Teabaggers mock and scorn man with Parkinsons

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Teabaggers mock and scorn man with Parkinsons

mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
 Ouch, that was pretty

Ouch, that was pretty shitty.  I like how the young healthy guy in a suit said, "I'll choose when to give you money!!!"  Lol.  I am sure the two one dollar bills he threw at him will pay for his next round of medication!

A fine example of thoughtfulness.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 I just watched the video again..was there a teabagger yelling "Keep Obama's hands off my Big Mac"?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yea but they cheer the

Yea but they cheer the Christian missionaries in Haiti.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Indeed there was.  Obama is

Indeed there was.  Obama is such an insidious bastard.  Goddamned hamburgler.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
As a conservative, I'm

As a conservative, I'm finding it harder and harder to tolerate what some conservatives will actually stoop to in order to yell louder than the other side.

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:As a

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As a conservative, I'm finding it harder and harder to tolerate what some conservatives will actually stoop to in order to yell louder than the other side.

 

 

 

Yelling is fine, in fact in a free society, if you don't yell, it means you don't care, and freedom only comes with caring.

I find this awful as well. But not from the sense that they have the right to do it. I am quite sure they could find "insensitive" remarks from liberals and atheists.

It is awful, because of their own ignorance, not their right to express themselves.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:As a

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As a conservative, I'm finding it harder and harder to tolerate what some conservatives will actually stoop to in order to yell louder than the other side.

I'm not to worried. We are seeing videos of the most obnoxious conservatives in the whole US. A vast majority of conservatives are not like this and we all know that. If I went to my school and filmed the stupid shit that is said (and usually chanted in unison) by members of the Worker Student Alliance, then leftists would look like a bunch of obnoxious idiots. That's what these videos are: a few sensational clips of the most obnoxious people that can be found.

No one cares about the level-headed super-majority of people. The rare few nuts are all that end up on the news for some reason.

 

You wouldn't believe the ignorant, hateful things that leftists say on my campus:

http://democratizeeducation.wordpress.com/

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As a conservative, I'm finding it harder and harder to tolerate what some conservatives will actually stoop to in order to yell louder than the other side.

I'm not to worried. We are seeing videos of the most obnoxious conservatives in the whole US. A vast majority of conservatives are not like this and we all know that. If I went to my school and filmed the stupid shit that is said (and usually chanted in unison) by members of the Worker Student Alliance, then leftists would look like a bunch of obnoxious idiots. That's what these videos are: a few sensational clips of the most obnoxious people that can be found.

No one cares about the level-headed super-majority of people. The rare few nuts are all that end up on the news for some reason.

 

You wouldn't believe the ignorant, hateful things that leftists say on my campus:

http://democratizeeducation.wordpress.com/

 

Just about everything that was said in the video from the anti-healthcare side were standard fox news talking points. It is hardly rare. It is the standard "I've got mine" attitude. Notice how nearly everyone protesting against social medical care is ON social medical care. They have it, they just don't want anyone else on it. It might make lines.

 

 

Also, you are in California? That explains a lot of the disconnect you have from the rest of the country, and a lot of your views. How is the gay marriage ban going for you guys? Is marriage "safe" there now? How about the cutting taxes thing? I hear California is running a large surplus lately from cutting all those taxes!

 

/not suggesting you voted for prop 8

//Or that you support cutting taxes again and again to bankrupt your state

 

As far as I'm concerned, California is on notice until it becomes less like Arizona and Texas. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is awful,

Brian37 wrote:

It is awful, because of their own ignorance, not their right to express themselves.

 

 

Yes, I meant that yelling their ignorance.

 

 

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Also, you are

ClockCat wrote:

Also, you are in California? That explains a lot of the disconnect you have from the rest of the country, and a lot of your views. ... How about the cutting taxes thing? I hear California is running a large surplus lately from cutting all those taxes!

...


//Or that you support cutting taxes again and again to bankrupt your state

 

As far as I'm concerned, California is on notice until it becomes less like Arizona and Texas. 

You are right about the stupid prop. 8 stuff.

But as far as the taxes go:

What on earth are you talking about? We have THE HIGHEST TAX BURDEN OF ANY STATE IN THE NATION*. What do you mean we cut taxes? We did vote to prevent a tax rate increase extension, but that was it. Our sales tax was 'temporarily' increased. Then we were allowed to vote if we wanted to extend the 'temporary' tax hike. We (me included) voted 'no.' Even if Prop A had passed, it wouldn't have mattered. It effectively wouldn't have done anything for two years anyways (when the 'temporary' tax hike will have ended). The state government has had record tax INCREASES and it already has the highest total (income+sales) tax rate. We are going bankrupt because of out of control spending. During the .com bubble the state's revenue shot up. The state gov increased spending proportionally to the increased revenue. The extra state income was just temporary. When it ended the state gov did not decrease their spending. Instead they INCREASED TAXES BY RECORD AMOUNTS. And that is still no where remotely close enough to stop us from going bankrupt. We have the highest tax burden in the nation and we have such insanely out of control spending that our absurd tax rates aren't enough to save us. So, to put it nicely, you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't blame tax cutting on this. We didn't cut taxes. We blocked a tax rate increase extension that only would have mattered years from now.

