Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I just skimmed this thread but am I too believe that Federal employment constitutes theft? Im sorry I took some of your money I had no idea I was a thief…lol[/quote]

YOU ARE SUCH A SACK OF SHIT SCUM OF THE EARTH DIRTBAG GOING OUT AND SPENDING THAT MONEY YOU STOLE FROM HARD WORKING AMERICANS THAT ACTUALLY WORK FOR THEIR WORKING MONEY WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK HERP DERP DERP…WHY DONT YOU JUST PERFORM RAPE SINCE ITS THE EXACT SAME THING? 2+2=11!!![/quote]

Spoken like I true cry baby. Weren’t you complaining about people whining on here?[/quote]

Whining? You really are too dumb for words.

You’re dismissed (and unlike you, I actually mean it when I threaten to put someone on ignore!).

It really takes a certain level of dumbassery to get on my ignore list too. Congratulations moron!
[/quote]

Tired of getting your ass handed to you I guess?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I don’t think people have an issue with government employees, but someone who throws the idea in your face that they are happy you got taxed more so they could flaunt their baller status just makes for a bad taste.

[/quote]

Just to be clear, I’m not happy that EVERYONE helps pay my salary, just guys that I regard as general tools such as Zeb, DD, and yourself. Don’t worry, I may have included you last in that list, but you are still #1!

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I don’t think people have an issue with government employees, but someone who throws the idea in your face that they are happy you got taxed more so they could flaunt their baller status just makes for a bad taste.

[/quote]

Just to be clear, I’m not happy that EVERYONE helps pay my salary, just guys that I regard as general tools such as Zeb, DD, and yourself. Don’t worry, I may have included you last in that list, but you are still #1![/quote]

Oh, I’m a sinful, arrogant, self righteous asshole. But, an honest one. And none of us are what you are, a parasite.

Your memory is about as horrible as your schtick.

I think anyone who refers to themselves as “Balla” is downright delusional.

The best part about carrying your Mensa card with you is, you will never run out of toilet paper.

Run along Nathan, you are officially now just Nathan, as you lost your Lord Mensa title.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I don’t think people have an issue with government employees, but someone who throws the idea in your face that they are happy you got taxed more so they could flaunt their baller status just makes for a bad taste.

[/quote]

Just to be clear, I’m not happy that EVERYONE helps pay my salary, just guys that I regard as general tools such as Zeb, DD, and yourself. Don’t worry, I may have included you last in that list, but you are still #1![/quote]

Why don’t you go make yourself useless and make everyone a pot of coffee, I have to imagine you can manage that without getting fired.

Make enough for EVERYONE, ya know, after all we pay for your baller status.

Hurry up about it Nathan.

LOL I go by Nate actually. So you can scribble it out on the inside of your locker.

I was thinking to write it on the bottom of my shoe.

What do you guys think of “yes we coin” ?

"The New Year has started with a monstrosity of a budget deal, one that proves that neither political party, Democrats or Republicans, is really serious about controlling the growth of big government.

But soap opera dramatics about fiscal “cliffs” and sequestration shouldnâ??t deflect from where President Obama is really taking this country. Consider this story from the Wall Street Journal a few days before Christmas:

â??Thousands of people in several Argentine cities ransacked supermarkets for a second day in the latest challenge to President Chistina Kirchner, who is struggling to revive a weak economy…In the central city Rosario, two people were killed during the incidents and 137 people arrested.

Washington’s Republicans and Democrats alike have become the toll collectors on the road to serfdom

â??The violence puts Mrs. Kirchner in a difficult position as the poor are [her] core constituents…Her government spends billions of dollars a year to help low income families, including free health care…[Yet] Argentine activists who claim to represent the poor traditionally block access to supermarkets in the month of December to demand free food and other items…The latest events were some of the worst acts of looting and vandalism in years… Local media showed dozens of men, women, and children hauling away televisions, refrigerators, and food.â??

