>> ^quantumushroom:

Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.


Citation needed, motherfucker.

>> ^bareboards2:

Yep. Silly. Simplistic, myopic, intentionally misguided, unable to detect nuance, silly silly SILLY man.


The pot dares to call the kettle black? You're hilarious.

Yep. Silly. Simplistic, myopic, intentionally misguided, unable to detect nuance, silly silly SILLY man.


>> ^marbles:

>> ^bareboards2:
You are a silly silly SILLY man. I was in the middle of writing exactly why you are a silly silly SILLY man and unfortunately lost the whole thing.
I don't have the energy to start over. But I do want to repeat the main argument -- I know that it is a waste of time to show you exactly how you are a silly silly SILLY man, uninformed, misguided, and trapped by some weird anti-tax obsession that beggars all logic of what it means to live in a wealthy society that provides services and protection for its people.
Silly silly SILLY man. That is my main point.
PS: I do taxes for a living. I have done more than one tax return for "middle class" folks who had up to $70,000 in taxable income who paid ZERO TAX. I am perfectly fine with those folks paying more taxes. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Shouldn't you be mocking those exercising their first amendment rights?
http://videosift.com/video/Jefferson-Memorial-Dancing-on-June-4-2011 silly silly SILLY woman.
Oh, so you admit that the "tax the rich" plan has no intent on actually taxing the rich? Nice.

>> ^bareboards2:

You are a silly silly SILLY man. I was in the middle of writing exactly why you are a silly silly SILLY man and unfortunately lost the whole thing.
I don't have the energy to start over. But I do want to repeat the main argument -- I know that it is a waste of time to show you exactly how you are a silly silly SILLY man, uninformed, misguided, and trapped by some weird anti-tax obsession that beggars all logic of what it means to live in a wealthy society that provides services and protection for its people.
Silly silly SILLY man. That is my main point.
PS: I do taxes for a living. I have done more than one tax return for "middle class" folks who had up to $70,000 in taxable income who paid ZERO TAX. I am perfectly fine with those folks paying more taxes. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Shouldn't you be mocking those exercising their first amendment rights?

http://videosift.com/video/Jefferson-Memorial-Dancing-on-June-4-2011
silly silly SILLY woman.

Oh, so you admit that the "tax the rich" plan has no intent on actually taxing the rich? Nice.

You are a silly silly SILLY man. I was in the middle of writing exactly why you are a silly silly SILLY man and unfortunately lost the whole thing.

I don't have the energy to start over. But I do want to repeat the main argument -- I know that it is a waste of time to show you exactly how you are a silly silly SILLY man, uninformed, misguided, and trapped by some weird anti-tax obsession that beggars all logic of what it means to live in a wealthy society that provides services and protection for its people.

Silly silly SILLY man. That is my main point.

PS: I do taxes for a living. I have done more than one tax return for "middle class" folks who had up to $70,000 in taxable income who paid ZERO TAX. I am perfectly fine with those folks paying more taxes. Doesn't bother me a bit.



>> ^marbles:

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration, that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

Thanks for the promote. big guy. Appreciate it.

In reply to this comment by lurgee:
*promote this stuffs dammit!

Thanks for the quality. Yeah. This thing knocked my socks off.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*quality *talk. The US (and the rest of the "western" world as well) is moving dangerously away from democracy and straight for plutocracy.

Two years ago. I wonder what they are saying now.


>> ^quantumushroom:

January 22, 2010
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"

>> ^Spacedog79:

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.
The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.
>> ^sigmel:
>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).



To be fair, I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted; I was just trying to explain as I understood it. You get the money for government spending by creating more money. Our interest rates on our bonds are very low right now, so there is no immediate inflation concern. This would have the effect of devaluing our money, but that could help us in terms of making our exports more competitive. If you borrow to create growth, then you should be creating enough in order to cover the initial cost and interest in due time.

Considering that we have such high unemployment, then I feel that using growth to get us out of this is very valid. If unemployment were a lot lower, then obviously we wouldn't have much in the way of ability to grow. But considering we need employment and increased tax revenue, I think creating jobs would be a good move to solve both problems. I also think it is possible to do this in a way that isn't detrimental in an environmental or social way.

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.

The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.

>> ^sigmel:

>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

Robert Reich has a little experience... "He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997." I usually agree with his ideas and I especially think the idea of trickle-down economics to be a load of crap.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).
I could go on, but there's no point to it.


Looking at your census data, median household income in 1979 was $34,666 and in 1993 it was $33,660 (in the face of more women joining the workforce), which exactly matches what Reich said about wages dropping between 1980 and 1992. So thanks for providing proof that RR is correct with your holistic picture. BTW, your sentence "Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office" doesn't even make sense.

>> ^volumptuous:

"Neolibs will love this video because it speaks to them viscerally to thoth thwarteth of thine highest willfull, money" - Winstonfeld Pennypacker


So close! It's "Prog-Libs"

>> ^Spacedog79:

Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?


The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

My shameless plug for a sensible dupe policy that reflects the reality of the Sift as IT ACTUALLY WORKS.... An 8 minute wasn't watched. A 2 minute video was.

Unless cartoons are that much more compelling?



>> ^radx:

The more detailed version came around last month. </shameless>