Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: OWS falls apart like a cheap Chinese toy

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 12, 2011, 8:48 a.m. EST by TheMaster (63)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Time to move on. It's over.



Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

The attempts to break our will fall apart like many cheap products produced and sold by Fortune 500 companies.

Time to give up. You can't stop us.

Say that reminds me...

The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 40% of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.

Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher.

The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.

This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

Yeah...stop you? you haven't started anything......there are psychopaths shouting things at passersby's, and talking to themselves, in every city of the country...just because, "this year" there are a few more hasn't "changed" anything....have you influenced an election? or elected a single candidate? You affected the national media cycle....but, Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians have done that too...and gotten more press.....

By your post, the changes you should be making is investing in more dividend stock, and capital investments..but that is not your plan..instead you want more subsidy for failures and fail-to-start's, more massive tax breaks for those who use the bulk of the services provided to the public, but pay the smallest share for them...

You see, the problem with your assertions, of "massive" tax breaks, is that to get a tax break...you must "PAY" taxes...and the wealthiest Americans pay most of the taxes.....near 70% for those with higher than average incomes...but, their income share...is only about 46%.....(and yes, that 70% includes ALL taxes, local, state.sales, payroll, income, excise, property, etc...ALL of them) and as for as "subsidy" most of that is also tax relief, but, again...it goes to companies that provide jobs....companies that provide the capital expenditures for facilities, machinery, technology, equipment, supplies, utilities, and refreshments, so you can just walk in and perform some operations......without bearing ANY of those costs, or designing ANY of those organizational/operational systems....not to mention the initial creating of the products and services that were valuable enough to risk all of those expenses PRIOR to their production....No, you just have to show up, with the attitude, experience, talent, and drive...to jump into that job, with all it's attendant provision...and you STILL complain about it......why don't YOU fools create some organizations and compete with those you hate...IF your idea's are so much better, and more "fair" you shouldn't have any trouble......No, you won't do THAT, because you know you can't...you would rather just laze around and demand that others change the system because you can't be bothered into trying.....or, god forbid....Performing....

[-] 4 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

If you want to be taken seriously you need to think before you post a bogus imaginary statistic.

You stated that those with "higher than average" incomes share just 46% of total income.


Do your research, think before you post, and try again. Then I will glady respond to every point made.

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

Well...it changes a bit each year....here's a NY Time's article, from 2007, that says 48.5% of income for the top 10% (over 115K per year)


I'll get you sourced current figures when I get home in an hour or so.. I could send you the US Statistical Abstract link instead...if you prefer the raw data?

Careful who you accuse of not researching....I spend hundreds of hours a month researching....

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

That statistic for the top 10% sounds like its in the ballpark. I'm a junkie for statistics. If you have some I havn't seen yet, I would like to.

But I stand by my previous claims. The bottom quintile pays about the same rate overall (as a percentage of income) as the top quintile. The middle class pay about the same rate overall as the top 1%. The 2nd percentile pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top 1%.

The incomes for the rich have been partially subsidized. The benefits have not been shared proportionally. They have been hoarded at the top. Otherwise, it wouldn't bother me so much.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

I don't care about the "rates" the largest share of taxes are paid by the highest income earners....and the percentages the top 10% pay, of total taxation, are higher with the lower marginal rates of the 2001-03 tax rate reductions, than they were under the prior rates.....on statistically flat income shares...

If you want to use quintiles...then the figures are: Top 20% of taxpayers, by income.... 86% of income taxes (federal) 87% of corporate taxes, 43.5% of SS/Medicare taxes, on 55.7% of income earned (top 20% = $71,200<)

Bottom 3 quintiles: 60% of taxpayers...(the poor and working poor, although it includes many single filers, retirees, , students, children, and dependents as well) ($32,100> income) 14% of ALL federal taxes, 0.8% (yes, less than a single percent) of income taxes (federal) 5.2% of corporate taxes, 31.3% of SS/Medicare taxes, on 28.5% of income shares.....

The incomes of the rich are hardly "hoarded" ......they produce more, including most of the income for which the entire system is based...via payrolls....and when you "do" more...in terms of results and value added to the overall system...you get to keep more...even a child understands the fairness of that...

and your assertion that the incomes of the rich are partially subsidized, I'd like to see some reference on that....

But, we can say that since the bottom two quintiles combined have a negative -3.6% share of individual income taxes...which means they receive all of their withholding and additional money in excess of their withholding...so 40% of taxpayers ARE subsidized directly, if you have information of that sort on "the rich"...I'd like to see it....

these are CBO numbers, from the 2009 tax collection summary....

I don't have a link, I printed it and am referencing the printed copy...

What you don't take into account when you say that "benefits" haven't been shared proportionally, is that the disparity in production, and results far exceed the disparity in compensation....

and the "Rich" pay far more in percentages of total taxes, on lower shares of total income, than do the other taxpayers...

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

I do care about the rates. That was my entire point. I never disputed that the largest share of taxes are paid by the highest reapers (I will not use the word 'earners' to refer to anyone who reaps 10 times or more the pay of a firefighter. You can't 'earn' that much. You can only reap it by taking advantage of a corrupt system.). Anyway, I never disputed that the highest reapers on average pay the largest share of taxes overall. Why the hell would I? Its simple math. My point was that if the income were distributed by a reasonable measure, the lower majority would not only be much better off, they would also need much less financial aid and pay a greater share of those overall taxes.