Some have said my warnings about a coming civil war between makers and takers are exaggerated. Itâ??s true that Argentinaâ??s politicians have been waging class warfare since Juan and Eva Peronâ??and they arenâ??t fazed when it turns bloody. Obama and the Democrats are relative newcomers to the game. But Argentina reveals who really suffers when those who create a nationâ??s wealth get mugged by those who spend itâ??as just happened this week in Washington.

Itâ??s the poor and the middle class, the very ones big government says itâ??s trying to protect.

And sadly thatâ??s where Mitt Romney had it wrong.

That 47 percent of Americans who get unemployment benefits, Social Security disability checks, Medicare and Medicaid, and government student loans, arenâ??t the real takers. Like the rioters in Rosario, theyâ??re just pawns in a perennial battle between those who see wealth and prosperity as something created by hard work, ingenuity, and innovation in a free market systemâ??or something to be doled out by government.

Experience teaches that those who believe in free markets are right. The November election and the budget deal, however, show that the other side is winning, and winning big.

Since 1970, Americaâ??s public sector has exploded as a percentage of GDP, rising to almost 25% last year. While the national unemployment rate hovers at the 8% mark, government worker unemployment rate is a cozy 3.8%. Sixteen percent of Americaâ??s workforce now work for government. By the time the Obama administration ends, we wonâ??t be that far away from Argentinaâ??s 21 percent.

Yet as an economic and social enterprise, government creates nothing.

Far from adding to peopleâ??s standard of living, government is the number one cause of poverty in this country. It forces those who depend on its largesse to live hand to mouth, with no time or money to plan for the future. They become unable to fend for themselves—and increasingly resentful of those who can.

When the economy tanks and the government checks have to shrink, their only alternative is to take to the streets. Thatâ??s what happening in Argentina, and in Greece; and thatâ??s where the growth of government is taking us here, as this current budget deal increases handoutsâ??and more and more Americans are finding that an unemployment or Social Security disability check is their only life line.

Washingtonâ??s Republicans and Democrats alike have become the toll collectors on the road to serfdomâ??and the road to Rosario.

How far down that road depends on how our private sector rallies in 2013 after two numbing defeats, first on November 7 and then on Capitol Hill this week.

It needs to explain to that 47 percent that when big government wins, we all loseâ??and that this nation wonâ??t survive if it does.

Historian Arthur Herman

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I just skimmed this thread but am I too believe that Federal employment constitutes theft? Im sorry I took some of your money I had no idea I was a thief…lol[/quote]

YOU ARE SUCH A SACK OF SHIT SCUM OF THE EARTH DIRTBAG GOING OUT AND SPENDING THAT MONEY YOU STOLE FROM HARD WORKING AMERICANS THAT ACTUALLY WORK FOR THEIR WORKING MONEY WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK HERP DERP DERP…WHY DONT YOU JUST PERFORM RAPE SINCE ITS THE EXACT SAME THING? 2+2=11!!![/quote]
lol, I really enjoyed that thank you.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I just skimmed this thread but am I too believe that Federal employment constitutes theft? Im sorry I took some of your money I had no idea I was a thief…lol[/quote]

I don’t think people have an issue with government employees, but someone who throws the idea in your face that they are happy you got taxed more so they could flaunt their baller status just makes for a bad taste.

Case in point, after California Prop 30 passed, a teachers Union rep bragged about sucking out more money from the public to pay for teachers fat salaries. He woke up the next morning to find someone took a shit on his car. [/quote]

Well ok now I see, but if they flaunt it or not the truth still remains the same that taxes pay their sallary.

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I just skimmed this thread but am I too believe that Federal employment constitutes theft? Im sorry I took some of your money I had no idea I was a thief…lol[/quote]

I don’t think people have an issue with government employees, but someone who throws the idea in your face that they are happy you got taxed more so they could flaunt their baller status just makes for a bad taste.

