "A 20 year old that isn't liberal has no heart, a 40 year old that isn't conservative has no brains." And that's sort of why I say A liberal's ideology decides the facts of life; the facts of life define a conservatives ideology.