My whole point was that when you account for all Federal, State, and Local taxes and fees, the lowest quintile pays about the same rate as the highest. The difference is within 5 percent. Also, that the 2nd percentile pays a higher rate on average than the top percentile.

Your statistics don't change anything. Look at the growth of income charts from '79' to '07'. The top percentile has grown by 281%. The top quintile by 95%. Next 35%. Next 25%. Next 23%. Next 16%. These figures are in '07' dollars but the actual cost of living has risen MUCH higher than core inflation. Key expenses like energy and health care have skyrocketed.

These obscene charges represent record high profits. Record high. Year after year after year. 1/2 of all dividends are paid to the richest 1%. 97% to the top 5% and foreign investors. This proves that immense wealth has been reaped from the lower majority and handed over primarily to the top 1%.

I have moral issues with the entire concept of investment for profit but my beef is not with the top quintile. It never has been. I'm all for having an upper class.

Damn right the incomes of the rich are hoarded. They have been for well over 30 years. The richest 1% now hold more than twice the share of wealth they held in 1976. Their incomes are also partially subsidized. You want proof?

Check this out:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. Note: This claim was made by Forbes.com in April of '10'. Shortly after, they published a followup article which included a rebuttal by Exxon Mobil. Forbes.com did acknowledge a mistake based on incorrect line items filed by Exxon Mobil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Those are just the top 10. They don't even include State and local subsidies. Again, the top heavy growth across quintiles proves that the benefit has not been shared proportionally. In fact, those household incomes (after inflation but before the ACTUAL cost of living) are based in part on more hours worked and 2nd providers.

The social safety net is not only absolutely necessary to prevent a complete societal meltdown, the very need for one is greater than ever because of the obscene charges, record high profits, record high incomes, and near record high concentration of wealth in America.

Please expand on your reference to 'corporate taxes'. I want to make sure we're on the same page before I respond to that point.

Your last line is bullshit. Its just not true. Their share of income is much higher and their tax rates much lower than 30 years ago. If the rich want to pay a lower share of the overall taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the overall income in America.

They can start by refusing and paying back all corporate subsidies.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

It's funny how you pick and chose years, and semantics to "prove" your point.....listing "refund" amounts, "tax breaks", Bailouts (which were LOANS not unencumbered "bailouts") and multi-year statistically manipulated figures and not the actual tax liability paid by the mentioned corporations......or choose single year payment examples.....

Any person or entity that receives a refund must first pay withholding or quarterly tax payments TO the IRS...but, again...you make no mention of those figures, or what the actual taxes paid were...leading the uneducated to think that corporations actually received money from the treasury while paying nothing...which is false.

Even your examples, such as GE, whose net-zero taxes were a result of the 30 billion in losses from GE finance during the financial collapse....

You list "subsidy" amounts but not gross payrolls, or actual tax liabilities....so you can create a falsely painted picture that incorrectly identifies the actuality of taxation in the US.....

You fail to identify the confiscatory tax rate and cost of regulatory control as the leading driver of increased prices, and instead blame "profits" of the large corporations...profit margins that a small business couldn't exist on...

The profit margins of the large corporation are cents on the dollar, and a rise from 6 cents per dollar of revenue over sales, to 9 cents, is listed as a 50% rise in profits....which is statistically accurate, but isn't telling the whole story....the leader in profit, of the large corporations you listed, is Carnival Cruise Lines at 26 cents per dollar, with Apple Inc at 23 cents, BOA and Citigroup at 14 cents, Chevron at 12 cents, Exxon at 8 cents, GE at 7 cents, Boeing at 6 cents, Valero and Conoco Phillips at 4 cents, Goldman Sachs at -8% (a loss).....

Not the "MASSIVE" profits that you allege, at all...

But, I guess you have a dual standard, taxation we must look at percentages, to be fair...but profits...that we are supposed to look at actual dollars.....more smoke and mirror deception....

Also....you list overall profits as your baseline in several cases, and not US profits.....the US government has no authority to tax income generated from profits gained in other countries...no country has that authority, or even attempts to do so.....

And, let's be clear, in the connection you are trying to make between "individual" and "corporate" taxation......business enterprises do not "PAY" taxes...ever...those expenses are factored in as a cost of business and passed along to consumers....and the reason that corporations focus their profits to overseas subsidiaries is that the combined Local/State/Federal taxes in the US are far in excess of any rates anywhere else in the world, what is surprising to me is not that companies relocate outside the US...the surprising thing is that there are any left here in the US....the only companies that win in the US are those in bed with government and politicians...and you might want to look who those unholy unions benefit.....it isn't free trade conservatives.....

You want to rig the numbers to say what YOU want them to say, so you can create institutional theft, out of "fairness"...