And for that matter, I'm pissed at the state legislature republicans. They worked with the democrats to give us our record breaking tax hikes. Some of them signed a 'we promise to never vote for any form of tax increase' pledge, and they voted in record tax increases anyways. You wouldn't believe the rage that this has inspired from Californian conservatives. On the radio, talk show hosts (particularly from the nation's most listened to AM station: KFI) talk about how great it would be to kill off most of our state legislature (and they don't seem to be joking). I shit you not. Gassing them, hanging them and displaying their corpses has been discussed over the radio repeatedly on the most popular AM station in America. We have conservative rallies in California in which effigies of republican state legislatures are torn apart. The state legislature has denounced some conservative groups and talk show hosts as terrorists since they are so vocal about wanting to kill the legislators. Maybe these people are Poe conservatives, but I can't detect a joking tone or atmosphere about any of this.

*If you include our very high sales tax. Our income tax is only the sixth highest of any state. But add together what we pay in income tax and what we pay in state sales taxes, and you get the highest tax burden of any state in the union.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Also, you are in California? That explains a lot of the disconnect you have from the rest of the country, and a lot of your views. ... How about the cutting taxes thing? I hear California is running a large surplus lately from cutting all those taxes!

...

 

//Or that you support cutting taxes again and again to bankrupt your state

 

As far as I'm concerned, California is on notice until it becomes less like Arizona and Texas. 

You are right about the stupid prop. 8 stuff.

But as far as the taxes go:

What on earth are you talking about? We have THE HIGHEST TAX BURDEN OF ANY STATE IN THE NATION*. What do you mean we cut taxes? We did vote to prevent a tax rate increase extension, but that was it. Our sales tax was 'temporarily' increased. Then we were allowed to vote if we wanted to extend the 'temporary' tax hike. We (me included) voted 'no.' Even if Prop A had passed, it wouldn't have mattered. It effectively wouldn't have done anything for two years anyways (when the 'temporary' tax hike will have ended). The state government has had record tax INCREASES and it already has the highest total (income+sales) tax rate. We are going bankrupt because of out of control spending. During the .com bubble the state's revenue shot up. The state gov increased spending proportionally to the increased revenue. The extra state income was just temporary. When it ended the state gov did not decrease their spending. Instead they INCREASED TAXES BY RECORD AMOUNTS. And that is still no where remotely close enough to stop us from going bankrupt. We have the highest tax burden in the nation and we have such insanely out of control spending that our absurd tax rates aren't enough to save us. So, to put it nicely, you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't blame tax cutting on this. We didn't cut taxes. We blocked a tax rate increase extension that only would have mattered years from now.

And for that matter, I'm pissed at the state legislature republicans. They worked with the democrats to give us our record breaking tax hikes. Some of them signed a 'we promise to never vote for any form of tax increase' pledge, and they voted in record tax increases anyways. You wouldn't believe the rage that this has inspired from Californian conservatives. On the radio, talk show hosts (particularly from the nation's most listened to AM station: KFI) talk about how great it would be to kill off most of our state legislature (and they don't seem to be joking). I shit you not. Gassing them, hanging them and displaying their corpses has been discussed over the radio repeatedly on the most popular AM station in America. We have conservative rallies in California in which effigies of republican state legislatures are torn apart. The state legislature has denounced some conservative groups and talk show hosts as terrorists since they are so vocal about wanting to kill the legislators. Maybe these people are Poe conservatives, but I can't detect a joking tone or atmosphere about any of this.

*If you include our very high sales tax. Our income tax is only the sixth highest of any state. But add together what we pay in income tax and what we pay in state sales taxes, and you get the highest tax burden of any state in the union.

 

The tax table below will show in detail the California state income tax rates by income tax bracket(s). There are 7 income tax brackets for California.
If your income range is between $0 and $7,168, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 1%.If your income range is between $7,169 and $16,994, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is2%.
If your income range is between $16,995 and $26,821, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is between $26,822 and $37,233, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6%.
If your income range is between $37,234 and $47,055, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 8%.
If your income range is between $47,056 and $1,000,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9.3%.
If your income range is $1,000,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 10.3%.
Income tax brackets data last updated March 3rd, 2009.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 Sales tax is 8.25%

 

It really doesn't seem as bad as you are making it out to be.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I just

ClockCat wrote:

 I just watched the video again..was there a teabagger yelling "Keep Obama's hands off my Big Mac"?

 

Yup!  Fuckin teabaggers.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Sales tax

ClockCat wrote:

 Sales tax is 8.25%

 

It really doesn't seem as bad as you are making it out to be.

 

 

Which part of 'highest tax burden of any state in the nation' is confusing? You blamed our fiscal problems on tax cuts. We have the highest tax burden in the nation and on top of that have enacted record high tax increases. Did I misunderstand you when you said that our financial problems are due to tax cuts? Do you still think that cuts and/or low tax rates have caused our terrible financial problems, as you previously claimed and I described our tax situation as a response to?

Also, 8.25% is the minimum. Depending on where you live, the tax rate is from 8.25% to 10.75%. I believe that in most areas the rate is around 10%.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 Sales tax is 8.25%

 

It really doesn't seem as bad as you are making it out to be.

 

 

Which part of 'highest tax burden of any state in the nation' is confusing? You blamed our fiscal problems on tax cuts. We have the highest tax burden in the nation and on top of that have enacted record high tax increases. Did I misunderstand you when you said that our financial problems are due to tax cuts? Do you still think that cuts and/or low tax rates have caused our terrible financial problems, as you previously claimed and I described our tax situation as a response to?

Also, 8.25% is the minimum. Depending on where you live, the tax rate is from 8.25% to 10.75%. I believe that in most areas the rate is around 10%.

