The Teabaggers' Work Ethic (taking off on a weekday)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

http://punditkitchen.com/2009/04/30/political-pictures-teabaggers-work-ethic/#comments

[Half King]

1. Wow

During the campaign, Obama only held rallies on weekends and holidays. Who knew.

[muffin1]

2. The point is the irony.

There were thousands of similar signs talking about their "work ethic". Then they take of work to march around acting stupid - protesting higher taxes on the day at least 95% percent of them got a tax break.:dunce:

[Half King]

3. So, what you are saying is

If you get a few bucks a week extra on your paycheck, well the government should have free rein to do as it pleases.

"greater is the proportion of power in the hands of those who feel no direct interest in the conduct of government; who, tortured by want and embruted by poverty, are ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder or follow the lead of the most blatant demagogue; or who, made bitter by hardships, may even look upon profligate and tyrannous government with the satisfaction we may imagine the proletarians and slaves of Rome to have felt, as they saw a Caligula or Nero raging among the rich patricians. Given a community with republican institutions, in which one class is too rich to be shorn of its luxuries, no matter how public affairs are administered, and another so poor that a few dollars on election day will seem more than any abstract consideration; in which the few roll in wealth and the many seethe with discontent at a condition of things they know not how to remedy, and power must pass into the hands of jobbers who will buy and sell it as the Prætorians sold the Roman purple, or into the hands of demagogues who will seize and wield it for a time, only to be displaced by worse demagogues."

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP.html

[muffin1]

4. I didn't say people should let the government walk all over them for a few $$.

These idiots are complaining about HIGHER taxes when, in fact, they are paying LOWER taxes.
They are claiming they have "no representation" when, in fact, they have representation.
They claim to worry about their children's and grandchildren's futures being lost to higher deficits.

It's all bullshit.

If these folks were so concerned with deficits and the like, where were they when shrub was spending 15 billion a month for an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq? These people are not protesting higher taxes or deficits. They are protesting the fact that their party is finally out of power. They are protesting what their masters Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh told them to protest - the "fact" that a socialist, muslim BLACK man "without a legitimate birth certificate" is now running the country.

[Half King]

5. Wrong

They are paying higher taxes. It was taxday--and in 2008, well they sure didn't get an Obama taxcut. And the local and state taxes, they have increased. So, will they get a temporary two year tax "credit" reflected by an eight to ten dollar adjustment in with-holding until 2011, at which point they will see a return to the pre-Bush taxcut rate, from 10% to 15% at the lowest levels? Yeah, and as of April 15, for some--they might have so far plused twenty bucks.

Representation? Yes, they have a Congressman and Senator, but--did those Congressmen and Senators represent their voice in the passage of the Bank bailout bill? And just where was there representation among the Federal Reserve, that somehow subjects to people of the United States to the repayment of billions of dollars delivered to favored institutions that are "too big to fail".

And the grandchildren and the deficit. You really are not trying to rationalize that with the Iraq war spending are you? You realize that Obama has spent TWICE that much already, in less than a hundred days. Besides, that is like me reacting to my wifes overspending on the credit card by going out and running a couple other ones to the limit. And military forces, I got to ask--we got more or less troops deployed overseas now or in April 1005? Is that set to go up or down? "Send the troops to Afghanistan" was what we meant when we said, "Bring the troops home", right?

The rest, it is like a child, throwing his own feces around to deflect from his misbehavior.

Bush spent a bunch of money, I show him, I spend more. Was that what we voted for? The change being, spend more faster.

[TankLV]

6. FAIL. Take what Obama is proposing and multiply times FOUR

That's the cost of the bush* ILLEGAL WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES.

And those higher taxes they're paying NOW - they're YOU'RE REPUKE bush* TAXES!

FAIL - again.

You don't know what the fuck you're spewing...

[Half King]

8. Illegal war of choice,

Kind of like TARP--an illegal loan of choice.