Case in point, after California Prop 30 passed, a teachers Union rep bragged about sucking out more money from the public to pay for teachers fat salaries. He woke up the next morning to find someone took a shit on his car. [/quote]

Well ok now I see, but if they flaunt it or not the truth still remains the same that taxes pay their sallary.[/quote]

Well this shit head was doing the same thing, so my comment was not directed towards you. I don’t think people have a problem paying public workers, but when some cock sucker giggles in the pain of other paying more taxes for his stupidity, then he has nothing coming but trouble.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I don’t think people have a problem paying public workers, but when some cock sucker giggles in the pain of other paying more taxes for his stupidity, then he has nothing coming but trouble. [/quote]

That is called “biting at the hand that feeds you.”

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

1.) The rich got the overwhelming majority of the tax cuts.[/quote]

Such as?

Please explain the progressive tax system in your answer.

Without google, can you even name 3 additional changes to the IRC other than qualified dividends and long term capital gains that came about in the Bush era?

I don’t believe anything is this simple, and for someone with your views you swallow up enough propoganda and bullshit “reporting” as anyone you call out for doing so.

The fact is, no one is getting to that level of office without selling out. Selling out to corporate interests and the interests of fellow life long “statesmen”. Just to get your name on the funding list you owe more favors than you can re-pay. By the time you collect enough money to spend on a primary commercial, enough party people have you in their pockets where your ideas aren’t your won anymore.

He is all about money and power, calling him a “corporate owned dummy” is a lazy thinking waste of bandwith. Obama is anything but a dummy, anything.

Such as? If your talking about them, how about some details?

While the rhetoric around this idea is often abused by both sides, it is true. No, every start up isn’t born in the mind of a rich person, but the funding comes from, get this, people with money…

We live in a complex society with many moving parts. Rich people play an important role in the life style you are accustomed to. Get over it.

Lazy rhetoric at its best. Ignoring basic economics at its worst.

[quote]The government can and does create jobs along with other things. The internet was conceived and incubated in the dynamic public sector. Not the private sector!

[/quote]

no, the government didn’t create a single job involving the internet in the private sector. It released a technology into the private sector and the private sector created jobs to use the technology.

Que “semantics” post from pitt.[/quote]

Actually, “government” didn’t create the technology either, it just displaced workers who would otherwise be working on the technology to fill the same demands only it hired them at a loss(without generating a profit).[/quote]

The “free market” could never have spent the time and money to create the internet. It was incubated by the dynamic public sector. Investor capital would never have waited that long…

[quote]Xav wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

No big business monopolies is the disease and both parties are owned by them and that is the disease.
[/quote]

There are laws that prevent businesses from becoming monopolies. That’s the point of businesses: competition to have a high productivity and a good quality / price ratio. Maybe a business monopoly might exist, but it’s the exception…

The vast majority, if not all, of the monopolies that exist in the world are government-run leading to inefficiency due to the lack of competition. Competing with the government is impossible.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I really do not understand how you can speak of “corporate media”. The vast majority of the media has a huge left wing bias…
[/quote]

Try the finance sector, big pharma just to name a few. Well entrenched monopolies. They exist and have an unfair advantage over everyone else and do a net harm to the population of the U.S.

The corporate media exists. I think there are only 6 major companies that own over 80% of the news outlets. They are there to further their own agenda which is often at odds with the public. They continually tell you things they want you to hear. The news is filtered to represent a narrow point of view for the elites. The NY Times is often referred to as liberal. But they led the drumbeat for the immoral Iraqi war. When you know that GE is a major defense contractor who makes billions off war and that they own the NY Times is it any wonder? So no the corporate media is not liberal it is biased to those who own it. And who are they?
[/quote]

Incorrect. There are multiple “big pharma” companies that compete, hence it’s not a monopoly. If a corporate monopoly exists it’s usually due to government subsidies.
What do you mean by “unfair advantage”? Financially speaking?
Are you seriously saying that the companies that produce medicine to help people heal do net harm to a population? I find this an extremely bizarre opinion, do you mind explaining this?