Sounds to me like taxes need raised.

 

Where is the waste you plan to cut? Education funding?

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Sounds to me

ClockCat wrote:

Sounds to me like taxes need raised.

 

We already did that. In fact, let me reiterate, we raised taxes by record amounts. I suspect that the state legislature will raise them by record amounts again and again. We have massive debt and massive spending problems. There is honestly nothing we can do about the debt, we can't even cover our current spending. We could try to slash spending. At this point, things seem hopeless. Some people advocate for state bankruptcy and hope that a federal judge will be appointed to cut and slash at our state's programs in order to trim it into economic sensibility. But then I've heard that states can't actually declare bankruptcy. But perhaps it could be placed in a federal receivership that would involve an accountant and a federal judge taking control to get our shit in order.

Our state has tried to come up with new tax schemes. They instituted a triple taxation scheme on gasoline and then, separately, they raised the gas tax. And yes, I wrote that sentence correctly. They are doing things like this to try and nickle and dime residents. And they are doubling vehicle registration fees and basically making any interaction with the DMV as expensive as possible. If they institute a series of new taxes, each one will bring in a few billion in revenue ($20billion from the new gas tax alone, not counting taxes already collected by the triple taxation scheme). And then maybe that will let them get the revenue they need. That's the hypothesis anyways. In reality our income, debt and spending are so out of wack that the new taxes and the record tax increases aren't nearly enough.

State spending increased by about 210% in the last 10 years ($69B in 1997, $145B in 2007). It increased at massive rate for a while. Now it has finally hit the breaking point. We had to hit it eventually at the insane rate spending was increasing. Though, since 2007, the state budget has been decreasing. Increasing spending by such rapid amounts in such a short time seems to be a spending problem and not a taxation problem to me.

And our tax increases have resulted in capital flight. The richest people and some businesses are fleeing the state. Supposedly that was a big cause in the 2008-2009 budget crisis. Taxes went up, total tax revenue dropped thanks to, in part, capital fight. If we raise taxes yet again, then that will convince more people to flee and might perversely end up decreasing state revenue. It has reached the point where Nevada is running ads telling businesses and people to flee and relocate to Nevada where they will be treated better. So increasing taxes again might not even be a possible solution.

ClockCat wrote:

Where is the waste you plan to cut? Education funding?

 

Education accounts for about 15% of our state government spending. Our K-12 school system is pretty bad as it is, I don't advocate slashing its funding. But, our state legislature is slashing school funding. At my university there is a 32% fee hike this year as well as mass layoffs of service staff, furlough days (ie: forced unpaid vacation days for all staff), halted construction projects and 10% across the board pay cuts. The school system has been hit real hard by the state government. I don't particularly like that, but that's what our state legislature did to us when they slashed our funding.

What could we cut? The state signed unreasonable contracts with the state employee unions back when the state government was temporarily swimming in income. But those contracts could only be invalidated by a federal judge if we entered into a federal receivership. And if they were invalidated, that would screw over retired workers who are living on the great pensions that they are contractually owed by those unreasonable contracts. Under Gray Davis pension plans were negotiated that can not possibly be maintained (2000% increase in the money spent on state pensions in the past 10 years). We'll have to screw over those old people eventually.

We could empty our state prisons of non-violent drug users. But instead the state legislature opted to release inmates with violent crime histories instead; so long as the last crime committed wasn't violent.

We could cut our state's free and reduced cost health insurance and medical coverage programs. But that can't be politically popular, so politicians won't do that.

Honestly, we are just screwed. I don't see a good way out of this. I am thinking of just moving away in a year or two and being a spectator in what will probably be a collapse (which would mean federal receivership), voluntarily choosing to enter into a federal receivership before collapsing or massive debt increases if we can find creditors stupid enough to give us money.

You have a solution to this problem that won't result in more capital flight away from our already highest-of-any-state tax rates?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Sounds to me like taxes need raised.

 

We already did that. In fact, let me reiterate, we raised taxes by record amounts. I suspect that the state legislature will raise them by record amounts again and again. We have massive debt and massive spending problems. There is honestly nothing we can do about the debt, we can't even cover our current spending. We could try to slash spending. At this point, things seem hopeless. Some people advocate for state bankruptcy and hope that a federal judge will be appointed to cut and slash at our state's programs in order to trim it into economic sensibility. But then I've heard that states can't actually declare bankruptcy. But perhaps it could be placed in a federal receivership that would involve an accountant and a federal judge taking control to get our shit in order.

Our state has tried to come up with new tax schemes. They instituted a triple taxation scheme on gasoline and then, separately, they raised the gas tax. And yes, I wrote that sentence correctly. They are doing things like this to try and nickle and dime residents. And they are doubling vehicle registration fees and basically making any interaction with the DMV as expensive as possible. If they institute a series of new taxes, each one will bring in a few billion in revenue ($20billion from the new gas tax alone, not counting taxes already collected by the triple taxation scheme). And then maybe that will let them get the revenue they need. That's the hypothesis anyways. In reality our income, debt and spending are so out of wack that the new taxes and the record tax increases aren't nearly enough.

State spending increased by about 210% in the last 10 years ($69B in 1997, $145B in 2007). It increased at massive rate for a while. Now it has finally hit the breaking point. We had to hit it eventually at the insane rate spending was increasing. Though, since 2007, the state budget has been decreasing. Increasing spending by such rapid amounts in such a short time seems to be a spending problem and not a taxation problem to me.

