Huh? Limbaugh isn't even a resident is he? You can't 'leave' somewhere when you aren't resident.

Regardless... It's pretty pathetic. NYC is driving away wealthy taxpayers with brutal tax rates and all the stupid plebs in Stewart's audience of robots are cheering. Well - let's only hope that 4 or 5 thousand more rich guys leave the city. In a year the city will be like a demilatarized zone, and these dumb people will begging to borrow the road map out of the city Limbaugh used.

Driving people away from your city with high taxes isn't very smart. If anything, they should be lowering taxes to attract more citizens and businesses. Oh well. Stupid people get what they vote for. They deserve it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Oh well. Stupid people get what they vote for. They deserve it.


And the past eight years has made that more painfully evident than you will ever realize.

Vote for stupid people and you get what you deserve. Bush was a knee-jerk reactor of little substance. Obama treats the economy like a social experiment. I didn't vote for either of them. It is a frustrating thing to be a helmsman on the Titanic frantically shouting about the huge iceberg of debt while Captain Obama tells the hoi polloi he has locked down below decks that everything is fine.

Grats NYC, I understand it's been tough, you deserve a break. Enjoy.

I hope he took his hose and nozzle with him.

This must be part of the plan to keep jihadists from turning NYC into NUKED York.

Liberal policy termites chew a house into a woodpile not worth burning.

Either Winstonfeld and QM are millionaires, or they're doing precisely what their ownership-class-daddies want them to do; vote against their own interests.

To think that there's all that many people in NYC who make over $500k/yr, and who wouldn't mind paying a slightly higher tax rate, is either stupid or.. .no it's stupid.

Remember, NYC is that liberal hell-hole that WP/QM and your dittohead friends hate so much, so who gives one shit whether the last of the zillionaire crybaby dickfaces like Limbaugh just GTFO already?


GO GALT. PLEASE. We are begging you to follow your Randian overlords, and just go fucking Galt or join the awesome tea-party movment.



Winstonfeld:
" In a year the city will be like a demilatarized zone,"


Or, it will return to the awesome city it once was, all due to beatniks, artists, hippies, hiphop-ers and other aesthetic entrepreneurs, and the Brooks-Brothers douchebags can find somewhere else to ruin.

Taxes are taxes and are necessary to run a legitimate, law-abiding, reasonably-sized government (if there ever existed one).

That said, beyond agreeable, reasonable standards of taxation, no person has a moral right to take another person's money by force, and electing a politijerk who will take that money by force in your name or on behalf of "the poor" is just as guilty as a common thief.

There's no moral basis for telling a person with $50 that s/he must give $10 to the government in taxes, and then telling a person with $100 that because they have a greater amount of money, they must therefore pay $60 in taxes and be equal to the "$40 neighbor".

Why do liberals have such a hard time with the concept of letting people keep more of what they earn? Letting the poor keep more of their meager paychecks seems, to me, to be the most efficient way of getting money to the people that need it most.

Giving money pell-mell to government (or making your wealthier neighbors give their money to it in your name) doesn't necessarily suit your own interests. Do liberals understand that government has interests of its own? Like any organism, it wants to survive and grow larger and it doesn't care how.

I'm tired of liberals strutting around, making excuses why this time their policies failed (racism/evil corporations/outsourcing/Bob Saget) and why next time they won't, if only we take MOAR from those evil rich people!

Like the companies that should've been "allowed" to fail, liberal-run cities (and states) should get NO bailouts to keep their failed experiments going.

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by aspartam.

hey ^volumptuous
for what it's worth, you did say one thing that i would upvote there.

> GO GALT. PLEASE.

i am a libertarian, and offer the acolytes of rand the very same advice.

unfortunately i continue to see assumptions that her work is integral to libertarians.
no. rand's conceit is suggested right in the title, and evident by the close of the book.

if mythical atlas shrugged, the world did indeed move.
but if a human shrugs? the world shrugs back at you, and carries on as it should.

for every successful ceo, author, radio personality, comic, artist, programmer, or sifter, there's a long line of other humans who would happily step in. equally-qualified and perhaps moreso.

by all means, go galt. go far. pack a telescope.
so that when you get there, you can peer back, and see us smiling and giving you the finger.

Wow cool. All they had to do was raise their taxes a bit to get Rush to leave?

Why stop there? Make that tax nation-wide, and maybe he'll leave the country altogether!

Oh, and QM,
"There's no moral basis for telling a person with $50 that s/he must give $10 to the government in taxes, and then telling a person with $100 that because they have a greater amount of money, they must therefore pay $60 in taxes and be equal to the "$40 neighbor"."

If you really think that's the situation, you need to pull your head out of your ass so you can hear better. Seriously.