The taxation (back to individual taxes..I really wish you'd stop trying to fallaciously move the goalpost in your assertions)

Using the top 10% as the standard, in the years from 1980-2009, the share of federal income taxes vs share of AGI were:

1980 49.28% / 32.13% 1981 47.96% / 31.98% 1982 48.59% / 32.26% 1983 49.71% / 32.78% 1984 50.56% / 33.25% 1985 51.46% / 33.77% 1986 54.69% / 35.12% 1987 55.61% / 36.90% 1988 57.28% / 39.45% 1989 55.78% / 39.00% 1990 55.36% / 38.77% 1991 55.82% / 38.20% 1992 58.01% / 39.23% 1993 59.24% / 39.05% 1994 59.45% / 39.19% 1995 60.75% / 40.16% 1996 62.71% / 41.59% 1997 63.20% / 42.83% 1998 65.04% / 43.77% 1999 66.45% / 44.89% 2000 67.33% / 46.01% 2001 67.89% / 43.11% 2002 65.73% / 41.77% 2003 65.84% / 42.36% 2004 68.19% / 44.35% 2005 70.30% / 46.44% 2006 70.79% / 47.32% 2007 71.20% / 48.07% 2008 69.94% / 45.77% 2009 70.47% / 43.19%

You can see...income shares remained statistically flat from about 1998-2009, but the share of taxes increased by 5%

and in comparing the years of the 39.6% rate with the years of the 35% rate.... tax shares increased progressively more than revenue shares (isn't that what you're after, the "rich" paying more?)..using the closest figures of 2000 vs 2008 and 1998 vs 2009 as glaring examples...the lower rate brought in MORE revenue in taxes per revenue share...The "Rich" earned more, kept more...AND paid more...

and in EVERY year, share of taxation outpaced share revenue....

As for your "income disparity" from 79-07..you'll notice that ALL income levels increased...taking the wind out of your sales about the "zero sum gain" idea that the top "took" from the bottom...what happened was an expansion, for everyone....and those who created it (the tech sector, service industries, and other low-employee based enterprise creating a large part of the expansion)...those who created the boom were able to keep the rewards, but they also increased the rewards of ALL economic classes...

I know all this is lost on you, since you want to punish those who make more, because others don't....I pray we never see your "least common denominator" society....since it likely will not be able to support itself.

You can check the numbers for yourself, here (I hope you have lots of time though, it's rather exhaustive): http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

First of all, I want you to know one thing right off the bat. You can't confuse me with sheer volume of statistics. You just can't. I did read every single word of your response. and I understood every single word. So if your strategy is to break my will be confusing me with sheer volume of statistics copied from any source, I can promise you that strategy will fail.

Your claim that I pick and choose years and semantics is outright bullshit. I'll remind you again: You stated in an earlier post that those with a "higher than average" income shared just 46% of the income. This isn't only false, it is mathematically impossible.

I didn't research the statistics on corporate welfare one at a time. I copied them as they appear from another site. That being said, they are legit. Your attempts to dance your way around them won't work with me. I realize that in order to receive a refund from the IRS, an entity must first pay taxes. Its not only common knowledge. Its just about universal. Even my dog understands this and he didn't even graduate. He also understands the following:


Why in holy hell do you think that corporations spend so much time and money lobbying congress? Are you even aware that dozens of corporations spend more money lobbying congress than they do in Federal taxes? Do you even understand how significant that is? What is your strategy going to be with regard to this issue? To deny this claim outright or simply ignore it?

No. You're wrong. Business enterprises can't simply pass every penny of taxes onto the consumer. That is a half-baked claim that I've heard a thousand times. They can attempt to pass a portion onto the consumer but risk driving the consumer to a competitor instead. The consumer may also decide not to purchase the product or service from anyone, which in many cases would be in their best interest. Therefore, the business enterprise has no choice but to absorb the difference. As a die-hard capitalist/corporate welfare junkie, you must understand this. If you don't, I'll ask you again:

Why do you think corporations spend so much time and money lobbying congress? Do you even realize that dozens of corporations spend more money lobbying congress than they do in Federal taxes?

If GE finance lost billions during the financial crisis which they helped cause, then let them take their losses. The parent company is still a juggernaut. Let them take their losses. Let them sell off assets. Let the executives pay back every penny of bonus reaped during the time in which bad decisions were made. Let them be fired. Maybe even prosecuted. Let the shareholders take their losses. LET THEM TAKE THEIR LOSSES. ANYTHING ELSE IS CORPORATE WELFARE.

I will not judge profits only by percentage. No way in hell. Not when they use deceptive accounting practices. Not when the executives, accountants, and attorneys are paid millions. Not when they spend millions in lavish perks. Not when they lobby congress. Not when they receive subsidies. Not when they divert funds. NOT WHEN THOSE PERCENTAGES REPRESENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. So don't pull that 'modest margin' crap on me. It won't work.

I think you're mistaken. There are circumstances under which profits reaped overseas can and should be taxed. I don't recall those circumstances but I do recall that those rates are incredibly low. I think you're mistaken. In which case, you will certainly refuse to admit it claiming instead that those circumstances don't apply to your previous claim that "no country has that authority, or even attempts to do so".

Bullshit. I've heard that bogus claim that our tax rates are "far in excess of any rates anywhere else in the world" many times. Thats just bullshit. Most are lower. Some are higher. In fact, some are MUCH higher. Again, you will refuse to admit your mistake by claiming that those circumstances don't apply to your bogus claim that our combined Federal, State, and local tax rates are "far in excess of any rates anywhere else in the world". Thats just not true. Its a steaming pile of crap when you account for the many loopholes and corporate subsidies provided by Federal, State, and local governments.

Question: Which major industry has reaped record high profits and paid record low rates during a time of war in which hundreds of billions were spent on the war effort and over 4000 soldiers died in part, to protect the primary resource of this major industry?

