If there's a fourth option I've left out, let me know.

Assuming you know what you are talking about, I get the sense you don't think the $4.5T or so the income tax owes the payroll tax ought to be considered on a par with the debt held by China and others. It's just internal accounting. To use your household analogy, it's like money you owe your wife.

Personally I disagree (and so does Moody's, S&P, many moderates, etc...).

>> ^heropsycho:

That's what I love about being a moderate. I must either don't know what I'm talking about, believe Social Security is an evil wealth redistribution program, or I'm looking to sell out the interests of the middle class.
Now I just need QM to come in and attack me for being too liberal, and we have our current political landscape in a nutshell.
>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftp
docs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf
See 1998-2001.


Again, that only shows the debt held by the public which does not include the US bonds held by the US government. That is, the money the government owes to itself. That is, the money the general fund owes the social security trust. That's the accounting trick he used. It isn't borrowing from the public if we just raid the interest we promised to pay on their socialized retirement program, because that's just the government borrowing from itself right? No it isn't.
That leaves me to wonder if I have to explain what the payroll tax is? For example, how it is substantively different than the income tax, and why said difference have been politically important for a long time? It seems to me there are three possibilities. One is that you don't. In which case we should explain them to you forthwith. Two is that you believe social security to be an evil redistributive program, and thus you are using duplicitous means to obfuscate the issue. In which case good day sir. Three is that you do ideologically support social security, or at least government programs in general, and just see some deeper reason as to why selling out the interest on the middle class's savings for political points will pay off in the long term. In which case you should educate me.

Could've done without the editing, but a great moody visual overall. And to see that fast frigate go half airborne at 3:00+ , wow.

why are people talking about not getting rid of dark mode... if light is the only option... i'll be here less!! i'm here for the moody ambience you know

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*promote


thnx for the promote man!
you and otteropo really gave that song a good push.
renholder makes some great moody remixs.i have a bunch in my keenan maynard james playlist.

"Luckily Firaxis has come to save the day."

We'll see. As I mentioned on BN, every developer who has made an X-Com game since TFTD have claimed to be "huge fans of the original", and they've all failed to capture what made EU and TFTD so good, or just outright sucked.

X-Com with updated graphics. That's all we want. Don't add a RTS component. Don't change the camera perspective. Don't change the genre. Don't need a multiplayer or online component. Don't add new "features" that change the gameplay and feel of the game. X-com with updated graphics. That's it. Turn-based, research tree, base building, fog of war, line-of-sight, destructable environment, a classic 50's sci-fi Forbidden Planet/This Island Earth vibe, and ominous, moody music. Why is that so hard?

"Has been to hell and back"...

... I have a huge problem with the way he's portrayed in this video. It glamorizes the perceived value of having put his life in the toilet for years. Let's remember that this guy was an idiot who took drugs to the point of it ruining his life, and his daughters life - and still didn't quit after his wife died from the very drugs he was taking. These actions don't give him a ticket to sagedom. Among his tattoos he should have one that states - "I am capable of making the worst possible decisions and taking actions that could have led to my death, and made an orphan of my daughter". So where's the moody, weighty video for the guy who tried drugs a few times and decided to stay away from them because they were a bad thing in his life? I'd hold that guy in a lot higher esteem than this idiot.

The moment that he "put his life in gods hands" and took a massive hit of drugs could also have been the moment of his death. His fleeting faith in the possibility of a deity acting as a safety net in his life could have led directly to his death.

To me that is negative.


>> ^Sagemind:

This guy has been to hell and back.
He has reached up and grabbed on to religion and used it to empower himself and find redemption.
He used faith to inspire positivity and truth in his life.
I know people want to shout him down for believing in a God, but how could anyone ever deny him that which saved his life and likely his daughter's life as well?
I know there is a lot of negativity about religion on the Sift but those at the end of their rope can turn around and use religion by embracing it to find grace.
In my mind, this is where faith redeems itself for me. It's that one intangible thing that a person can latch on to when there is nothing else.
On the negative side, Yes, there are always people embraced in religion that seek to exploit people at this stage and all the crap that goes with that. But when you hit the lowest low and you want out of the muck that has become your everyday, sometimes "faith in an idea" can be more powerful than even the chemicals that are used by the scum of the earth (dealers & pushers) to enslave people.
To me that is positive.

