Go Rick Santelli!

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

You might not.

But in Lichtenstein, where the marginal rate is 90%, you can bet your ass people do. And at 50% in the UK, I'm looking for other options.

And companies do ALL THE TIME.

The higher the tax rates, the more resources companies devote to avoiding taxes, resources which could be used to benefit the economy instead.

I guess you would know. What are you going to tell your shareholders and directors at the next meeting?

[Mr. Blonde]

[Dent]

Nubblies didn't like this image, 2.2mb

[Ugly Bastard]

AP, you're not making much sense lately in this thread which is pretty unusual for you.

[f3lix]

While Obama himself may be polling well, some of his policies — and the government as a whole — aren't. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 60% of Americans think the federal government has too much power and too much money. The bank bailouts, which began before Obama was president, didn't fare any better: 59% of voters say they were a bad idea, while 60% say the Chrysler and GM bailouts were a bad idea. In Gallup's long-running question of who the biggest threat to America is — big government, big business or big labor — big government still leads 55% to 32% to 10%, respectively.

Let's not stop now guys... keep it rolling

[DJ FC]

I'm amazed that Big Labor isn't even on the minds of anybody right now. Our country is so FUCKED that factory workers with no skills demanding $100+/hour to build shitty cars nobody will buy isn't even on the "what's wrong with the country" radar! Because everything else is so much worse!!!

Fuck Obama.

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

AP, you're not making much sense lately in this thread which is pretty unusual for you.

I can try to explain.

My business experiences are probably different from yours and GWB. From the corporate end, we always treated taxes and accountant as just another cost of doing business. I think it's safe to say that we didn't care so much as what the profits were taxed at nearly as much as how much profit was made. The idea of leaving profits on the table because of a tax rate seems foreign. Regulation was exponentially a much bigger concern than taxes for shareholders. All the shareholders cared about was whether or not this or that was making money.

[Dent]

WHO AM I?

I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another
country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with
numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My
mother died at an early age from cancer.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

My birth records were sketchy, and no one was able to produce a legitimate,
reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity, as it was
widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and
didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising
myself as someone who really cared about them.

That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life, and I
embarked on a new
career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who
read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned
me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the

scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office
in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into
anything. That reinforced my conceit.

I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no
experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker
and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.

I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered
my ego.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I
was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every
opportunity to bash my country.

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the
country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could
do better and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.

I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was
the free market, banks and corporations. I decided to start making
citizens hate them and, if they were envious of others who did well, the

plan was clinched tight.

I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.

I was the surprise candidate, because I emerged from outside the traditional
path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support.

I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could
change our country and the world. So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of tdowntrodden,poor,ignorant to include
"persecuted minorities" . My true views were not widely known and I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.

I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out
what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined
those people I associated with.

I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And
the world eventually learned the truth.

Who am I?


ADOLF HITLER

[Orgazmo]

I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office
in my 40s

I got this far.

My guess is Mr. Blonde.

Where's my prize?

[angry pancake]

repug?

[TwoBlackEyes]

The guy who writes all those shitty chain emails that people cut and paste into forums as though they were original thoughts?

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[Repugnant Abomination]

I've been avoiding this thread for a long time because I didn't feel like opening up a metaphorical can of worms, but now I think it's time to voice my opinion.

First of all, Cramer got absolutely neutered on national television in front of a live studio audience, and whether or not you like Stewart or not I don't think this statement can be disputed. And I actually like Cramer for the most part, but something like this had to happen and I'm glad it did.

Second, I'm not sure how to feel about Santelli. Talking about the losers mortgages is a little condescending given all of the predator lenders out there and how a lot of people were misled. At the same time I can feel his pain because people do live beyond their means and don't practice enough personal responsibility. I don't want to pay for my neighbors legit fuckups anymore than the next guy.

So Wall Street. Yeah, I don't have a lot of sympathy for these guys, the "best and brightest" minds in the business world attracted to our free market economy who thrive on making themselves ridiculous amounts of money while fucking over the average tax payer. I don't buy trickle down economics.

I will say though, that I do understand that capitalism encourages excellence in certain sectors and it does have some benefits. We've been on the cutting edge in a lot of areas, and that's cool. But there's a quote I like regarding capitalism: "Capitalism without failure is like Christianity without hell," and it's so true. And that's fine. If you want to live in an extremely competitive place where a lot of people fail and a few people succeed (in some cases on a grand scale) then I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Just don't act outraged when some people don't. Don't act like capitalism is compassionate, or concerned with the poor or the greater good. And don't act like it's fair, as if we all start from the some place with an equal opportunity, because we don't.