And our tax increases have resulted in capital flight. The richest people and some businesses are fleeing the state. Supposedly that was a big cause in the 2008-2009 budget crisis. Taxes went up, total tax revenue dropped thanks to, in part, capital fight. If we raise taxes yet again, then that will convince more people to flee and might perversely end up decreasing state revenue. It has reached the point where Nevada is running ads telling businesses and people to flee and relocate to Nevada where they will be treated better. So increasing taxes again might not even be a possible solution.

ClockCat wrote:

Where is the waste you plan to cut? Education funding?

 

Education accounts for about 15% of our state government spending. Our K-12 school system is pretty bad as it is, I don't advocate slashing its funding. But, our state legislature is slashing school funding. At my university there is a 32% fee hike this year as well as mass layoffs of service staff, furlough days (ie: forced unpaid vacation days for all staff), halted construction projects and 10% across the board pay cuts. The school system has been hit real hard by the state government. I don't particularly like that, but that's what our state legislature did to us when they slashed our funding.

What could we cut? The state signed unreasonable contracts with the state employee unions back when the state government was temporarily swimming in income. But those contracts could only be invalidated by a federal judge if we entered into a federal receivership. And if they were invalidated, that would screw over retired workers who are living on the great pensions that they are contractually owed by those unreasonable contracts. Under Gray Davis pension plans were negotiated that can not possibly be maintained (2000% increase in the money spent on state pensions in the past 10 years). We'll have to screw over those old people eventually.

We could empty our state prisons of non-violent drug users. But instead the state legislature opted to release inmates with violent crime histories instead; so long as the last crime committed wasn't violent.

We could cut our state's free and reduced cost health insurance and medical coverage programs. But that can't be politically popular, so politicians won't do that.

Honestly, we are just screwed. I don't see a good way out of this. I am thinking of just moving away in a year or two and being a spectator in what will probably be a collapse (which would mean federal receivership), voluntarily choosing to enter into a federal receivership before collapsing or massive debt increases if we can find creditors stupid enough to give us money.

You have a solution to this problem that won't result in more capital flight away from our already highest-of-any-state tax rates?

 

Do you have any evidence of capital flight? From what I understand the state began losing money when Reagan came in. Before that things were peachy in Cali. UC students had free tuition for in-state residents that met academic standards. Cali also had some of the highest rated schools.

 

From what I gather a series a policies screwed over the state, that were all short sighted. Some things with property taxes, where existing owners got exceedingly cheap taxes until it changed hands...the problem being corporations do not often change ownership of property. So they are paying almost nothing, and newer owners had property taxes raised to compensate. Apparently it was something because there was publicity about old folks in the 70s being "forced out of their homes". So that warps property tax revenue in your state drastically. Since then they have been looking for fees and to try and help compensate, because you have a lot of corporations in urban areas paying nothing close to the property value's tax rate. Instead they paid like 1% tax value.

 

Reagan cut the budgets on mental health, and California just released them (including people such as Charles Manson). The crime right rose significantly, and then they ended up relocating many of them into prisons after they would get arrested for not being able to fit into society. Which as prisoners they cost more than they did in the mental facilities, and they also didn't treat them for their conditions.

 

Aside from things like prop 13, you had the Unitary tax before Reagan too. It taxed multinational corporations for income if they operated in the state based off GLOBAL income. That was a large loss of revenue your state was dependent on. Many corporations in your state have negative tax rates today because they are able to exploit your tax system. 

 

You also got the 2/3 budget vote thing during Reagan. That seems to have been fantastic too.

 

 

Don't worry, you aren't the only state policies enacted during his administration screwed over. 48 states are broke (running a deficit).

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

 

Arizona is worse off than California, FYI. They have a significantly smaller economy and are proportionally going more bankrupt every day. Nevada is really bad off as well.

The only two states not broke are extremely unpopulated with many areas that receive heavy federal subsidies. Some of the other states with large rural areas also benefit from the enormous dairy/cattle/agribusiness subsidies given out.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 So if you plan to move because California is broke, what other broke state are you going to move to instead?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Do you have

ClockCat wrote:

Do you have any evidence of capital flight? From what I understand the state began losing money when Reagan came in. Before that things were peachy in Cali. UC students had free tuition for in-state residents that met academic standards. Cali also had some of the highest rated schools.

Reagan had nothing to do with our current problems. Back in the late 90's we had a boom. The state and by extension the state government were swimming in money. The economic boom has ended but state government spending kept rising fast anyways. That just wasn't sustainable.

Completely unrelated to our tax and spending issues, Reagan did cut mental health and education funding. That was a bad move on his part. But our crazy budget and tax problems are very recent. He stopped being our governor about 35 years ago and our current fiscal problems started about 10 years ago.

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

From what I gather a series a policies screwed over the state, that were all short sighted. Some things with property taxes, where existing owners got exceedingly cheap taxes until it changed hands...the problem being corporations do not often change ownership of property. So they are paying almost nothing, and newer owners had property taxes raised to compensate. Apparently it was something because there was publicity about old folks in the 70s being "forced out of their homes". So that warps property tax revenue in your state drastically. Since then they have been looking for fees and to try and help compensate, because you have a lot of corporations in urban areas paying nothing close to the property value's tax rate. Instead they paid like 1% tax value.