>> ^conan:

besides the homophobic backgroud: what happened in schools that suddenly beatings are so brutal? there has always been fighting in schools and there always will be i suppose but back in my days it was just a simple hit and not even to the face or anything. a simple bruise at most. but nowadays? kids act like loonatics, going full assault on each other. beatings to the head, kicking, continuing even if their victim lies on the ground... i just can't get my head around it how violent youth has become.


Super violent outbursts are exceptional. Remember these kids are pounced on for showing any masculinity at all in school - sometimes they snap but usually not. Schools are run by soccer moms now and they're trying to androgynize all the boys completely. I was shocked to hear from my nephews than in their school the girls get in more fights than the boys. Most the boys I see now are 'edgy' Bieber haircut guitar playing moody half women.

I kinda realized what you were up to, so I thought I join.
Hopefully he won't use his new powers for evil...

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Silver's not far off :

Thanks for the other link. Between you, me and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/KnivesOut" title="member since November 8th, 2006" class="profilelink">KnivesOut we got Mr. Fade his silver star.

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
Nop, thanks for this find, I love these moody videos where incredible skill is involved.
You just wait until I wear my silver, opo. :

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Did you see this skating one?

http://videosift.com/video/Kilian-Martin-A-Skate-Illustration

Silver's not far off

Thanks for the other link. Between you, me and @KnivesOut we got Mr. Fade his silver star.

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
Nop, thanks for this find, I love these moody videos where incredible skill is involved.
You just wait until I wear my silver, opo.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Did you see this skating one?

http://videosift.com/video/Kilian-Martin-A-Skate-Illustration

Nop, thanks for this find, I love these moody videos where incredible skill is involved.
You just wait until I wear my silver, opo.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Did you see this skating one?

http://videosift.com/video/Kilian-Martin-A-Skate-Illustration

Are you ever going to address the fact that the Great Depression was ended by massive record deficits, followed by taxing the richest by over 90%?

Your entire argument is deficits never work, and raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy. I just gave you an irrefutable example of that being dead wrong, and you go into FDR's New Deal. Dude, I'm not debating the New Deal with you.

Prove that the US economy got out of the Great Depression without massive deficits (regardless if it was New Deal spending or WWII spending, it's irrelevant), followed by massively taxing the rich over 90% in the 1950s, during which the US economy was extremely prosperous.

That's the thing, dude. You can try to dodge this all you want. I'm not letting you try to move to discussing the New Deal, or Social Security, or how apparently communist George W. Bush (SERIOUSLY?!?!? WTFBBQ?!?!?!?) is.

This example in US history proves your rigid, ideological economic philosophy is dead wrong. You can't argue honestly that deficits are always bad, and massive gov't spending is always bad, and the US gov't can't help aid in turning around the economy. It most certainly can. It indisputably did. There's no "some fact" to this. It absolutely is historical fact.

That's the thing. Once you admit that yes, deficits can and do help end recessions, and taxing the rich more heavily can be good for the economy, we might be able to actually have an honest, adult conversation about how to help the economy. Until that, you're just spewing idiotic and/or intentional misinformation.

And then you just completely glossed over the entire reason why the gov't is almost always the one who HAS to spark the economic turnaround. We NEED the gov't to stimulate the economy, just as we need the gov't to put the brakes on when the economy grows too quickly, which is when those deficits can get paid for incidentally.

Are you just gonna sit there and call everyone other than the Tea Party communists, or are you actually going to address any of this?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise?

And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.
But why doth "the poor," who siphon the "free" money, have no civic responsibility at all? Shouldn't they be paying something into the system? Or maybe "dependency voters" are needed by a certain political party?

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.
The rich already DO pay more. It will do NO GOOD to shakedown the rich for ever more $$$. The problem with tax addicts is they can never get enough. It's too easy to spend money. Destroy the incentive to invest and/or create (or deny there is incentive at all) and you get stagnation. GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING.
Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.
But what about now, when our cherished federal mafia creates INstability? No sane businessperson will hire now with the Hawaiian Dunce in office. I've heard this claptrap about government spending as savior before.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked.
But it's not working now, is it. OOPS! I agree that govt should not be run like a business. It should instead by treated like the dangerous raw force it is, because that's ALL it is.