Hint: Unscramble these letters: LIO

Don't you think that a portion of the expense should be covered by this major industry? Save the "pass on to consumer" excuse. Its not that simple. If you're so in love with the free market, then shut up and let it adjust on its own with ZERO subsidies.

One more huge point on this issue:


Now tell me that they would rather abandon the largest consumer market in the world just to get a lower tax rate overseas. No way in hell. They would rather lobby congress for more corporate welfare and reap those record profits right here from our consumers. They can, they have, they are, and they will.

I've already made it crystal clear. My beef is with the richest one percent. Not the richest ten percent. I've also made it crystal clear that when you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL taxes and fees, the little guy pays about the same rate, as a percentage of income as the big guy. So throw out your 30 years of statistics regarding Federal Income Taxes paid by the top ten percent and start all over with 30 years of FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL taxes and fees paid by the richest one percent.

While you're at it, just try to deny my claim that the benefits of corporate welfare have been hoarded at the top. Not passed on proportionally to the little guy. Check those statistics I posted in the last reply, confirm them, and just try to deny it.

I see you tried to divert my attention with your little comment regarding relatively flat rates of income for the top ten percent over an 11 year time frame. Again, not for the top one percent. Not even the 30 year time frame that I have based my position on. Did you really expect me to fall for such a lame psychological trick?

Question: How have the incomes of the richest ONE PERCENT been effected by the current crisis?

Question: How have the incomes of the lower ninety eight percent been effected by the current crisis?

Do you have the guts to answer these straight questions or shall I throw the statistics in your face?

The next paragraph in your response is crap. It was another lame attempt to divert my attention by focusing on the short time frame for an economic model that is dead. In case you havn't heard, Federal revenue is now in record low territory as a percentage of GDP. In fact, the entire model was based in large part on consumers spending money they didn't have. It amazes me that you die-hard conservative partisan puppets don't understand this.


Holy albino lobster crap! How the hell can you stand by such a shallow position that all income levels increased from '79' to '07' and completely ignore the point that I made immediately after?


How could you miss that? What the hell have you been smoking?

I'll check the link but I really don't need it at the moment. This post was written from memory.

One last thing: This is the phrase I wanted you to expand on: "87% of corporate taxes". Go back, check the context, and tell me exactly what you meant by that. Then, I will respond to it.


[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

Wow..just as I expected.....you are stupid and emotional....and facts have no influence on your angry and ideological arguments...you hate those who succeed, which is obvious by your response...your economic and human behavioral knowledge are lacking, and you insist on creating realities that don't exist.....You don't know tax law, or international tax policy. You make assertions, about state nd local taxes which are mathematically impossible...that somehow a 70/30% disparity can be made up on the single digit rates of state/local income taxes, or I guess sales/property taxes...which are also paid for in lager shares by the wealthy..I have the "by state" stats too (except for sales tax which cannot be calculated)...and you're WRONG...but, no amount of proof would change your mind....because it's about equalized "outcome" for you...regardless of effort and result....the trillions of subsidy to the lower end, which produces NOTHING, no products, no jobs, no "New" revenue...is fine, but the comparable pittance of tax relief and subsidy that assists business is a sin, despite the massive amount of products, services, and payroll they produce...and just for your information...tax law does not allow a corporate entity to have a negative tax position....zero is the lower limit....since you can't lose more than valuation, which is a component of corp taxes...I file them each year.

and every penny of cost, including taxation is factored into price....if the taxation can't be adjusted in the product price, it's adjusted in other places...like employment, to even the books...

Oh....and you are also wrong about taxing profits made outside the US...the only way that can be taxed is if it is repatriated..which will never happen at current corporate rates...Which ARE the highest in the world...if foreign rates were higher they could repatriate for free...as that is only subject to the difference between their rates and ours...

You are clearly an idiot who gets his "facts" from news stories and internet postings....That's how I knew the profit margins of the companies...I've seen that list before...I think on Alternet, or some such propaganda site....

You're probably one of those fools that thinks there was no debt before Bush43, and that Social Security is actually a "trust Fund" account with real dollars in it...hahaha

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

I've read and understood every word of your technical spin on incomes, profits, and taxes. I've responded to every point. I stand by every word.

I made it crystal clear before, some corporations have payed negative taxes. They are called subsidies.

I knew it! I just knew it. I, caught you, the self proclaimed expert in another mistake. Corporate profits made overseas CAN be taxed under some circumstances. Our country DOES have that authority. As I predicted in my previous post, you have now admitted it but claim that these circumstances (repatriation) don't apply to your previous claim that "no country has that authority, or even attempts to do so".

By the way, I suspected those were the circumstances. I was going only from memory. I heard a report on a proposition a few months back. Thats what I was going on.

And another: You swore that the US tax rates are "far in excess of any rates anywhere else in the world". I swore that most were lower worldwide but some were higher. Again, I was exactly right. You were exactly wrong. The following is a very recent quote from TheTaxFoundation.org:

"waves of tax reform in dozens of countries have left the U.S. burdened with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world"

Again, I was exactly right. You were exactly wrong.

Again, the quote refers only to generic book rates. Not to those hundreds of billions in loopholes and subsidies. Which change everything.

Damn. I'm no expert but I'm pretty good for a builder. Thats right. I saw boards for a living. Still, I have what it takes to go toe to toe with the likes of you. I've already caught you in one outright blunder (that crap about those with "higher than average" incomes sharing just 46% of the total income), several other falsehoods, and now this. You even responded with the very same psychological trick that I predicted. HA HA.