Didn't your mama ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, Bush ain't president no more. He gone. Water under the bridge hoss, water under the bridge.

Higher taxes? No, the Bush taxcuts were actually CUTS, cuts in the RATES--applicable to EVERYONE. Like the bottom rate, from fifteen percent to ten percent. Obama has not cut any taxes, the rates are the same, and are scheduled to go higher. Obama merely grants a temporary "credit" to those that jump through the appropriate hoops.

And the Henry George quote, well it is spot on. Seems those teabaggers should have stayed home seeing as how they got a few dollars thrown their way, and the wealthy--well they just keep cruising right along, get to "clawback" income taxes paid in past years by writing off capital losses last year. Funny, you get to right off the losses in your 401-K against 2006's income? And minimum distributions, well don't worry about them for 2009, let you get some of your losses back. Nice, if you ain't dependent on those distributions to EAT.

The higher taxes are the higher state and local taxes, the higher "sin taxes" that have just been put in place. Give you this much, Obama's economic team is replete with individuals that believe the purpose of taxation is not to provide the government with revenue, but to be used like a huge STICK--to beat the preoles into proper behavior, you don't smoke, you don't drink, and you work a job that comes with a paycheck, and most importantly, payroll deduction of your taxes.

Nah, I stay in the woods and hunt rabbits.

[roseBudd]

10. The Bush tax cuts were deficit financed, how dumb is that?

You have to be pretty dumb to think deficit financed tax cuts are a good deal

[Half King]

13. So, Obama's tax credits

They financed with deficit spending? How dumb is that?

I want free college education for everyone, universal healthcare, new roads and bridges, more troops in Afghanistan, more troops for Iran and North Korea. I want to give billions to the banks, billions to the insurance companies, and billions to industry to retool. I want billions more spent on road crews and environmental "green jobs". Oh, and give me a taxcut too. Let the "other guy" pay for it, or better--my children and grandchildren. It is all about ME ME ME.

Own it. Be Proud. No generation of Americans has ever presented their children with a lower standard of living than they themselves enjoyed. Congratulations, there is your "change".

[Doctor_J]

14. Ah, yes, blaming the current disaster on Obama

who's been in office 103 days, instead of the lying, murderous hypocrite who turned a budget SURPLUS into the biggest DEFICIT in history.

Go back to Limpballs Radio - he'll tell you the lies you want to hear.

[Skittles]

29. hey repuke whore

the "change" want right now is to fix the damage of eight years of repuke nonsense. Only THEN can we see REAL change.

[TankLV]

15. You're equating a fucking WAR with trying to fix the economy that YOU REPUKES broke?!!!

and that ILLEGAL WAR - WE'RE still the ones paying for YOUR CRIMINAL FUCK UP AS WELL...THERE IS NO "TIME LIMIT" ON MURDERERS!!!

and that bush league tax cut? IT ONLY BENEFITED THE TOP ONE PERCENT!!! NOT "everyone" as you fucking idiot repukes claim!!!

[Half King]

20. Oh please

Before the Bush taxcuts, the bottom tax rate was fifteen percent. Afterward it was ten percent. What, only the top one percent of income earners are in the bottom brackett.

Sure, it was stupid as hell to decrease taxes in a time of war--Madison tell you that. But how in the hell can you justify cutting taxes for anyone while taking on ever greater responsibilities. Billions here, billions there, and oh, by the way, let's cut some taxes. Oh wait, I know--those tax cuts will STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. But wait a minute, I thought all that "supply side" stuff was bullshit. You guys get twisted up in pretzels trying to justify the Obama vote. Let's see, you should vote for Obama cause he going to give you the most money back on your taxes. Like you were suppossed to vote for Bush cause he was going to give you the most back on your taxes. Wow, we see what that got us and yet here we go again. Damn, why is it I hear Henry George saying something about dollars on election day.