Corporate media. Once again, 6 outlets is no monopoly. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the media has an agenda and a narrow point of view and is biased to those who own it, but this bias is usually left wing. Most of the media isn’t objective at all. However, claiming they say what the elite (I suppose this means right wing rich people) wants to hear is weird. The vast majority of the media is quite left wing, during the U.S. elections I have not heard a single criticism of Obama, while Romney was portrayed as the reincarnation of the devil himself. In the end, I don’t mind about this, it’s freedom of speech after all. It just saddens me we have no strong right wing media outlets. I find it interesting though that since the NY times have 1 point of view that doesn’t stroke with your liberal views they must be part of the big bad corporate monopoly. What happened to reading other views and opinions to challenge your own views? Your last paragraph is a beautiful illustration of how the left wing believes its opinions are the only correct ones and do not accept any criticism / challenging and honest discussion of different views.

VTBalla said: On a side note, you have no idea how happy it makes me that your higher taxes go to my salary…LOLOLO so awesome.

Spoken like a true socialist. Entitlement to other people’s money while being way less productive than the people you insult.
By the way since you seem to think Maximus’ spelling and use of coma’s is relevant to this discussion, I’ll return the favor. What does LOLOLO mean? Laughing out loud out loud out? English isn’t my mother tongue tongue, but that sentence doesn’t seem to make any sense.[/quote]

Believing that since 6 companies own most of the media therefore proves that it is not a monopoly is like believing you are not under control by the law of a king since an oligarchy exists. Seriously,it is in effect the same thing.

The vast majority of the media is not left-wing biased. It is profit biased! They want you to believe that there is a left-wing biased and you do. So their propaganda model works well.

In regards to big pharma there are only a handful that make the majority of the drugs so like the media conglomerates they operate like an oligarchy. We have a healthcare system here that places profits above health. Fundamentally wrong in my opinion. Health should be the first concern. In the U.S. you cannot get fat derived stem cell therapy because Big Pharma can’t put a patent on your stem cells and they own the FDA. So they purposely keep off the market a treatment that works far better than the inferior pharmaceuticals because it is an economic threat to them. They don’t give a shit about the health of people only making them customers. They should be behind bars for the misery they have a hand in creating.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The “free market” could never have spent the time and money to create the internet. It was incubated by the dynamic public sector. Investor capital would never have waited that long…
[/quote]

“Dynamic” and “public sector” are two words that should never go together.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I should have used the word puppet which is much more accurate. [/quote]

Eh, I wouldn’t use puppet before “sell-out” but it isn’t really all that different I guess.

No not really. I can see more than a narrow view of a complex topic. You don’t seem to care to.

Purchasing power doesn’t automatically translate into demand first off. Secondly, you don’t automatically need a super elastic PP in order for demand to generate for a good or service. Third, investments that are purely following demand that is already created shouldn’t make up 100% of your portfolio. One should consider investing in emerging markets or infant stage ideas as well. Yes they have more risk, but the rewards of one hit can dwarf the losses of a half dozen misses or more.

Many things lead to the contraction of an economy. To single out demand like it is the sole factor, or even the most important factor is either you being lazy, or to borrow your favorite attempt at an insult: you being married to an ideology.

what happens when taxes are raised? contraction False as a blanket statement.
What happens when people save more than spend? contraction Just like the rich who sit on their money?
What happens when many large companies change operating activities to repair their balance sheets? contraction
What happens… You know what, forget it.

Serious? You blame Europe’s problems on austerity? Is that your contention?

I guess our ideas of what “very good” means are two different things.

Aside from the fact you are ignoring earlier comments and questions about taxes, we’ll assume for the sake of arguement you won’t ignore these as well.

An estate tax shouldn’t exist at all, as it is double taxation. So maybe not so good.

Much of the “bush-era” changes to the IRC greatly benefit non-rich people as well. Also you like to ignore the many not-so-good changes that were passed Tuesday/Wednesday.

With this little detail your post is false, because it is only partially true.

Your rate is 100% incorrect here. You’re forgetting the rest of the Obama-era tax increases.

