Crash the tea party

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

These people are a cancer if there ever was one; they're being stupid, violent, dangerous and it's going to bite them in the ass eventually if they don't stop it. You don't go about politics waving around these kinds of signs comparing Obama to Hitler, a monkey, shouting and hollering like a bunch of hooligans. Because the civilized aren't going to take you seriously. Act like you've got some common sense and decency for a change, jackholes.

Something needs to be done about them. Now they're asking for their own militia. Given how they've acted towards the government, we may very well face a string of violence if we allow them to do this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/..._party_militia

For someone who is so judgmental you don't really seem to know anything about the people you condemn SH.

First off they're not the cohesive and organized national group you think they are and their very narrow agenda is going to attract support from a wide range of people. That doesn't mean the movement is suddenly endorsing anything beyond the the issues it was created to address.

Secondly, I'll agree with you that some of those posters you show are way over the top, but the lefts crocodile tears about it don't impress me after 8 years of their engaging in the same type of thing. For every picture you posted I can show you one made about Bush that was just as bad or worse. However given the lefts history of using agent provocateurs, one has to wonder whether the people holding them are real Tea Partyers or some divisive ass like that Jason Levin trying to marginalize and discredit the voices of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

We'll find out what the American people think about it come November.

Answer one: There isnt a difference

Answer two: Bush is white, so you can say or write or doodle anything you want about him and its ok

which answer you go with depends on whether you lean left or right.

Wrong.
If you wrote that Bush was a dumb ass cracker you would be making a silly racist comment.
There are just on balance a lot more silly racist comments you can make about Obama.
But there you go again GR, playing the "white" victim race card.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wrong.
If you wrote that Bush was a dumb ass cracker you would be making a silly racist comment.
There are just on balance a lot more silly racist comments you can make about Obama.
But there you go again GR, playing the "white" victim race card.

I made the original observation.

Why is a monkey racist for one and not another? The Bush versions usually show (fairly effectively, actually) a similarity in physical appearance between W and some other primate. Since he and Obama are both Homo sapiens, what's the diff? It's not like either of them bear more than a superficial resemblance in certain images picked to highlight this—as would most any other people so singled out (morbidly obese people don't typically look like other primates since wild animals don't get morbidly obese, they die first).

The type of historical attribution of "monkey" is probably what you are talking about, but I always found that funny since that sort of redneck doesn't actually think we (human beings) share a common ancestor with other, extant primates.

There was an Obama delegate that had to back out as I recall because some kids were playing in a tree outside her Chicago home and she called them monkeys—I call my 3 YO a monkey all the time. Ah, here it is:

Ramirez-Sliwinski "came outside and told the children to quit playing in the tree like monkeys. The tree was not on Ramirez-Sliwinski's property,"

. She had to quit her delegate position over this.

WTF.

That said, at what point are we past that, or are certain jokes and comments allowed forever for one "race" and not another? Won't that perpetuate racism instead of end it?

I made the original observation.

I know, and GR commented on it.
He commented in a way which shows he just doesn't get it and in a way where he has to write something which he knows isn't true to try and make his point about being such a poor little victim.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Hey, have you people seen this?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Tax-Da...28499.html?x=0

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Hey, have you people seen this?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Tax-Da...28499.html?x=0

Curiously enough everyone I have spoken with that does pay taxes say their taxes have increased... dramatically.

What this article is referring to is the lower percentage rate of those whom probably already do not pay much taxes if any to begin with . That and the "Earned income tax credit" which is skewing the numbers.

Its kind of a weird thing "Oh you dident make much money this year? Okay you get a bigger return".

[GoldenRivet]

All i can say is that my tax liability was larger this year... just enough to be annoying.

You know the truth about it is...

many responsible working people try very hard to live within their means so they have enough money left to pay tax to a government cannot live within its means.

[tater]

I'd have to ask the accountant if our effective rate has slipped, all I know is that we substantially overpaid and get a good refund (because we're not tax cheats like so many members of the Obama cabinet). Remember that as the linked article stated this year (really 2009 tax year) still has Bush tax cuts in effect. They expire. Also, next year the death tax comes back, as does a substantial increase in capital gains tax.

Note that even while the marginal rates are lower now on the top bracket, the top bracket now also pays the highest % of total taxes collected ever. Funny, Bush cut taxes on "the rich," yet "the rich" now pay a LARGER share of total taxes collected.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

the top bracket now also pays the highest % of total taxes collected ever. Funny, Bush cut taxes on "the rich," yet "the rich" now pay a LARGER share of total taxes collected.

Very simple reason, too: Because the wealth disparity between the top 10% and everyone else is wider than it's been in years. The rich are richer and thus pay more in taxes.

[tater]

Good. Of course that graph truncates just before it likely falls off a cliff (least if my post 2007 stock portfolio is any indication, LOL (it's LOL or CRY OL )).

All that money is SPENT. All of it.

