Forums | MacLife

This snippet came across my desk, source unknown:

"This is not a simple rhetorical accomplishment. It requires serious mental gymnastics to describe the Obama administration — particularly the Obama administration of recent weeks, which has given away billions to Wall Street and bent over backwards to avoid nationalization and pursue a policy that preserves the private for-profit status of the bailed-out banks — as a militaristic dictatorship of anti-wealth, anti-private property forces."

Pretty amusing stuff.

radarman wrote:

If you live below the poverty line (both state and federal), don't own any property, and live in a state with no sales tax like Delaware, you can effectively pay zero taxes.

Of course, this means you are probably living under an overpass, but it is possible.

If you have a job, you'll still be paying payroll taxes.

mrreet2001 wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

I have a friend who was out teabagging yesterday.

Who ever started this whole "teabagging" term for the "grassroots protest movement" is an idiot

come on "teabagging" ... of all slag terms to use ... christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bagging

Are you seriously calling this a "grassroots" movement?
How many "grassroots" movements have corporate sponsorship? This is more of a Fox News effort than anything.


FYI:
It was teabaggers themselves who started calling themselves teabaggers. Are we seriously not allowed to laugh at that?

iSeamas wrote:

resedit wrote:

From what I've seen - the complaints are largely:


B) Increase in the percentage of Americans who don't pay any taxes, increase in the share of taxes paid by the higher tax brackets

Who doesn't pay any taxes?

I'm pretty sure he was just parroting talking points, and forgot that its "don't pay Federal Income tax," not "any taxes."  Nuance.

Farmerkev wrote:

Texas is just one of several states, Indiana senate passed theirs on the 9th.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/200 … y-growing/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? … geId=88218

I agree with this part (1st link):

. . .these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government.

The government should not be forcing mandated and costly programs on states and expect no federal funding.

Also, the mj thing comes up yet again. States should be able to legalize it. There is nothing in the constitution that says otherwise and the goverment is trampling on States rights on this and other issues.

So I say give the states more power. But of course, like many things that make sense in moderation, this guy's views are so extreme that he makes the idea into a joke. He's too ignorant to see that. But of course this guy is speaking only about money and that is the only thing he sees. Its' not a human rights issue, a states issue, but always about $ with Republican wakos. Its more than that but this Texas hick governor just doesn't get it. Assuming a lot, I bet this guy is all about fiscal control but not for more individual freedoms. What a surprise. Want to bet?

JakeTheTall wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

resedit wrote:

From what I've seen - the complaints are largely:


B) Increase in the percentage of Americans who don't pay any taxes, increase in the share of taxes paid by the higher tax brackets

Who doesn't pay any taxes?

I'm pretty sure he was just parroting talking points, and forgot that its "don't pay Federal Income tax," not "any taxes."  Nuance.

Given that this is was a nationally coordinated demonstration against the federal government, I think it is pretty smurfing obvious what the context of the claim is.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Given that this is was a nationally coordinated demonstration against the federal government, I think it is pretty smurfing obvious what the context of the claim is.

Payroll taxes are federal taxes.  They're even regressive, as they start at the first dollar and cap off at a certain point.

It's still pretty smurfing obvious that federal income tax is what they are talking about.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Given that this is was a nationally coordinated demonstration against the federal government, I think it is pretty smurfing obvious what the context of the claim is.

Payroll taxes are federal taxes.  They're even regressive, as they start at the first dollar and cap off at a certain point.

It's still pretty smurfing obvious that federal income tax is what they are talking about.

No.

It is pretty obvious that they don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.

If we can call it "talking".
Sounds more like incoherent whining to me.

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

iSeamas wrote:

Who doesn't pay any taxes?

I'm pretty sure he was just parroting talking points, and forgot that its "don't pay Federal Income tax," not "any taxes."  Nuance.

Given that this is was a nationally coordinated demonstration against the federal government, I think it is pretty smurfing obvious what the context of the claim is.

No, its not obvious.  Making a statement like "don't pay any taxes" and then assuming we all understood you to mean "sure, they pay lots of taxes, just not Federal Income taxes" (two qualifying adjectives) is foolish.

Plus, I thought the notion was that it wasn't nationally coordinated ?

I do find it disturbing how many people bring their children out to hold signs for them.

bratboy wrote:

I do find it disturbing how many people bring their children out to hold signs for them.

Are you disturbed when it is a cause you agree with?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I do find it disturbing how many people bring their children out to hold signs for them.

Are you disturbed when it is a cause you agree with?

...well that would only make sense, wouldn't it?

I think bringing kids to an organized exercise of freedom of speech can be highly educational.
I wouldn't bring kids to a demonstration where violence was likely to break out, but there's nothing wrong with teaching your kids first hand about lawful assembly to support a cause you believe in.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I do find it disturbing how many people bring their children out to hold signs for them.

Are you disturbed when it is a cause you agree with?

I am but that's me.