 

Californians did vote for a proposition (Prop. 13 back in the 1970's) that modified that state constitution to block legislature attempts to increase our property taxes. Though no, that doesn't mean that new owners get higher property taxes. We all get low property taxes. Our high sales tax, gas tax, corporate income tax and personal income tax is where our state government's money comes from. Property taxes are the one thing we blocked the legislature from raising. The old folks forced out of their home thing is if someone owns their home and doesn't have an income then they still have to pay property taxes every year. If property taxes are reevaluated based on the current estimated value of the home and can be raised by the legislature, then any spike in home prices or significant increase in property taxes will drive some low to no income people (ie. retired people) out of their homes merely because they can't afford the tax increase.

I'm fine with that. Our tax scheme is to have very high sales, gas and income taxes. I don't see why we also need high property tax on top of that. I mean, come on, highest tax burden of any state in the nation all ready. In no way is our tax burden too low. If property taxes are the one exception to our high tax burden, I don't see the problem.

 

ClockCat wrote:

 

Reagan cut the budgets on mental health, and California just released them (including people such as Charles Manson). The crime right rose significantly, and then they ended up relocating many of them into prisons after they would get arrested for not being able to fit into society. Which as prisoners they cost more than they did in the mental facilities, and they also didn't treat them for their conditions.

 

Yeah, that was a bad move on his part. That, screwing with our education system, increasing national debt as the president and initiating the modern War on Drugs as we know it are things that he really screwed up on.

 

ClockCat wrote:

Aside from things like prop 13, you had the Unitary tax before Reagan too. It taxed multinational corporations for income if they operated in the state based off GLOBAL income. That was a large loss of revenue your state was dependent on. Many corporations in your state have negative tax rates today because they are able to exploit your tax system. 

 

I think you lost me here. There are companies that are given money by the state government rather than paying taxes ('negative tax rate')? That sounds unbelievable. I am aware of companies that are in reality based in California while they are nominally based in some tax-haven foreign country. And why would they play this underhanded game to avoid our corporate income tax? Our corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the nation. Two states do have higher rates than us. Rather than pay the third highest corporate income tax in the nation, these companies keep as much of their nominal income generation out of state as possible. The state taxes corps for income earned in the state. So it is a rational choice for companies to nominally make as much of their income in virtually any other US state or any other country.

And I'm pretty sure that it is beyond the power of our state government to tax global income. I'm sure that the state is losing a lot of money because of that. But I'm glad that companies can effectively flee our high corporate tax rates. As I've said elsewhere on this site, I am pro-tax haven. The existence of tax havens acts as a safeguard against extremely high tax rates. In this case, the system works. In the sense that the state government actually loses money thanks to their high tax rate since it is relatively better to pay corporate income taxes in almost any other state or nation.

 

ClockCat wrote:

You also got the 2/3 budget vote thing during Reagan. That seems to have been fantastic too.

 

We got that rule in 1978. Reagan left office in 1975. You can't blame all our problems on Reagan. Like I said, our fiscal problems are about a decade old and are entirely due to the state legislature increasing spending to unsustainable amounts (more than doubling spending in a time period for which income did not significantly increase). I know that a lot of Californian's hate that 2/3 budget rule, but I don't see the problem. The 2/3 rule has not stopped them from increasing the state budget to the point that we can not pay for it. If it was a 50% rule that would only make it easier for them to approve new budgets. The way things are, I suspect that it would be a change for the worse.

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Don't worry, you aren't the only state policies enacted during his administration screwed over.

I get it that you don't like Reagan. He is responsible for many things that I hate. My state's current fiscal problems are not one of those things. The things that Reagan screwed up in the early 70's and my state's legislature losing all sense in the past decade are unrelated.

 

ClockCat wrote:

48 states are broke (running a deficit).

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

 

Arizona is worse off than California, FYI. They have a significantly smaller economy and are proportionally going more bankrupt every day. Nevada is really bad off as well.

The only two states not broke are extremely unpopulated with many areas that receive heavy federal subsidies. Some of the other states with large rural areas also benefit from the enormous dairy/cattle/agribusiness subsidies given out.

Well, fuck. And the federal government has massive debt too. I suppose that all the creditors might just get screwed on this one. I don't see how we can cover our debts. I did read that a lot of states are doing bad temporarily just because of the recession. So hopefully this will all blow over. I doubt it, but hopefully.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Calif taxes

Jormungander wrote:

Well, fuck. And the federal government has massive debt too. I suppose that all the creditors might just get screwed on this one. I don't see how we can cover our debts. I did read that a lot of states are doing bad temporarily just because of the recession. So hopefully this will all blow over. I doubt it, but hopefully.

According to this website, California is #11 in taxes as of 2008.

http://www.retirementliving.com/tax_burden_2008.pdf

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gapmap/index.htm

My state, Oregon, is #27 and we don't have a sales tax.  And unemployment is marginally better than CA, 11% in OR, 12.4% in CA.  You could move up here and join all the other ex-Californians.  Wait, I didn't say that --- oh my god, the lynch mob is on my doorstep -- HELP!!!

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

 

Arizona is worse off than California, FYI. They have a significantly smaller economy and are proportionally going more bankrupt every day. Nevada is really bad off as well.

The only two states not broke are extremely unpopulated with many areas that receive heavy federal subsidies. Some of the other states with large rural areas also benefit from the enormous dairy/cattle/agribusiness subsidies given out.

 

 

Where does the money from these subsidies come from? Could it be the broke states? Maybe if the government wasn't wasting their money they would be better off.

 

So you're saying the government is taking money from the broke states and giving it to the non-broke states?

