Anyone listening to the speech?

[SMEGMA STENCH]

That's a silly solution. It's not the children's fault their parents are morons.

That's a silly mentality. Yeah. You're right. Its not the kids fault that their parents are morons. But just like Denny said... does that somehow make it my fault? So just because the parents choose to be morons, I now have to pay for their kids instead of them? When it was their responsibility to take care of their kids, and not mine? You don't see the flaw in that logic? You're doing nothing but shifting the blame. From the morons, to the people who are paying taxes. Its wrong. That is no different from saying something like "Well, this guy here broke the law and stole stuff. But... he's got it bad so we'll just make this other guy pay for it instead of sending the criminal to jail. The other guy can afford it."

How exactly is taxing people who don't have any money going to solve anything? By the same "logic" that reducing taxes on the wealthy creates a "trickle down" effect and puts more money in the pockets of the middle and lower class?

The first sentence answers your own question. Taxes are not the answer. Stop taxing the poor. Stop taxing the rich. Stop taxing the middle class. Stop taxing fucking everybody and we'll all have more money. Yeah obviously we need some taxes. But how about we put such limits on them that the lowlife politicians cant piss our fucking money away (as you know they do) and then demand more? If they had very little to work with, they'd have no choice but to use the funds in the manner that they were intended and not waste a fucking penny. Cause there would be hell to pay when shit didn't get done that had to get done. You need to learn to separate "the poor" from "moochers". Cause there are a hell of a lot more moochers than you want to believe. I'd say about half of your "poor" are in fact just moochers. And when you choose to make these leeches earn their own way in the world like the rest of us, your "poor" people situation gets a hell of a lot smaller. So small it can actually be managed on limited funds.

[Cannonball996]

I own my own business too, but I am not going to hire more people as a result of a tax break, I am only going to hire people when the work load demands it. likewise I am not going to let someone go when my taxes go up, if the work load is there someone needs to do it regardless of what I am paying in taxes.

[Forever_frost]

That's a silly solution. It's not the children's fault their parents are morons.



How exactly is taxing people who don't have any money going to solve anything? By the same "logic" that reducing taxes on the wealthy creates a "trickle down" effect and puts more money in the pockets of the middle and lower class?

What did I do to create a debt to these kids or their parents. Forcing me to pay for them when I did nothing to create the debt is akin to slavery. On top of that, where is the constitutional mandate to pay for these kids?

Oh, and you know that 47% pay zero, right? How about we tax them before going after the producers?

[slow99]

Damn right, the other day I walked past a ninety year old woman pushing an infant in a stoller. I immediately accosted them about their tax payments and asked where the fuck it was. I then pushed the lady down and kicked the stroller over. Fucking leeches.

[8mpg]

I own my own business too, but I am not going to hire more people as a result of a tax break, I am only going to hire people when the work load demands it. likewise I am not going to let someone go when my taxes go up, if the work load is there someone needs to do it regardless of what I am paying in taxes.

riiight... When your profit goes down, you will have to find a way to cut spending, cut expenses, or something. I highly doubt you are going to take the kick in the nuts and not do something. If you cut your expenses, you stimulate the economy less. The other option is to raise prices and that could lower incoming business. Companies are out there to make money, not to give it away to the government.

You must own a small company without providing benefits. If you offer benefits, you will quickly see how its much cheaper to offer a couple hours of overtime to each employee rather than offer another full time position. Business owners are only willing to cut into their profits so much before a change has to be made.

[Broncojohnny]

Damn right, the other day I walked past a ninety year old woman pushing an infant in a stoller. I immediately accosted them about their tax payments and asked where the fuck it was. I then pushed the lady down and kicked the stroller over. Fucking leeches.

That's the spirit!

[slow99]

That's the spirit!

Leeches trying to hide out in that 50% who don't pay!

[Cannonball996]

riiight... When your profit goes down, you will have to find a way to cut spending, cut expenses, or something. I highly doubt you are going to take the kick in the nuts and not do something. If you cut your expenses, you stimulate the economy less. The other option is to raise prices and that could lower incoming business. Companies are out there to make money, not to give it away to the government.

You must own a small company without providing benefits. If you offer benefits, you will quickly see how its much cheaper to offer a couple hours of overtime to each employee rather than offer another full time position. Business owners are only willing to cut into their profits so much before a change has to be made.

I am always looking to cut costs, but if a job requires 5 people, I cant do it with 4, so laying off people to save me money makes no sense.

[8mpg]

I am always looking to cut costs, but if a job requires 5 people, I cant do it with 4, so laying off people to save me money makes no sense.

Id like to know what industry you are in. You can often make 4 people do the work of 5 by adding 2 hours to each of their days. This would probably be cheaper than having a 5th full time guy that you are paying benefits for.

[ceyko]

Id like to know what industry you are in. You can often make 4 people do the work of 5 by adding 2 hours to each of their days. This would probably be cheaper than having a 5th full time guy that you are paying benefits for.

In my particular field, there are often times deadlines dictate manpower. Even when working 12-18 days you can only accomplish so much in a day. Maybe his field requires people in different locations to complete a task, a person can only be in one place at a time...

...there are plenty of situations where you can't condense manpower.

[32vfromhell]

For real reform, we need to raise the voting age to 30. The stupid young fucks that aided in getting this guy elected unknowingly slipped a noose constructed out of razor wire around their future financial necks.

sure, if you dont mind raising the fighting age of our troops to 30, sean.

[Denny]

sure, if you dont mind raising the fighting age of our troops to 30, sean.

Or lower it to 14.

[Durantula]

So it's mine? Ya, put me in the "fuck them" bandwagon.

So we'll just let the children die of starvation then. That's the American way!

What did I do to create a debt to these kids or their parents. Forcing me to pay for them when I did nothing to create the debt is akin to slavery. On top of that, where is the constitutional mandate to pay for these kids?

Oh, and you know that 47% pay zero, right? How about we tax them before going after the producers?

If you and others here want to throw around the "47% don't pay taxes" nonsense circulating the news networks you may want to actually research their claims before regurgitating bullshit sensationalism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes.

[ceyko]

So you just quote another news article that supports YOUR claim?

[Durantula]

So you just quote another news article that supports YOUR claim?

It uses info from the CBO, an unbiased source, whereas the 47% claim by major news networks is nothing more than twisting statistics to fit an agenda. So uh, yeah.