If you have statistics to disprove my claim that when you account for all Federal, State, and local taxes and fees, the little guy pays about the same rate as the big guy, post them. Post them. Post them. Post them. Just be careful with the spin. The devil is always in the details. Ask any professor of economics. They will tell you the same.

If you can name a single well known expert who is willing to take and answer the question online, name them.

When you account for all Federal, State, and local taxes and fees, the little guy pays about the same rate as a percentage of income as the big guy.

In fact, some of the poor actually pay a higher rate than some of the rich.

Our position seems to be this: You swear that my position is based not on facts but on hatred for those who 'succeed'.

I swear that your position is based primarily on a desire to be rich. This desire has and will prevent you from acknowledging a single valid point.

I challenge you to prove your claim with one simple question of your choosing. Just make it relevant and 'bottom line' in nature. Something you can prove or disprove in one short paragraph.

I'll do the same.

Question: Are you willing to admit any strong relationship between a heavy concentration of income, wealth, or capital like we have now and economic instability?

Please include a 'yes' or 'no' somewhere in your answer.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer a number of previous questions and explain what the hell you meant by this phrase: "87% of corporate taxes". Go back, check the context, and explain yourself. But don't use it as an excuse to disregard my question about the distribution of wealth and any relation to economic instability. If you're going to whimp out again, at least answer that one.

I'm waiting. Tick tock tick tock tick tock.

[-] -1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

"Technical spin"...is that the new "progressive" collectivist term for the truth?

No corporation can pay "negative" taxes....the tax law doesn't allow corporations to do that....they can carry losses forward, but CANNOT have a negative tax liability...and I know what you are trying to falsely elude to....that corporations receive more in refund than they pay in taxes....which DOES NOT happen.....but it does happen with the lower income levels with the Earned Income Tax Credit....tax payers CAN receive refunds in excess of withholding paid in...

Professors of Economics are largely impractical theoreticians, Keynesians, Collectivists, Social Justice Types....Idea's that history, and reality have dismissed as absurd when attempted in real systems

There is NO state or local tax jurisdiction where rates on mandatory taxes are higher for lower incomes

Sales Tax = Same Rate... Property Tax = Same Rate... State Tax = Same Rate, or higher rates for larger incomes... Local Tax = Same Flat Rate...

and we've already addressed federal taxes....

I know what you are trying to sell as "higher rates", you are attempting to equate the residual income, after expenses as being related to taxation...... The lower incomes earn less, so after expenses, they have less remaining...there is no dispute about that...that is the perk of earning more, by producing and creating more results....

My position is based on a desire for people to keep what they earn....a simple concept, even for children, if you want more, do more...simple...and I really don't have the desire to become "rich", only to work for my money until such time as my money can work for me...

I refuse to recognize your argument as valid, as you attempt to create a value out of one man's need, so you can extract from another man the value he created and earned...you seek to strip the value from the minority and to reward the larger, less effective majority....bullying mob rule, simply put.....

There is no limit on wealth, our system is not one where the earnings of one man are not..."taken" from another, wealth expands in the open market system...the wealth of Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Omidyar, Page & Win, Yang & Filo, Bezos, and many others is ENTIRELY newly created wealth, that is not distributed from other person, but exists now, because of the efforts and idea's of those men....

As to your assertion about Firemen....there is just compensation even in excess of what you contend cannot be legitimate......If a small business owner had 5 employees, and paid them each 65K, and took a salary of 80K to manage and organize them, at $400000 per employee, you would applaud him as fair and just....but a CEO of a large corporation with 100,000 employees is greedy and unfair if he takes a 10 million dollar salary, at $100.00 per employee...who is exploiting his labor more?

As for your question....it is simple, NO....."heavy concentration of income doesn't have any effect on stability, in an expanding system, as long as all levels of economy are expanding....the larger factor is government intervention in the process and arbitrary valuation of tasks....the value of tasks lies in the necessity, the contribution to the finished product, the ease of replacement of the employee (based on knowledge and experience)...all tasks do not merit a "living wage" as they do not contribute that value to the finished product....."Need", again..is not a value in the system..it's an absence of value....what you can do, how you can perform, and what you bring to the task are what is most important...NOT what you "need"...that is YOUR problem, and a person should adjust their behavior and lifestyle "needs" to align with their compensation, and if they desire more...should increase their value....

I have a question for you...a simple one....

How much of EACH dollar is the government entitled to collect in taxes?

I know this question will trouble you, as you believe that when dollars are grouped together, or held by certain people you think they have less value, or that the person's holding them are due less value for them...despite the cause that the compensation is the effect of....

Give it a try though...

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago


Do this internet search: "corporations" "negative tax rate" You will find hundreds of articles which explain how dozens of major corporations have used loopholes in the system to achieve a NEGATIVE TAX RATE. THATS RIGHT. THEY HAVE ACHIEVED A NEGATIVE TAX RATE. DO THE GOD DAMN SEARCH YOU COWARD. Then admit that you simply were not aware of the loopholes.

In the meantime, If you stand by that first paragraph swearing that no corporation can receive more than it pays in taxes, then go back to that "top ten" list I posted, copy the examples that you feel are wrong and explain yourself. Tell me specifically which examples are just plain false. Then, we can do more research on those specific examples and post the results here. So far, it appears that you refuse to take subsidies into account.