 

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

 

Arizona is worse off than California, FYI. They have a significantly smaller economy and are proportionally going more bankrupt every day. Nevada is really bad off as well.

The only two states not broke are extremely unpopulated with many areas that receive heavy federal subsidies. Some of the other states with large rural areas also benefit from the enormous dairy/cattle/agribusiness subsidies given out.

 

 

Where does the money from these subsidies come from? Could it be the broke states? Maybe if the government wasn't wasting their money they would be better off.

 

So you're saying the government is taking money from the broke states and giving it to the non-broke states?

 

 

No. Federal money =\= State government money. Federal subsidies. Not state subsidies.

 

Basically, in the closed economies that are the states, they are getting money in from the outside. From individuals, most of the red states in the country are tax negative (they get more than they give) and most of the blue states are tax positive (they give more than they get). This is a combination of subsidies, welfare, and special deals made in congress to get federal funds sent their way. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:As a

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As a conservative, I'm finding it harder and harder to tolerate what some conservatives will actually stoop to in order to yell louder than the other side.

 

 

 

The only thing humans should aspire to is avoiding violence when being offended. I like to bitch, and for anyone to say they don't is bullshit. Everyone does it, and my bitching is no different or more or less offensive than those who hate me. What WE as a species can and should agree on is that words don't have to lead to physical blows. There is not enough of that mentality in humanity.

The reason you SHOULD defend them isn't because you agree with them, the reason you should defend them is that they have the same want of speaking freely without fear that you do.

A "Mexican standoff" is better than a scorched earth "My way or the highway" approach. In the end we are all human and nothing will change that. We all have the same wants and desires and flaws and are capable of the same range of human emotions and actions, good or bad.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:No. Federal

ClockCat wrote:

No. Federal money =\= State government money. Federal subsidies. Not state subsidies.

 

Basically, in the closed economies that are the states, they are getting money in from the outside. From individuals, most of the red states in the country are tax negative (they get more than they give) and most of the blue states are tax positive (they give more than they get). This is a combination of subsidies, welfare, and special deals made in congress to get federal funds sent their way. 

 

 

I mean federal as in everybody in America has to pay it. So a guy in Arizona is paying federal taxes to help a dairy farmer in North Dakota, where the dairy farmer could sell milk and make more profit and the Arizona guy just lost his job.

 

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:According to this

cj wrote:

According to this website, California is #11 in taxes as of 2008.

I looked around a bit and I have found sources that claim we are #1, #6 and #8. And you found a source that says #11. Worse yet, I found a source complaining about how difficult it is to estimate our tax burden thanks to how opaque our state gov is on this issue and because of how much of are taxes are in fees that are ignored if you just look at sales+income. If you just go by sales+income we are somewhere in the top ten in the sources I saw. Supposedly you can add in all of the other fees we pay to increase that to #1. Just to use cars as an example: we get nickled and dimed by the state gov by things like the highest gas tax in the nation, the highest (or among the highest, damned disagreeing sources) DMV fees, and among the highest driving ticket costs. Supposedly a substantial and often ignored tax burden are all these fees.