>> ^quantumushroom:
That said, beyond agreeable, reasonable standards of taxation, no person has a moral right to take another person's money by force, and electing a politijerk who will take that money by force in your name or on behalf of "the poor" is just as guilty as a common thief.

QM you need to come down, the thin air up on that high horse is causing hypoxia and making you delusional.

What's agreeable to some isn't to everyone else, no government will ever make everyone happy.

For instance, I'd be content paying 50% of my earnings in taxes, assuming that in return everyone received quality healthcare, a university education, realistic mass transit, etc..

You, on the other hand, wouldn't be happy if you were assessed 10¢ for every 1000$ you earned, and it went to anything but killing innocent brown people in third world companies.

QM I agree completely... when you manipulate and otherwise completely invent the situation you reference it does sound unfair... Damn the Man!

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no moral basis for telling a person with $50 that s/he must give $10 to the government in taxes, and then telling a person with $100 that because they have a greater amount of money, they must therefore pay $60 in taxes and be equal to the "$40 neighbor".
Why do liberals have such a hard time with the concept of letting people keep more of what they earn? Letting the poor keep more of their meager paychecks seems, to me, to be the most efficient way of getting money to the people that need it most.


QM, I'm not trying to break balls here or anything but please, take another look at these two paragraghs.

Really, really look and see if you can't find the glaring inconsistency.

I never understood why the rich and upper middleclass cannot accept the necessity of income tax. The more you make, the more you pay as part of a social contract between you and the country you prosper within that also allows you the opportunity to make higher income off the gross exploitation of labor.

IMO, 31 percent more income tax for the upper crust isn't sufficient. I disagree with our current capitalist system, and I think 100% of their money should be equally divided amongst all. Maybe the lower working class could take a higher percentage this time?

>> ^keitholbermann:
I never understood why the rich and upper middleclass cannot accept the necessity of income tax. The more you make, the more you pay as part of a social contract between you and the country you prosper within that also allows you the opportunity to make higher income off the gross exploitation of labor.
IMO, 31 percent more income tax for the upper crust isn't sufficient. I disagree with our current capitalist system, and I think 100% of their money should be equally divided amongst all. Maybe the lower working class could take a higher percentage this time?


When all good arguments fail, create a new user and troll the response threads?

^ ^ a BillO account attempt, but this time a TV personality's mannerisms are twisted to appear asinine, instead of simply represented and incidentally asinine?

This money business is disgustingly simply and excruciatingly complicated...

...and more then a little shameful, and is a result of poor quality means of education in the world overall.

Obama is making the right investments to CHANGE our course of direction. The benefits come after the change, not with, or before, like the GOP paradigm desires.

Fuck you Rush, you fat pill-popping ugly limp dick bastard!

yea, im gonna call it:

QM is KeithOlbermann

Why don't liberals take their philosophy to its logical conclusion and have the government take ownership/control of everything? That way, no person will have more than another person and everyone is equal!

'No' you say? It's been tried and it failed? Then what makes you think government controlling only HALF of everything will fare better? While we're at it, how to you propose keeping government from taking the other half?

What happens when you proud liberals are paying 70% of your gross income to government and are happy, and then some radical even more radical than you decides you're still making too much and proposes making the tax rate 95%?

You say you want government-controlled health care, education, and banking that is fast, efficient and fair. That's wonderful, except such a government run by humans has never existed and never will.

How many times will you be fooled into believing government has Answers and is going to save you? NYC is broke. California is broke. Aren't those liberal-majority run governments?

When will you wake up? You're constantly being offered something for nothing and it ends up costing you everything.

You're constantly offering up nothing and still have everything...

.. is it, like, a circumspect lesson you're trying to teach really perceptive internet users who may have missed what you feel they did?

are you really our savior Jesus the CHRIST!

if so...thanks for marijuana... and sorry about that time with my great-grandmothers dog; he wanted to lick the butter off, my only defense.

Don't tell Gran.

you and KeithO post during REMARKABLY SIMILAR TIMES.

ps: alex jones is a racist.

When I said 100% of "their" money should be taken, I didn't mean just the upper crust. I should be clearer next time. I really believe in a system where everyone puts their money into central government trust which can be evenly used to benefit all. Together we can accomplish many great things. Divided we are doomed to failure.

-

Heads up asses.

You're constantly offering up nothing and still have everything...

What does that even mean? Who do you think you are, Joe Biden?

When I said 100% of "their" money should be taken, I didn't mean just the upper crust. I should be clearer next time. I really believe in a system where everyone puts their money into central government trust which can be evenly used to benefit all. Together we can accomplish many great things. Divided we are doomed to failure.

Doesn't work. Wiki soviet russia...before it wikis you!