The Siftocalypse managed to occur at a time I was pondering whether I wanted to stay on the sift or not, so I took it as an opportunity for a break.

Videosift being the place it is, I obviously couldn't stay away. Although my presence is now much more paid back than it once was. I still have my T-Shirt from the server fundraiser.

@bobknight33

Jan. 21 2012, St. Charles Illinois; A gun owner with a concealed carry permit accidentally shoots a man through the chest after a night fundraiser at St. Patrick Catholic Church.

May 24 2011, Orlando Florida; A concealed weapon accidentally discharges in the lobby of a restaurant injuring 4 people injured, including a 4 year old boy and the gun owner. The owner had a concealed weapon permit.

November 9, 2012; Colorado University - a woman accidentally shoots a co-worker on the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical campus. The woman, who has a concealed carry permit, told police she bought the gun because of neighborhood concerns and recent campus thefts.

July 7 2009, Tampa Florida; While squatting down to use the toilet, the handgun of a woman with a concealed weapon permit falls out of her holster, hits the ground and discharges, shooting the woman sitting in the next stall.

January 24 2012, Dallas Texas; A 23 year old with a concealed carry permit accidentally drops his weapon while in line at a Walmart, injuring himself and 3 others, including 2 young children, when the weapon discharges.

We can do this all day. That's 1 google search and a few minutes of copy pasta.

My first impression is that this is a scam, but I think a scam would have a better creative team.

Here's a tip: Don't feature a mess of people who can't manage money in your fundraising campaign.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 9 Badge!

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.


Are you arguing that the government should issue you an itemized bill for all the services you used? because that would be a logistical nightmare and would cost even more taxpayer dollars.

Taxes aren't perfect, they never will be, unless you want to strictly regulate who gets paid what and introduce some sort of tracking system for who uses what gov't service. Besides, a lot of these services benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. As a non-business owning citizen, I may not require an interstate system and a well maintained set of roads to ship my products on. But it benefits me all the same. I get to use it for recreation and traveling, and I use it to travel to my job.

Quite frankly, I did answer your question, but now it seems you're changing your question.

Strictly speaking, I would agree that every citizen should be taxed, even the poor who would normally be exempt, Every little bit helps, but I think what happens is that the government looks at the cost of what it takes to enforce that 47 percent to pay their tax vs what they actually give in return because they're so poor and it probably just isn't cost effective. That's my guess anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the poor aren't jumping up and down and saying "nyah nyah, I don't have to pay taxes and you do" They have other problems...like the fact that they're poor.

It's another situation where the solution is worse than the problem. One argument I hear from my conservative friends is that they want drug testing for welfare recipients. Sounds great right? all things being equal It's an argument that I might even support. But the reality is, drug tests aren't cheap. They cost a fuckton of money. Compare that to the money actually lost and in the end, it just costs us even more money just so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see! our money isn't going to make people high. Oh wait, why are my taxes higher?

Closing corporate loopholes is one of the few things I've heard both the left and right agree upon. Problem is, it won't happen because behind each and every one of those loopholes is a business who benefits from it and some of those businesses lean left, and some of those businesses lean right and NEITHER want their particular loopholes closed. That's why you'll always see people say they're for it, but are never specific on which ones.

Gov't isn't perfect, but if you've got a problem with it. vote. or else leave, or just STFU

We treat the office of the president as if one person can solve our problems..they can't. The two party system is a failure and only divides our country.

>> ^Sagemind:

Joffrey!!! ROFL


I know hahahaha, I nearly mentioned that in the description, but I trust people will get to the end all by themselves

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.


You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.

But do you not think the benefit of the government's services to a person is in proportion to their income?


If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.

And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.

If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

>> ^VoodooV:
progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.


But do you not think the benefit of the government's services to a person is in proportion to their income?

>> ^PalmliX:
Obamaism? wtf does that even mean?

It's a label. They save talkers from having to define what they're saying, and listeners from having to think about what they're hearing.

It's one technique in the artistry of bullshit.



QM uses them a lot.

I agree, every one should pay a flat tax.

Corporations should also pay a flat tax.

>> ^KnivesOut:

"The greatest enslavement is government welfare."
By your logic 55% of corporations are enslaved to the government because they got hand-outs from the government (i.e. while all the other good corporate citizens were paying taxes, they did not.) We should free these poor, enslaved corporations by forcing them to pay their fair share of the corporate tax burden.
>> ^bobknight33:
I think the same way and I'm not rich, never been rich, and will never bee rich. But Mitt is right. There are too many people that will take advantage of the system and and become freeloaders, voting for who ever keeps the money flowing to their pockets.
The greatest enslavement is government warfare. The greatest freedom is self reliance.
>> ^Januari:
What can you really say about this guy... Romney is as he is... He's known nothing but extreme wealth his entire life... and in these private moments you really do see what he thinks of... well just about HALF the entire country who wasn't...
Amazing that a guy whos lived his entire life as a defendant can say that about tens of millions of extremely hard working people without pause.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take it away, Rush:
"A lot of people have been saying this kind of thing. It's been one of the raging debates about where we are as a country, and have we lost the country. That's what this is all about. So went back, I went back to the news archives. And look what I have here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. This is USA Today, April 26th, 2011. Headline: "Americans Depend More on Federal Aid Than Ever." It's not Romney saying it. Ha-ha. It's USA Today, shazam. It's the Drive-By Media saying it.
"Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history." Exactly right. It's why Obama has to be stopped. It's not what this country is, as Obama said his convention, "It's not who we are." This is not who we are. Forty-seven percent of this country's population is helplessly dependent on the government because of policies created by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party year after year after year. Why are they dependent? Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are slackers. Nobody's saying that all 47% of 'em are losers. A lot of them are victims of Obamaism, of the Democrat Party. They're victims of liberalism. They're victims of an economy that does not grow. They're victims of an economy that shrinks. They are victims of an economy where there are fewer jobs and where there's less income to be earned. They are victims of failed Democrat Party policy after policy after policy."


Look I'm not fan of either party, in fact I hate politics in general... but this one-sided rhetoric doesn't help anyone... The headline reads that in 2010 Americans depended more on government assistance than ever", then it gets subtlety tweaked into "47% of the country is helplessly dependent on the government" Really?? 47% helplessly dependent??! Nice little shift there... And Obamaism? wtf does that even mean? So they really believe that before Obama took office everything was great then one year later it had all turned to shit?

Again, I don't care for Obama or any politician's for that matter, but do you not see how this kind of divisive rhetoric will only drive people further apart then they already are? What's the endgame, a civil war between the 'right' and the 'left'? I just don't get what people like Rush actually want other than the total annihilation of the left. Isn't democracy supposed to be about working together (even with opposing views) for the good of the people? Or am I wrong about that?

>> ^criticalthud:

ahahahahhahaha good gracious what a moron. what an insipid fool. holy shit that's such funny shit.
his handlers must be doing backflips
and yeah, roughly 47% of the population doesn't pay taxes... and the over 65 crowd and the under 18 crowd make up about 40% of that.


Then there's folks in the 35-50+ age range who stopped giving a fuck about federal income taxes because they make most of their $$ off any books, the government is full of crooks, and should they come for property or possessions....They'll get DICK!

....The environs may not shine as pastoral as Walden, but the food and company is great-

And how is that an authoritative source? It's from a stupid blog...an obviously very biased blog.

none of which even touches my argument about diversity.

>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.