I think I'll leave Oregon alone. I'm more of a dry-climate/ride a motorcycle to school and work all year round kind of a guy. Is is really rainy 40% of the days there? I heard that stat once.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Jormungander wrote:
  Reagan had nothing to do with our current problems. Back in the late 90's we had a boom. The state and by extension the state government were swimming in money. The economic boom has ended but state government spending kept rising fast anyways. That just wasn't sustainable. Completely unrelated to our tax and spending issues, Reagan did cut mental health and education funding. That was a bad move on his part. But our crazy budget and tax problems are very recent. He stopped being our governor about 35 years ago and our current fiscal problems started about 10 years ago.  
 The problems started with Reagan, not 10 years ago. The policies instituted then are what set your current economic climate. It was great to cut taxes like crazy when you were making money hand over fist, but you have been losing your surplus as a state since then. Yes, you had a temporary boost to your economy. It was only a business cycle though.   
Jormungander wrote:
Californians did vote for a proposition (Prop. 13 back in the 1970's) that modified that state constitution to block legislature attempts to increase our property taxes. Though no, that doesn't mean that new owners get higher property taxes. We all get low property taxes. Our high sales tax, gas tax, corporate income tax and personal income tax is where our state government's money comes from. Property taxes are the one thing we blocked the legislature from raising. The old folks forced out of their home thing is if someone owns their home and doesn't have an income then they still have to pay property taxes every year. If property taxes are reevaluated based on the current estimated value of the home and can be raised by the legislature, then any spike in home prices or significant increase in property taxes will drive some low to no income people (ie. retired people) out of their homes merely because they can't afford the tax increase. I'm fine with that. Our tax scheme is to have very high sales, gas and income taxes. I don't see why we also need high property tax on top of that. I mean, come on, highest tax burden of any state in the nation all ready. In no way is our tax burden too low. If property taxes are the one exception to our high tax burden, I don't see the problem.  
 The point is that not everyone is paying their share though. It isn't about high or low taxes. It is that some entities get tax breaks while others have to pay more to try and compensate. Hint: You aren't the one with the tax cuts.   Prop 13 set property taxes to 1% of the property's value in 1976. And if the value continues to rise, the taxes can only increase 2% a year above the original 1%. 2% of 1% is practically nothing.   Since corporate property almost never changes hands, a huge amount of corporate property has not been reassessed since 1978. This is an enormous tax loophole, amounting to an estimated $2 billion a year.  That is not a small sum.  Also, trying to rely on gas and sales taxes was not a good patch for loss of income. They are both far too volatile sources of revenue, compared to property being fairly stable.   
Jormungander wrote:
 Yeah, that was a bad move on his part. That, screwing with our education system, increasing national debt as the president and initiating the modern War on Drugs as we know it are things that he really screwed up on. I think you lost me here. There are companies that are given money by the state government rather than paying taxes ('negative tax rate')? That sounds unbelievable. I am aware of companies that are in reality based in California while they are nominally based in some tax-haven foreign country. And why would they play this underhanded game to avoid our corporate income tax? Our corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the nation. Two states do have higher rates than us. Rather than pay the third highest corporate income tax in the nation, these companies keep as much of their nominal income generation out of state as possible. The state taxes corps for income earned in the state. So it is a rational choice for companies to nominally make as much of their income in virtually any other US state or any other country. And I'm pretty sure that it is beyond the power of our state government to tax global income. I'm sure that the state is losing a lot of money because of that. But I'm glad that companies can effectively flee our high corporate tax rates. As I've said elsewhere on this site, I am pro-tax haven. The existence of tax havens acts as a safeguard against extremely high tax rates. In this case, the system works. In the sense that the state government actually loses money thanks to their high tax rate since it is relatively better to pay corporate income taxes in almost any other state or nation.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Yes, there are companies paying 0% income tax in your state.   Please, think about this for a moment. You seem to be under the illusion that a corporation capable of paying 0% taxes would pay anything more than that.  Corporations are designed to make profit. Whether you set their tax at 90% or 2%, do you honestly believe in either case they would choose that over 0%?  You are paying for your state giving breaks to companies. The high taxes are not shared. You are carrying their burden.   Only you can't even do that, because the share being ditched on you is too large.  
Jormungander wrote:
 We got that rule in 1978. Reagan left office in 1975. You can't blame all our problems on Reagan. Like I said, our fiscal problems are about a decade old and are entirely due to the state legislature increasing spending to unsustainable amounts (more than doubling spending in a time period for which income did not significantly increase). I know that a lot of Californian's hate that 2/3 budget rule, but I don't see the problem. The 2/3 rule has not stopped them from increasing the state budget to the point that we can not pay for it. If it was a 50% rule that would only make it easier for them to approve new budgets. The way things are, I suspect that it would be a change for the worse.  
  They were his policies, and his legacy for your state. The 2/3 rule ensured gridlock after instituting his policies. Seems to have worked pretty well.  
Jormungander wrote:
 I get it that you don't like Reagan. He is responsible for many things that I hate. My state's current fiscal problems are not one of those things. The things that Reagan screwed up in the early 70's and my state's legislature losing all sense in the past decade are unrelated.
 They very much are related. He cut your state revenue a lot. You have disproportionate taxes, where some are paying large amounts and others are paying nothing. And your state is going broke. An economic boom might make things okay for a while for you guys, but the problems won't go away with that. Your current governor entered with plans to cut waste. Well, what waste is there to cut? Why is it no one can point to this waste and name it? The problem is you have companies ditching their share of the social burden on you, and other taxpayers. You guys need to get on fixing your tax loopholes that were put in place in the late 70s.
Jormungander wrote:
 Well, fuck. And the federal government has massive debt too. I suppose that all the creditors might just get screwed on this one. I don't see how we can cover our debts. I did read that a lot of states are doing bad temporarily just because of the recession. So hopefully this will all blow over. I doubt it, but hopefully. 
 Who knows. I don't. I just research what policies cause what issues. I don't have an answer for you. I imagine there will have to be a combination of fixing tax codes to remove loopholes, raising taxes, and cutting services though.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

No. Federal money =\= State government money. Federal subsidies. Not state subsidies.

 

Basically, in the closed economies that are the states, they are getting money in from the outside. From individuals, most of the red states in the country are tax negative (they get more than they give) and most of the blue states are tax positive (they give more than they get). This is a combination of subsidies, welfare, and special deals made in congress to get federal funds sent their way. 

 

 

I mean federal as in everybody in America has to pay it. So a guy in Arizona is paying federal taxes to help a dairy farmer in North Dakota, where the dairy farmer could sell milk and make more profit and the Arizona guy just lost his job.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that is correct. Except Arizona is a tax negative state, so they do not even cover themselves individually. They are being  subsidized on average by population from other states.

 

They get more federal dollars than they give, in other words.

 

Most of the tax positive states happen to be heavily blue states. New Jersey gets about 66 cents back for every federal tax dollar.

 

Most of the red states happen to be suckling the teat of the federal government for cash.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
don't tell

Jormungander wrote:

I looked around a bit and I have found sources that claim we are #1, #6 and #8. And you found a source that says #11. Worse yet, I found a source complaining about how difficult it is to estimate our tax burden thanks to how opaque our state gov is on this issue and because of how much of are taxes are in fees that are ignored if you just look at sales+income. If you just go by sales+income we are somewhere in the top ten in the sources I saw. Supposedly you can add in all of the other fees we pay to increase that to #1. Just to use cars as an example: we get nickled and dimed by the state gov by things like the highest gas tax in the nation, the highest (or among the highest, damned disagreeing sources) DMV fees, and among the highest driving ticket costs. Supposedly a substantial and often ignored tax burden are all these fees.