Quite a bit is invested. That's the money used by employers to expand. Other bits are spent directly. If you earn very little, you buy a lot of stuff from places like a store bashed in another thread—WalMart. That means the money goes to WalMart, and also a large chunk to... CHINA. Are people in the top 10% more likely to buy chinese furniture at walmart, or expensive furniture made in the US? Do they buy cheap pictures, etc, from China at walmart, or art painted by local artists for thousands of dollars? Do they buy laminate crap from a big box for their remodels, or hire a local cabinet maker who makes it from scratch? Chinese tiles, or awesome stuff like I got from Erin Adams here in ABQ (made at her 4th street studio)? Food—mega food products (I'm surprised that even FOOD is imported now), or local, expensive organic stuff?

I'd argue that of the money spent by the top 10%, a far larger % stays in the local economy. A larger total amount, too.

BTW, while they might have a higher % of the money at any given time, that doesn't mean they use any more government. I'd like to see some calculus that compares wealth and taxes paid to amount of government used. You pay 100X more taxes than someone, and so you drive 100X more, fly 100X more, have 100X as many kids using up schools?

PS—that graph doesn't show disparity, just the amount held as a function of the total. Likely the next 20-30% holds almost every penny of what is left.

[tater]

Sort of related.

A friend of mine was over for dinner a couple weeks ago and had an interesting idea that I' not heard before. He said that people concerned with government spending should change their W-4 so that they have NO TAXES WITHHELD. Then put that money is a special savings account (using withholding guidelines so they don't get behind). The idea would be to start a web site where people sign up and say they are doing this with the goal of forming a lobby to balance the budget via spending cuts. Demand that this be done, or they'll not pay taxes.

That last bit would obviously get them in trouble, but the first part of his idea would screw with government revenue streams, AND they'd not earn interest on it. It would also make more of a news story when the total taxes NOT collected per month dropped by some significant number (clearly you'd need many participants).

Thought it was an interesting idea, anyway, as we used to not withhold, and write a check each April 15th. The plus was we made money on the money, the minus was that, well, writing checks that big makes you want to barf, lol, at least other big checks you write get you something (like a house down payment, car, etc).

[SteamWake]

Thats not to bad an idea.

You actually dont have to have anything witheld, you do however have to pay it on april 15th.

The hard part is making sure you put enough aside to pay it and not use it for.. I dunno new tires or something.

I think if there was no witholding and people began to see just how much they had to 'set aside' alot of eyes would be opened.

As it is now with the witholding system its almost as if they dont notice. Its a tad insidious.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

Quite a bit is invested. That's the money used by employers to expand.

And earn more riches off the backs of someone else's labor. But of course, that income is taxed at a more favorable rate (capital gains) than income earned yourself. Why do we value unearned income (which is what dividends and investment gains are classified as) more than earned income by taxing it at a more favorable rate? Kind of goes against those good ol' conservative values of hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them." --Edward Albert Filene, founder of Filene's Department Stores, founder of the American Chamber of Commerce.

BTW, while they might have a higher % of the money at any given time, that doesn't mean they use any more government.

Of course they do! A more wealthy person benefits more from laws and government than a poor person. Besides the police, fire, and military protection enjoyed, the richer person has more property to protect and thus uses more government resources (banking and market regulations being one example). Kind of funny that the TEA PARTY screams about taxation without representation (do they? Their message is so muddled I have no idea what it is they're mad at this week....) when with the wealthy, it's just the opposite of taxation without representation - the wealthy have more influence in shaping public policy and laws. Who really runs Washington? The single mother of 4 writing a letter to her representative, or the wealthy donor buying spots at a $1000 a plate fundraiser?

[tater]

I use more of the fire department? I also pay more property tax—that's what it's for. We're talking FEDERAL right now. There is no way I use 100X more of ANYTHING provided by the government. In fact, I use LESS.

INvestment is earning of the backs of someone else? That someone else would have NO JOB AT ALL otherwise. Ask someone about to be laid off if he'd rather have new investors to his employer and a job. What do you think he'd say, "No, I'd rather collect welfare."? Every employee earns more for the business than they are paid (unless the business is terribly mismanaged). That includes the officers. That's the whole idea, otherwise it would be not for profit.

If the owner of Filene's—or anyone else that spouts off about their family being rich and happy to pay—wants, they can elect to pay more. How about all Democrats above 250k a year pay 50% voluntarily? Put their money where their mouth is! Take the moral high ground.

No, we get people like John Kerry who apparently had an effective tax rate of 15% the year he ran.

Sorry, but the country is filled with people living upper middle class lives who pay well over $100,000 a year in income taxes (found a tax calculator, ~100k in tax is 370k AGI). They do not use 10X the government of someone who pays 10k a year and makes 65 grand. They don't use the 6X disparity in income in gov services.

Remember that 2/3 of federal government spending is entitlement programs. 2/3. Welfare, and other non-essential pork is much of the remaining third, where perhaps 1/2 of that (1/6 total spending) is the legitimate expense of defense.

I'm fine with paying more, I expect to. Having idiots in government spend more and more, then raise my taxes above what they are, THAT POs me. I pay enough, trust me.

[Platapus]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3144

An interesting interview on where our federal taxes go.