…But you’re okay with “rich” people paying more in taxes? So you’re cool with discrimination then, or is the tax code not progressive enough for you?

So people with LTCG and people make more than 200/250k in a year don’t generate demand? Heirs of estates over 5mil don’t generate demand?

What does this relate to?[/quote]

When taxes are raised on the middle class and poor then economy contracts. When raised on the rich and corporations the economy grows and the deficit shrinks. I’m not saying that rich people don’t generate demand but they don’t do a sufficient job of it. Does a CEO who makes 300 times the amount of an average worker buy 300 times the amount of any good or service? Do they buy 300 cars?

Are the rich discriminating against the country when they use every loop hole in the tax code to pay less-as a percentage- than the average American?

The estate tax ought to exist. Why should the heirs sit back and do nothing? Their relative may have worked hard but they need to lace up their bootstraps and fend for themselves. This is believed by libertarians as well.

Zeppelin,

If you were mad rich, you would be doing the same thing, do you honestly think rich Liberals don’t look for loopholes ? Warren fucking Buffet owes over 1 Billion in back taxes, do I blame the guy, nope.

Hollywood got 2 HUGE tax breaks, one from Obama himself, and one from Governor Jerry Brown. So the next time you hear a Hollywood socialite talk about “tax the rich”, please feel free to throw a scalding hot soy-latte on them.

Spending the rich’s money for them does not have the same effect that it would if they spent it themselves. Tax the rich, start a new government program, and you automatically start accumulating debt. I have yet to see one government program, that is not a monumental clusterfuck, that is wildly underfunded, plagued with fraud, and filled with workers who then collect insane pensions.

Arnold expanded government in Cali by 40%, and took our state deficit up to $60 Billion. He passed the largest tax increase in US history, and brought it down to within the teens (in billions).

The government cannot help itself but spend recklessly, they do not pay off debt, they just add spending to make more future debt. This has been proven time and time again.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

When taxes are raised on the middle class and poor then economy contracts. When raised on the rich and corporations the economy grows and the deficit shrinks. [/quote]

Then we can stop all this needless debate. Obama just raised taxes on the job creators by about 5% let’s just sit back wait say one year and see if you’re correct.

What you say is true. But what about small business which most are “S” and “LLC” corporations. Their income is taxes as if it were personal income. And keep in mind that about 65% of all new hires are from small business. The tax hike is going to hurt them and in turn hurt the economy. Let’s check back a year from today and see who is correct.

Yeah, good point why should the people who earned their money have the right to give it to whomever they want upon passing. What a crazy thought!

LOL…Socialism is very near my friends.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Zeppelin,

If you were mad rich, you would be doing the same thing, do you honestly think rich Liberals don’t look for loopholes ? Warren fucking Buffet owes over 1 Billion in back taxes, do I blame the guy, nope.

Hollywood got 2 HUGE tax breaks, one from Obama himself, and one from Governor Jerry Brown. So the next time you hear a Hollywood socialite talk about “tax the rich”, please feel free to throw a scalding hot soy-latte on them.

Spending the rich’s money for them does not have the same effect that it would if they spent it themselves. Tax the rich, start a new government program, and you automatically start accumulating debt. I have yet to see one government program, that is not a monumental clusterfuck, that is wildly underfunded, plagued with fraud, and filled with workers who then collect insane pensions.

Arnold expanded government in Cali by 40%, and took our state deficit up to $60 Billion. He passed the largest tax increase in US history, and brought it down to within the teens (in billions).

The government cannot help itself but spend recklessly, they do not pay off debt, they just add spending to make more future debt. This has been proven time and time again.
[/quote]

Clinton raised taxes and lowered the debt. So what the hell are you talking about?

Start a government program and employ people who can’t find a decent paying job in the private sector because of low demand and you create a wider tax base. More people working = more people paying taxes.

Medicare, Social Security are both successful programs.

Warren Buffett owes 1BB? Really? Why is he one of the ultra-rich who believes taxes should be raised?

All loopholes should be closed!