Do I support government intervention in businesses? Sort of. I do think there should be a cap on bonuses (especially if that company took bailout money). A lot of these people bitching and moaning are the ones who fucked things over to begin with. But do I support socialism? Not really, but I guess in a few ways I do. I like the idea of paying higher taxes for social programs because they improve the quality of life for everyone. I like having roads and bridges and stop lights and sidewalks. And if you want to talk about social programs why doesn't anyone mention that we have socialized education (K-12) or that we have socialized law enforcement or socialized fire departments? These social programs get ignored by people who don't want socialized medicine, even though it's the same thing.

Socialism has so many bad connotations that I think people confuse it with other things sometimes. Socialism is not fascism. You can have a democratic socialist government. Socialism isn't against democracy it's against capitalism. Unfortunately socialist governments always fuck things up by having too much power and becoming corrupt. That's why checks and balances are so important in the business world, and under Bush he let them run wild and go too far.

I support Obama closing tax loopholes and putting a cap on executive bonuses. I don't support him if he wants government to take over businesses and the media and whatever else. It's the idea of the yin and yang, really. Shit has to have a balance to it. It's like a pendulum - Bush pushes us too far in one direction (without even touching on social issues) and Obama was elected in response. I imagine the pendulum will swing back the other direction in another 4 or 8 years.

Personally I feel like I occupy a liminal space most of the time. I am more fiscally conservative than some people, but I'm more socially liberal than others as well. I suppose that puts me in the Libertarian category, but I think there are problems with that system too. Libertarianism appeals to the ego but I like the idea of having some social safety nets. But shit, I hear people bitching about Obama's out of control government spending (and they're right for the most part) but then no mention of our empire overseas, which is costing us billions if not trillions of dollars. Cut spending overseas and increase domestic spending on health care and education and technology! People are too partisan, it just creates a kind of political party cheerleading which isn't helpful.

If you really want to get me started then just ask me about democracy - I actually don't really like it all that much, but that's another post all together.

Edit - I guess what it comes down for to me is a fundamental problem behind the philosophy of money. People's value is attached to their ability to make money, based on the idea that you make more money by producing more money. But as far as a person's value is concerned I don't think this is a very good system, even though I admit it is pretty much the only one that can work.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

So Wall Street. Yeah, I don't have a lot of sympathy for these guys, the "best and brightest" minds in the business world attracted to our free market economy who thrive on making themselves ridiculous amounts of money while fucking over the average tax payer.

They wouldn't be fucking over the average tax payer if we'd let them fail, as your following quote implies.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

I don't buy trickle down economics.

A very broad statement. Are you trying to say that not taxing the employers doesn't help everybody? A very hard stance to support.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Socialism has so many bad connotations that I think people confuse it with other things sometimes. Socialism is not fascism. You can have a democratic socialist government. Socialism isn't against democracy it's against capitalism.

Socialism does indeed have ban connotations, but why does democracy have good connotations? Once again, as you say later, I too am not completely sold on democracy. I am sold on the freedom to exchange and trade as you see fit, the markets, and capitalism.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

If you really want to get me started then just ask me about democracy - I actually don't really like it all that much, but that's another post all together.

Please get started. I don't really believe in democracy, but I want to know why you feel this way.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Edit - I guess what it comes down for to me is a fundamental problem behind the philosophy of money. People's value is attached to their ability to make money, based on the idea that you make more money by producing more money. But as far as a person's value is concerned I don't think this is a very good system, even though I admit it is pretty much the only one that can work.

This just makes you sound whiny and emo. What should it be, sex appeal? Humans will ALWAYS measure themselves against one another, and money is just 1 of the many, many ways they do it.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

They wouldn't be fucking over the average tax payer if we'd let them fail, as your following quote implies.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

A very broad statement. Are you trying to say that not taxing the employers doesn't help everybody? A very hard stance to support.

Fair enough. But taxes are (at least in theory) designed to provide benefits for everyone. What if those taxes were used to offer poor people small business loans to create their own startup companies? The rich person will remain rich regardless, and I'm fine with that as long as it's not at the expense of everyone else.