Your attempt to discredit professors of economics just won't wash with me. YOU are a Keynesian. Otherwise, you would be against corporate lobbyists. You would be against tax breaks or subsidies of any kind. You wouldn't try to excuse them with a claim that any increase in taxes or decrease in subsidies would be passed onto the consumer.

I never said that there was a state or local tax jurisdiction where rates on mandatory taxes are higher for lower incomes. I NEVER SAID THAT. I said this:

When you account for all Federal, State, and local taxes and fees, the lowest quintile pays about the same rate as a percentage of income as the highest quintile. The middle class pay about the same rate as a percentage of income as the richest one percent. The 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the richest one percent.

Thats what I said and its true regardless of your attempts to dance your way around it.

Again, you're wrong. Thats right. I just caught you in another mistake. You posted this in your last reply:

"There is NO state or local tax jurisdiction where rates on mandatory taxes are higher for lower incomes

Sales Tax = Same Rate... Property Tax = Same Rate... State Tax = Same Rate, or higher rates for larger incomes... Local Tax = Same Flat Rate..."

I already told you that I wasn't disputing the claim with regard to income. However, you're dead wrong again. This time, your mistake is with regard to property taxes.

Some states grant massive breaks on property taxes under the condition that you farm a portion (they vary by state), manage trees, or sell hay. As little as $500 worth annually. There may be other loopholes. This is one that I personally know of.

So your claim that "Sales Tax = Same Rate... Property Tax = Same Rate... State Tax = Same Rate, or higher rates for larger incomes... Local Tax = Same Flat Rate..." is just plain wrong. At least with regard to property taxes.

Of course, you will insist (again) that such circumstances didn't apply to your previous claim. You simply don't have the guts to admit that you weren't aware or failed to consider that loophole.

I see from your comments about 'taxation' and 'expenses' with regard to lower incomes that you're finally admitting that I was right all along and you were wrong without actually using the words 'right' or 'wrong'. Your cowardly tactics don't impress me but at least we can drop that issue and focus on the others.

No. I'm not trying to "extract from another man the value he created and earned"and "reward the larger, less effective majority". I'm telling you that no man or woman can 'earn' 500 times the pay of a firefighter, or 100, or even 10. I'm telling you that many of the charges are hidden, and/or obscene, and therefore can't be justified. I'm telling you that corporate profits are partially subsidized and that the benefits of corporate welfare are not shared proportionally with the lower paid workers. I'm telling you that the richest one percent could not have 'earned' 40% of our nation's private wealth.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

"There is no limit on wealth, our system is not one where the earnings of one man are not..."taken" from another, wealth expands in the open market system..."

I never said that there was an absolute limit on wealth within our system. But there is a relative limit at any given time. It doesn't double overnight.

"the wealth of Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Omidyar, Page & Win, Yang & Filo, Bezos, and many others is ENTIRELY newly created wealth, that is not distributed from other person," This is just outright bullshit. If it were ENTIRELY newly created wealth, then we never would have been charged $300 for cellphones that overheat or $400 for computer operating systems that aren't reliable.

Your comparisons with regard to business owners and CEOs don't wash with me because of the actual efforts on the part of the individuals involved. A CEO can not 'organize' 100,000 workers without a lot of help beneath him. His individual efforts are limited by time, attention, strength, space, ect just like the rest of us. Therefore, he can't 'earn' a ten million dollar salary.

"As for your question....it is simple, NO....."heavy concentration of income doesn't have any effect on stability, in an expanding system, as long as all levels of economy are expanding.."

Albert Einstein, Mariner Eccles, Allen Greenspan, Robert Reich, Richard Wolff, and just about every professor of economics would disagree with you. In fact, those I mentioned by name have already gone on record with the ugly truth.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually destabilize democratic capitalism itself."

This was Allen Greenspan's warning to congress in the spring of '05'. Did you catch that date? SPRING OF '05'.

Einstein and Eccles went on record with similar views attributing the first Great Depression to a heavy concentration of income (Eccles) and/or wealth (Einstein).

Earlier this year, Congressman Paul Ryan acknowledged the relationship in a town hall meeting. It was in April of this year. Look it up.

I have personally stumped two renowned experts on syndicated talk radio with the same question I dared you to answer. The first said that he had "never considered it before" and "didn't know". The second simply ignored the question. I called back and told the screeners that I expected an answer. The host (Jim Bohannon) took the question himself and acknowledged the concept as legitimate and said that better education would be necessary to correct the disparity and any instability caused by it.

I see this as a slam dunk. There damn well is a strong relationship.

Of course, you will refuse to acknowledge it. As usual, you just can't bring yourself to admit a single valid point.

I'm no coward. I will answer your question but first I need you to be specific. Are you refering to current Federal tax law, the constitution, or something else?

Just so you know: I read the last paragraph and dismissed every word of it. It will have no effect whatsoever on me.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

nothing you have said is true...and continuing to babble it like a retard drooling in the corner won't make it so....

Your responses are becoming less and less worthy of response.

continue to believe that internet postings and news stories are facts...and NEVER check the facts...just wish them into existence...

I dismiss you and all your idea's as the chattering of a fool....it's time for you to do your own homework, but truly...you want to believe the nonsense..it gives you an excuse, and an identity...and apparently you've created nor earned an identity by effort, so accusation and blame are your vehicles....