[TankLV]

25. ONE: Supply Side has been PROVEN a FAILURE.

TWO: Tax Cuts DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

[Blue_Tires]

28. The Iraq invasion isn't 'exactly water under the bridge'

but whatever helps you sleep at night...:boring:

[muffin1]

7. **sigh**

On tax day 2009, yes they were still paying a higher tax rate - the Bush tax rate.
As for the $20.00 or so in our two paycheck family, it does indeed help.
As far as 2011 goes, let's just wait and see. Who knows where the economy will be then? I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for awhile longer. If the economy improves, and unemployment declines, we will have grown our tax base...more income tax...more people with expendable dollars... more sales tax, etc.

Representation? For six years no one spoke for me. My Senators were (:puke:) George Allen and John Warner.
You can imagine how close we were on issues. However, THEY WON THE ELECTION. I may have felt unrepresented, but the state of Virginia was represented by the people who won the majority of the votes. That's how it works here.
As an aside, I was and still am, lucky to have Bobby Scott as my representative.

The spending???? At least Barack Obama is spending the money on things we actually need to do in THIS country.
Roads, bridges and schools are falling apart. We lag the world in science and technology (that's what happens when you have an idiot in charge who believes in neither).

As far as Afghanistan goes, I'm not happy with a "surge" there either. Imagine if we had "stayed the course" where we should have after 9/11? Spending our money fighting the ones who attacked and supported those who attacked us instead of settling old scores would have been a bit more prudent, imho. Maybe we would have made more progress by now? D'ya think?

The rest of your comments are as wrong as they are rude. Beck, Hannity and the rest of the neo-cons whip the uneducated into a frenzy every frigging night they are on.
Socialist, secret muslim, fascist, Hitler, communist, terrorist, are all words used every night to frighten these teabaggers.

But you know what? It doesn't seem to work anymore. Only 21% are willing to call themselves Republicans.
Hence, more weird and desperate rantings of the above mentioned talking heads.

[Stellabella]

9. Don't know much about economics, do you?

We have to spend to get out of the economic mess the repukes created. The only way to get out of this recession/depression is for the government to spend money. Spending is stimulative (look it up). Period. If you don't understand that, you need to go away.

And the change is what we're spending it on. Spending on infrastructure, schools, health care, and energy actually helps the nation, the economy, and the world. Unlike Bush/Cheney spending, which was on the war in Iraq, wasting billions of dollars on no-bid contracts and just plain waste, and giveaways to make the rich richer.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us $852 BILLION dollars. And that amount was OFF BUDGET until President Obama put it back in, which is one reason why the budget is so large.

Please educate yourself before posting.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TankLV]

16. Yeah - by your posts - you PROVE you don't know SHIT about the economy or economics...

Sorry, but I'll take a PROVEN NOBEL LAUREAT like Krugman over some repuke asswipe like YOU any day...!!!

and, BTW, ALL your repuke theories from "supply side" to "tax cuts" have been PROOVEN WRONG for a while now...

[Half King]

17. LOL

So, you take a nobel Laureat any day. Any "supply siders" ever win the Nobel prize?

Tell me, if Obama cuts the taxes for the poor and middle class and raises them on the rich, does that make the taxcode more or less progressive?

Now, does a more progressive taxcode result in more or less poverty?

And better, if Bush made the taxcode more progressive and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, what makes you think Obama making that same taxcode even more progressive is going to result in something differant?

Now, for fun, answer three simple questions.

Who was the number one corporate contributor to George Bush's re-election in 2004?

Who was the number one corporate contributor to Barack Obama in 2008?

What company got the most "benefit" from the TARP funds and the AIG bailout?

Hint, the answer is the same for all three. Tell me about "change".

[Stellabella]

19. You're changing the topic in the middle of the discussion,

which is what someone losing a debate does.

A progressive tax code results in less poverty. You have made the wrong conclusion, that a progressive tax code makes the poor poorer, then take that conclusion as a given.