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

Socialism does indeed have ban connotations, but why does democracy have good connotations? Once again, as you say later, I too am not completely sold on democracy. I am sold on the freedom to exchange and trade as you see fit, the markets, and capitalism.

Democracy has good connotations because it appeals to the majority. But should the majority make decisions on complicated issues that they don't understand? The majority of people in this country aren't very educated. Why would I want the masses to (indirectly) decide things like stem cell research and foreign policy?

Obviously coming up with an alternative creates a number of problems. But I don't think I have to have the answer to a problem merely because I pointed out the problem to begin with. The main source of my irritation is that it doesn't seem to be a topic up for debate. Tell someone you question democracy and you're practically a traitor.

I actually do have an alternative system in mind, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it first before continuing.

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

This just makes you sound whiny and emo. What should it be, sex appeal? Humans will ALWAYS measure themselves against one another, and money is just 1 of the many, many ways they do it.

Like I said, I recognize that there's probably not another feasible way. I just don't think our system rewards people enough who contribute to society in ways that don't just produce more money.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Fair enough. But taxes are (at least in theory) designed to provide benefits for everyone. What if those taxes were used to offer poor people small business loans to create their own startup companies? The rich person will remain rich regardless, and I'm fine with that as long as it's not at the expense of everyone else.

Historically, giving "poor people" money usually doesn't end up the way everyone would like.

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Democracy has good connotations because it appeals to the majority. But should the majority make decisions on complicated issues that they don't understand? The majority of people in this country aren't very educated. Why would I want the masses to (indirectly) decide things like stem cell research and foreign policy?

I have a long time been a semi-proponent for people having to pass a certain level of intelligence/reason testing before being allowed to have children or vote. I say semi serious because all of the dumb pussies out there will of course whine about their personal and imo worthless liberties being infringed upon, and that this could probably never actually happen unfortunately which means it will take the human race a much longer time to advance than it rightfully should thanks to arbitrary social bureaucracy (see: stem cell and cloning opposition). I realize this is one of the more extreme posts.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Fair enough. But taxes are (at least in theory) designed to provide benefits for everyone.

You are wrong about this. I do not agree on many of your premises.

Historically taxes existed because Kings and Lords could levy them, and for no other reason than they kept those in power in power.

In theory I support taxes because they perpetuate a system where private property is protected, or because they correct negative externalities in the market place. "Benefits for everyone!" is the last thing on my mind as to why taxes theoretically exist. It is, however and unfortunately, why they exist in practice.

[Repugnant Abomination]

All right.

Care to explain your position regarding democracy?

[Mr. Blonde]

GWB, i'd also like to hear your stance, if any, you have on general humanitarianism.

[DJ FC]

As a person, I think you should care about others and help those in need. We should all do this more. Usually the best we can do is donate to good charities like cancer research and water for Africa, etc.

But the government should use force as little as possible. The government should never force you to "donate" to charity or take your money to give to poor people. Because, as history proves over and over again, the societies which are the freeist will find the solutions to your problems on their own, and often in a much more creative and beneficial way.

As for democracy: Some people provide to society much more than others. And some do nothing but take, but as the state of California is painfully learning: those who do nothing but take get equal voice under democracy and the "free rider" problem is significant.

[Repugnant Abomination]

It sounds like what you're complaining about has to do with social contract theory. We all are suppose to act in certain ways because it is agreed that it benefits both the individual and society. When people don't uphold their end of the social contract they become leeches, enjoying the benefits of society while contributing nothing to it.

Yes, I agree this is a problem.

[Seve Ballesteros]

contrary to GWB, I don't think humans' natural state is to help other humans in need. further, to suggest that we all should help one another more (specifically by donating) is to claim to know what's best for humankind. That's what God and Jesus know best, not people.

[TwoBlackEyes]

Originally Posted by Seve Ballesteros

contrary to GWB, I don't think humans' natural state is to help other humans in need. further, to suggest that we all should help one another more (specifically by donating) is to claim to know what's best for humankind. That's what God and Jesus know best, not people.

And here's just a few things that Jesus had to say on the subject:

So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.
[Matthew 7:12.]

If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
[Matthew 19:21]

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]

So I assume that you're a huge fan of charity...

Also, Jesus told us to shut up and pay our damn taxes:
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

[Matthew 22:15-22]

[Seve Ballesteros]

Originally Posted by TwoBlackEyes

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

...

[ninjaface]

[f3lix]

TBE = A Hippie Evangelical?