I am not referring to anything but the question itself...what portion of a dollar, in your opinion, is subject to surrender to the government.....of each single dollar held by any person.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

Since you made your question somewhat more clear in your last response below, I will answer it.

In my opinion, our tax structure should be somewhat progressive for the lower 98% with very high marginal rates on the top 1%. If multi-million dollar incomes are going to be allowed, then the marginal rates should rise and fall in response to levels of inequality.

Like I said before, I have no desire to rape the 2nd percentile. If they reap a low six figures, I'm OK with that as long as their contribution to society is real and their product isn't misrepresented.

As for that top percentile, I would increase that marginal rate as high as necessary to prevent them from reaping more than 10% of total income in America.

No limit on that marginal rate.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

If you thought that you could have the last word on this page by changing your ID so I wouldn't get notice of your last reply, you can think again. I decided to check the page just to be sure.

Tell it to Albert Einstein, Mariner Eccles, Allen Greenspan, Robert Reich, Richard Wolff, Paul Ryan, and just about every professor of economics.

I already got my slam dunk with the references to Einstein, Eccles, Greenspan, Reich, Wolff, Ryan, and just about every professor of economics. You bet your ass that a strong relationship between a heavy concentration of income, wealth, and economic instability exists. All of those I mentioned by name have gone on record acknowledging it (Ryan had no choice. He was confronted on the issue in April of '11' in a town hall meeting.). When the rich get too rich, demand is concentrated and thus, reduced. Potential for further profits to be made from a shrinking middle class is reduced. This causes instability. Even depression. Slam dunk.

I told you before. I'm no coward. I will answer your question to the best of my knowledge. But it must be a srtaight question. No tricks.

Are you asking me how much our government is allowed by current law to take in taxes on "each dollar", how much they are allowed by the US Constitution, or how much I think they should take?

Ask me a straight question and you will get a straight answer.

Is it my opinion with regard to Federal law, the constitution, or something else you're asking for?

Those of you who doubt what I have stated about some major corporations achieving negative tax rates, the relationship between distribution of wealth and economic stability, or literally any other claim I have made here, do the research. I promise you its all documented. My critic slammersworld is a good debater and somewhat knowledgeable but he has made several mistakes that I know of. Don't let his authoritative attitude or extreme confidence fool you. Every single word I have stated on this page is true.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

so...what makes one dollar have more value than another?

And.....how do you intend to contain those who now earn in excess of what you claim as limits from leaving, and taking their intellectual property and jobs with them to places more hospitable to commerce?

do you think those at the top will just surrender their efforts and experience to pay taxes?...essentially work for FREE beyond a certain point...

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

I had to change..your free speech OWS deactivated my screen name...

and your logical fallacy is no slam dunk..

the problem is disparity of effort and participation...not disparity of income, or wealth...too many takers not enough contributors....

What is a more straight question than how much taxation should each dollar be required to bear....

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum, are logical fallacies...so your appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, are...like all your other arguments, fallacious.....

Are you always constrained by a lack of education? careful before you comment, that you know what "educate" means....You cannot answer a simple question without complicating it?

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 8 years ago

its obvious you are either rich or think you will be one day and that is funny

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

funny huh?....well, I am not rich, I've been close..income-wise, a couple of times, and am on my way up, again..... my best friend from High School went from the "hood" and sleeping in his car to a doctorate, without loans and now owns multiple homes and cars and is set for the rest of his life, my grandparents retired without the need of Social Security on Blue Collar wages through reasonable saving, My Mom went from the lowest retail job stocking shelves at minimum wage to managing a large discount store in a major metropolitan area..in less that 10 years.....and my father went from a broken neck, a divorce, raising my younger brother, and living on the edges of the "hood", while doing grounds keeping work (which doesn't pay that well), to owning a 350 acre farm and a net worth of over a million dollars......so, don't tell ME it's not possible, or that it's "funny"....i know better...and making excuses and blaming others is not the way you get there...the only thing funny is that your head is so far up your ass all you can see is your own stupid shit idea's and philosophies, and while everyone around you with the right attitude is passing you by, you'll still be blaming others, and living in your own world of bullshit.....get around some successful people and learn WHY they've become successful......it's unfortunate that so many fall for the lie that you can't make it in this country, and to try is pointless..

A lie disproven by legal immigrants every day...

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

Ahh. There it is. A dead giveaway. Your die-hard capitalist position and justification is not based on logic, patriotism, compassion, or common sense. It is based on your income. Thats why you refuse to admit that incomes for the rich have been partially subsidized. Thats why you refuse to admit a shred of economic injustice. Thats why you refuse to admit any real downside with regard to the concentration of wealth. Of course, I will debate you for as long as it takes. Days or weeks to come. But its clear from your position on the economic ladder that you will refuse to acknowledge a single valid point.

Crystal clear.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

because I've been on EVERY (other than the top) rung of that economic ladder, I have been homeless, living out of my vehicle, and I've earned in excess of 100K, I've had money and not had money...and I'm here to tell you.....it's better to have it.

YOur "economic justice" is just institutional theft, by force, taking value from the sector that created it, and giving to those who didn't....out of some fraudulent measure of "fairness".....you should look up the word "fair" it doesn't mean "equal"

I don't need to acknowledge your points, I know from experience, and from the experience of others that you are wrong...and your idea's hurt peoples motivation, ability, and willingness to achieve

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

I never said that 'fair' and 'equal' are the same thing. You would have known this if you had taken a moment to consider my actual point of view. Again, your income prevented you from doing so.