We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic
record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.
This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.
There's some fact in there, but the cause and effect seems a little skewered.
FDR was a fascist, perhaps benevolent in his own mind, but a fascist in practice nonetheless, the sacred cow and Creator of the modern, unsustainable welfare state. He had no idea what he was doing and there is a growing body of work
suggesting his policies prolonged the Depression.

Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall.
This is all quite arguable. Yes, Bush the-liberal-with-a-few-conservative-tendencies ruined his legacy with scamulus spending, but nothing--NOTHING--close to 3 trillion in 3 years! Spending-wise, it's comparing a dragster to a regular hemi.

Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.
Do you wonder why you can so neatly explain things while the Democrats in DC, with their arses on the line, cannot? The failed scamulus has forced the DC dunces to change boasts like "jobs saved" to "lives touched". Apparently there's a lot more to this tale than the Donkey Version.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable.
They didn't have the votes.

The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for
that kind of claim whatsoever.
Compare taxocrats' dragster-speed spending of the last three years versus Repub spending during the 8 years before it. The argument of "But they do it too!" has some merit, but as the rise of the Tea Party has shown, business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.
Oh, and taxocrats, remember this: the Hawaiian Dunce considers anyone making over 250K to be millionaires and billionaires.

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise?

And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.

But why doth "the poor," who siphon the "free" money, have no civic responsibility at all? Shouldn't they be paying something into the system? Or maybe "dependency voters" are needed by a certain political party?

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.

The rich already DO pay more. It will do NO GOOD to shakedown the rich for ever more $$$. The problem with tax addicts is they can never get enough. It's too easy to spend money. Destroy the incentive to invest and/or create (or deny there is incentive at all) and you get stagnation. GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING.

Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.

But what about now, when our cherished federal mafia creates INstability? No sane businessperson will hire now with the Hawaiian Dunce in office. I've heard this claptrap about government spending as savior before.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked.
But it's not working now, is it. OOPS! I agree that govt should not be run like a business. It should instead by treated like the dangerous raw force it is, because that's ALL it is.

We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic
record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.

This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.

There's some fact in there, but the cause and effect seems a little skewered.

FDR was a fascist, perhaps benevolent in his own mind, but a fascist in practice nonetheless, the sacred cow and Creator of the modern, unsustainable welfare state. He had no idea what he was doing and there is a growing body of work
suggesting his policies prolonged the Depression.


Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall.

This is all quite arguable. Yes, Bush the-liberal-with-a-few-conservative-tendencies ruined his legacy with scamulus spending, but nothing--NOTHING--close to 3 trillion in 3 years! Spending-wise, it's comparing a dragster to a regular hemi.

Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.

Do you wonder why you can so neatly explain things while the Democrats in DC, with their arses on the line, cannot? The failed scamulus has forced the DC dunces to change boasts like "jobs saved" to "lives touched". Apparently there's a lot more to this tale than the Donkey Version.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable.

They didn't have the votes.

The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for
that kind of claim whatsoever.

Compare taxocrats' dragster-speed spending of the last three years versus Repub spending during the 8 years before it. The argument of "But they do it too!" has some merit, but as the rise of the Tea Party has shown, business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.

Oh, and taxocrats, remember this: the Hawaiian Dunce considers anyone making over 250K to be millionaires and billionaires.

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80%. Why do you and qm keep claiming the choice is pure communism or capitalism, when there's a middle ground, one that is more capitalist than socialist? Why must the tax rates be 35% or less for everyone, or 80% on everyone, or just the rich?

That's not who you call "neolibs" are advocating. That's not what I am advocating.

It's a BS false choice between two polar opposites.

Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy.