I'm sure that you think the 1950s was a golden age in this country, with spectacular gains by the middle class in income and property.

The tax on the wealthiest then was 90%. Now that's progressive.

Buh-bye.

[Half King]

22. You are totally incorrect.

The progressiveness of the taxcode is not dependent upon the rates. It is dependent upon the percentage of the total government revenue paid by the highest income earners. If the taxrate is 97% on those that earn over one billion dollars a year, and only one person makes that much, well the taxcode could hardly be called progressive.

Try here,

http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html

Now, a progressive tax code means the richest members of the society pay the highest portion of total taxes. Among industrialized nations, well the US ranks at the top. And, right along with that goes higher poverty rates. Where the taxrates are LESS PROGRESSIVE, primarily through regressive national sales and VAT taxes, the poverty rates are lower and the Loretz curve for income distribution is FLATTER.

The number don't lie, and the OECD study confirms. Hell, it is simple enough. The Bush taxcuts did result in a MORE PROGRESSIVE taxcode. The Bush taxcuts did result in HIGHER POVERTY RATES. And the more progressive taxcode resulted in greater income disparity.

And how is it any differant. Bush cuts taxes on the wealthy, they get lots of extra money. They invest that money in stupid finanical derivatives--kind of like magic "black boxes". And, I tell you something, when people start talking about magic black boxes best run while you still got your money. But anyways, they didn't, they lost their ass, and now Obama refunds them their losses. Change, where--show me.

[TankLV]

26. NO SUPPLY SIDERS EVER WON A NOBEL PRIZE.

They were LAUGHED OFF THE STAGE.

As for the tax codes and tax rates, WHENEVER THE TOP PERCENT GET MOST OF THE MONEY, THE ECONOMY TANKS AND THE REST SUFFER.

Whenever there is a more EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, and the VERY WEALTHY ARE TAXED HEAVILY, the economy SOARS!

LOOK IT UP.

[Stellabella]

18. I think that 'goatskin' came from a fake goat.

This statement right here proves you don't know what you're talking about:

"Today, the wealthy pay a greater percentage of the total federal budget than before Bush Jr. took office."

That percentage means NOTHING. The number that really matters is the actual percentage of INCOME a person pays in taxes. And for the uber-rich, that number has decreased dramatically, while it has gone up for the poor.

And where did you get that nonsense that the more the poor pay in taxes, the more they get back? That comment is just breathtakingly stupid. If that were true, why are there so many homeless working poor?

You're just spouting Limbaugh talking points now.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Half King]

24. It is baseball season.

I need to pick a team for my son to play on. I got two choices. One team, well they are kind of regressive. Although they do give a few "scholarships", the entrance fee is one thousand bucks per person. Now, the other team, well they are progressive. They adopt a sliding scale entrance fee based on income. Those with higher incomes pay more, those with lower incomes pay less. Why, they one parent on that team, he pays almost the entire cost for the whole team.

Problem is, my son plays centerfield. And the parent that pays for most of the cost on that progressive team, his son plays centerfield too, and he sucks. So, although the entrance fee may be lower on that progressive team, I kind of thing my son's chance of getting real playing time is better on that regressive team. See, the parent footing all the cost, he going to demand playing time for his son, and me--paying next to nothing, probably ain't going to have alot to say about it. So, which team should I pick to give my son the best opportunity for exposure and playing time?

[burning rain]

21. That they overwhelmingly got tax *breaks* is to me the most perverse thing.

Most of them are anything but rich, so they are clearly afflicted with one hell of a false consciousness.

[SlingBlade]

11. Hell, Most of them, (That I know of ) Are on disability

or some other kind of public assistance

And THAT my friends is the absolute height of hypocrisy, And I've told them as much

Somehow, In their warped neo-con minds, There isn't a conflict !

[sasquatch]

27. Either that or really successful brainwashing by am talk radio