I happen to agree that it is hard to estimate how much in taxes/fees anyone pays.  So I generally don't worry about it.  I lived in Arizona until I was in my 30s.  Income tax+sales tax+really high vehicle tax+high property taxes+++++  And yet, if you were over 65, you got all kinds of tax breaks and discounts.  I wouldn't live there if you paid me to.  It all comes down to personal preference.

Jormungander wrote:

I think I'll leave Oregon alone. I'm more of a dry-climate/ride a motorcycle to school and work all year round kind of a guy. Is is really rainy 40% of the days there? I heard that stat once.

Don't tell anyone I told you.  I looked it up once.  Portland, Oregon gets 36 inches of precipitation per year on average.  New York city gets 42 inches.  But Portland has the damp reputation, not NY.  Go figure.  I think the deal is most of Portland's rain is in the winter.  Summers are usually very dry - no rain for months.  Living through the winters can be trying for some people.  I like it.  No rain = desert and I hate the desert.  And most of the rain is somewhere only slightly stronger than a mist.  So to me, the damp days of winter mean lovely green days of summer and I cope just fine.  Lots of people here ride bikes and motor bikes to work in the winter.  But they are natives and as a friend said, "I'm from Oregon and plaid flannel turns me on."

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
reminds me

ClockCat wrote:


Yes, that is correct. Except Arizona is a tax negative state, so they do not even cover themselves individually. They are being  subsidized on average by population from other states. 

They get more federal dollars than they give, in other words. 

Most of the tax positive states happen to be heavily blue states. New Jersey gets about 66 cents back for every federal tax dollar. 

Most of the red states happen to be suckling the teat of the federal government for cash.

Every few years, eastern Washington legislators bring up the issue of creating a new state separate from western Washington.  East of the Cascades - red necks.  West of the Cascades - blue as blue can be.

So the eastern guys talk and talk about how they are being beat up and forced to compromise their morals by the nasty liberals on the west side.  (They really did talk like that.)  Until they realized, once again, that western Washington subsidizes eastern Washington - a lot.  And funny, all the talk of a new state just blew away - again.  I expect it will come up again when there is a younger batch of legislators who haven't examined the budget very closely.  But it will blow away - again.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ClockCat

cj wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

Yes, that is correct. Except Arizona is a tax negative state, so they do not even cover themselves individually. They are being  subsidized on average by population from other states. 

They get more federal dollars than they give, in other words. 

Most of the tax positive states happen to be heavily blue states. New Jersey gets about 66 cents back for every federal tax dollar. 

Most of the red states happen to be suckling the teat of the federal government for cash.

Every few years, eastern Washington legislators bring up the issue of creating a new state separate from western Washington.  East of the Cascades - red necks.  West of the Cascades - blue as blue can be.

So the eastern guys talk and talk about how they are being beat up and forced to compromise their morals by the nasty liberals on the west side.  (They really did talk like that.)  Until they realized, once again, that western Washington subsidizes eastern Washington - a lot.  And funny, all the talk of a new state just blew away - again.  I expect it will come up again when there is a younger batch of legislators who haven't examined the budget very closely.  But it will blow away - again.

 

Yup.  Although last I heard the idea was to create a meta state out of eastern oregeon, eastern WA and Idaho.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I have nothing to contribute here, except a big thumbs up

to each of you

Brian37 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As a conservative, I'm finding it harder and harder to tolerate what some conservatives will actually stoop to in order to yell louder than the other side.

 

Yelling is fine, in fact in a free society, if you don't yell, it means you don't care, and freedom only comes with caring.

I find this awful as well. But not from the sense that they have the right to do it. I am quite sure they could find "insensitive" remarks from liberals and atheists.

It is awful, because of their own ignorance, not their right to express themselves.

 

Fuckin A

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I just watched the video again..was there a teabagger yelling "Keep Obama's hands off my Big Mac"?

 

Yup!  Fuckin teabaggers.

Yea, as long as you can get your heart clogging Big Mac run by gestapo company, who gives a fuck about the fry cook behind the counter making you burger or making the company rich, fuck that loser poor person, they're poor. fuck poor people.

It's all about the CEOs and Shareholder's babby, we are merely their minions and slaves.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Americans suck at this

Americans suck at this protest stuff it seems. they are just standing around shouting stuff. what is the point? As if anyone who has the ability to decide on the bill will take any notice. 300 people shouting things won't change anybodies mind.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Everybody involved in that

Everybody involved in that exchange are imbeciles...especially the fear mongering dolt throwing the money (singles, the cheap bastard... He is a stripper's nightmare)... but including the attention seeking asshat with Parkinsons... 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
That is an interesting point

That is an interesting point Rich. However, how do we even know that they guy really has Parkinson's disease? In the short clip that we see of him, he is not doing the Michael J. Foxtrot. Occam's Razor says that he is an attention whore. It does not demand that his claim is true.

 

And yah, the dude with the money is a douche bag. He is about as entertaining as Glenn Beck but at least Beck has a podium. I am embarrased to be on the same team with both him and Beck.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Americans suck

Tapey wrote:

Americans suck at this protest stuff it seems. they are just standing around shouting stuff. what is the point? As if anyone who has the ability to decide on the bill will take any notice. 300 people shouting things won't change anybodies mind.

Shouting might give you a headache, but weapons kill. I'd rather have a headache shouting or listening than be dead. If the worst any human has to hear is that someone else thinks they are a piece of shit without fear of being murdered by their neighbor or their government, I'd be happy with that.

You can't stop people from bitching. But, humans have all evolved like all biological life with the goal to continue. To say our detractors don't have the same goal we do is to treat them as a separate species.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37