IT'S NOT! Stop misrepresenting what is being suggested by sensible moderates.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Here you go Warren...
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Now you can freely donate as much of your money to the Federal Government as you please.
What's that? You haven't been doing it? In fact, you've been using every tax loophole, shelter, and economic trick in the book to AVOID paying taxes? naNIIIII?
Oh - that's right - you're a smart investor and you know giving money to the Feds is a terrible investment, just like Moody's, the S&P, and every other financial instutution on the planet is saying.
This isn't hard folks. Let's wave a magic wand. POOF! Every neolib fantasy has now come true. We've cut defense spending to only 4% of the budget like every other Euro nation. POOF! The federal government now confiscates 80% of all 'wealth' from every single company, corporation, financial institution, or person who has material goods or cash that exceeds $250,000. What exactly do you think is going to happen?
Any living being with a nervous system knows exactly what will happen. All that money will sluice like so much sewage into Washington, where it will completely dissappear. Poverty will not improve. Wealth disparity will not magically 'reallocate'. Health care will not suddenly become 'free'. Education will not improve. Hunger will not go away. The only thing that will have happened is that PEOPLE will have less freedom.
Buffett has no credibility because he's not doing what he's advocating. There's nothing stopping him from taking every penny he's got and giving it to the Feds. The fact that he hasn't done so proves only one thing... He knows enough to NOT sink his money into a terrible investment.

Here you go Warren...

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Now you can freely donate as much of your money to the Federal Government as you please.

What's that? You haven't been doing it? In fact, you've been using every tax loophole, shelter, and economic trick in the book to AVOID paying taxes? naNIIIII?

Oh - that's right - you're a smart investor and you know giving money to the Feds is a terrible investment, just like Moody's, the S&P, and every other financial instutution on the planet is saying.

This isn't hard folks. Let's wave a magic wand. POOF! Every neolib fantasy has now come true. We've cut defense spending to only 4% of the budget like every other Euro nation. POOF! The federal government now confiscates 80% of all 'wealth' from every single company, corporation, financial institution, or person who has material goods or cash that exceeds $250,000. What exactly do you think is going to happen?

Any living being with a nervous system knows exactly what will happen. All that money will sluice like so much sewage into Washington, where it will completely dissappear. Poverty will not improve. Wealth disparity will not magically 'reallocate'. Health care will not suddenly become 'free'. Education will not improve. Hunger will not go away. The only thing that will have happened is that PEOPLE will have less freedom.

Buffett has no credibility because he's not doing what he's advocating. There's nothing stopping him from taking every penny he's got and giving it to the Feds. The fact that he hasn't done so proves only one thing... He knows enough to NOT sink his money into a terrible investment.

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise. And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.

Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.

Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked. We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.

This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.

Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall. Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable. The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for that kind of claim whatsoever.

>> ^quantumushroom:

this is what we've been trying to tell you QM, the system doesn't work when only a few contribute...the system works when ALL contribute based on what they can afford.
I totally agree, so why does the bottom 50% of Americans pay NO income tax? The wealthy already pay a disproportionately high percentage of all taxes and I have yet to find a liberalsifter who admits this.
I well understand that Scrooge McDuck won't miss a few more shovelfuls of gold coins swiped by federal bulldozers, but lets review reality:
1) The "extra" money attained by "soaking" Scrooge and Rich Uncle Pennybags (from the Monopoly game) will be pi$$ed away, like the 60 billion dollars EVERY YEAR lost to fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid/Medicare. The federal mafia is composed of sh1tty stewards of our money.
2) The Hawaiian Dunce has spent 3 trillion in 3 years with little or nothing to show for it. So what magical number of dollars is going to make everything all right? A quadrillion?
3) When the socialists raise taxes, the wealthy of 2011 have their accountant press a few buttons on their computating machines, sending their $$$ overseas, invested in more stable markets. Apparently many already have, probably the moment they knew Obama was elected.
4) Liberal say, "Rich man not know difference he still rich." But there's now less money to invest and less money to create jobs. Now some liberalsifter will say, "This graph indicates that the rich don't create jobs with their ill-gotten gains."
BUT, if you're honest with yourselves, you'll know that one million dollars has a much better chance of creating jobs in the hands of entrepreneurs and investors than the government "Department of Creating Jobs" which probably spends that much just on office furniture.
5) The debt limit 'debate' is total BS, always has been. Here is what happened: taxocrats burned through tax money at an alarming rate and there weren't enough elected Republicans to stop them. THAT'S why Moody's got scared and US was downgraded. Republicans can't communicate for sh1t anyway, and so the socialists and their media lapdogs managed to blame the right for this mess.
6) Warren Buffoon likes to be liked, I get that, but he should still STFU and make a real gesture. Giving a symbolic billion dollars to the federal mafia should do it. He won't miss it.