Those who didn't create? Thats a good one. Who do you think built this country? The rich? Hell no. They were part of the team. As a free thinker, I have no problem admitting that. Of course, they deserve compensation. But no way in hell do 1% of the population deserve 40% or more of the nation's private wealth. No way in holy hell.

Certainly not when so many hard working people struggle to make ends meet. No way in hell.


[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

struggle and "need" are not values you can exchange with other men.....the marketplace doesn't care about your "need", it ask's "what do you have to offer".....dismissing that is to miss the understanding of cause/effect and natural law....which are above the manmade created systems....and a system not aligned with them will fail.....always, like every other contrived collective "fairness" "need" based system in the history of man

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

Finally one point we can agree on. Sort of. The marketplace doesn't give a damn. Neither do our leaders. Neither do you.

Well all of you can fuck off. I do give a damn.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 8 years ago

so you do think you will be rich. i thought so. yeah it is funny, these wild statements that you claim which are partial truths at best. more than likely just out right lies. and being someone who has worked their ass off in life and sacrificed much to get ahead only to watch others reap my rewards or benefit from my efforts and having a useful college degree and is highly motivated and intelligent there is simply no way to get ahead those that do happen to the last 10-15 years have been lucky, sold their souls, or had connections by the way it is unfortunate that you fall for the same rhetoric and propaganda perpetuated by the very people you seek to emulate. loser. by the way you are the one with their head firmly planted up their ass douche.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

no...and the future will show you to be the failure you already are demonstrating by your attitude, to be....

I'll be just fine, thanks...maybe you can park my car, or pump my gas, but...with that attitude..you won't get a tip

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 8 years ago

the funny thing is you still think your line of thinking about only me me me is correct it is not about you douche bag it is about all of us and by the time we get done your kind will be spit on and laughed at to your face instead of only behind your back

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

hahaha...my fist will immediately reply to your spit...

and it's funny how "all of us" is always the chorus call of the failures and ne'er-do'wells

you never here a self-made man speak about "all of us"....he knows better.

"all of us" is the bullying mob and institutional theft...but, come on over, you won't walk away with mine

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 8 years ago

your statements just reinforce mine. you are a punk we all know that you are we shut down the ports today and we will again tomorrow and there is nothing you can do about it. there is an us it is you and your kind who ruin the world and everything in it

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 8 years ago

you call me a punk, and then attempt to establish the credibility of your movement because of its thug-like mob tactics?....what about all those "poor" you claim to care so much about...their daily provisions come in on those container ships, and your blocking the ports will eventually lead to a shortage of the things they need and use....and, if you continue to block the western ports of this country, the shipping companies will begin to use Canadian and Mexican ports instead...is that what you want to do to the longshoremen?

Everything you touch is crap, and like the filth that you live in, and that your mind is made up of, when you get out of line too far, or for too long, we will flush you...like we've done with your squatting in the public commons.....don't get too full of yourself, pepper spray, paintballs, batons, and beanbag rounds are headed your way....and most of the nation will be applauding it...again

[-] -1 points by occupity (5) 8 years ago

When was it not over???

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow - Troll-bot & IF it's over, then how come you just joined this forum TODAY then ! You graceless little Troll-boy !! Worra C-nt U R !!!

QED et ad iudicium ...

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Why, yes, the Masterbater has spoken-like a battery operated "massage wand" (made in China).

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

yes sir, mastah. right away, mastah. I sorry mastah. right back to the slave market, mastah. please don't whoop me, mastah.

[-] 2 points by blackbloc (-19) 8 years ago

shutting down the ports nothing is over

[-] 0 points by TheMaster (63) 8 years ago

Nothing was "shut down" except a few clueless hippies.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

OWS began on September 17, 2011. People have been predicting its imminent demise since September 18, 2011. Someday they will be correct, but not yet.

While it is true that OWS is less publicly visable since the many evictions and has been a less "sexy" news item, especially for TV news, it has, nevertheless, continued to grow, perhaps not as rapidly as when a passerby could learn about OWS just by passing by an occupation any hour of the day or night, but it continues to grow nonetheless. People continue to meet in Working Groups and General Assemblies daily. There are daily demonstrations, some in solidarity with groups other than OWS and some initiated by OWS. I fully expect re-occupations to occur in some central highly visible public park in every major city. OWS will not disappear for several reasons. Among them is the fact that it is an international movement and if it is smothered in one place it will still continue to grow in others and spring back to life everywhere. Secondly the issues which is addresses are systemic and show no sign of disappearing.

[-] 2 points by pathwhisperer (57) 8 years ago

"TheMaster" -- ha, ha, quite a moniker. You must have gotten that from The Psychopath's Bible, http://www.scribd.com/doc/11554313/The-Psychopaths-Bible.

One word for your post, FAIL.

[-] 0 points by TheMaster (63) 8 years ago

Rofl! Get a job.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Why? I'm retired.

Perhaps you should.

[-] 1 points by kayak69 (57) from West Sand Lake, NY 8 years ago

Bill Reilly thought so too. WRONG!!!

[-] 1 points by User00001 (0) 8 years ago

I'ts not over, just sidetracked by idiots who think camping out in tents all day will make a difference. Do you really think they give two shits about occupying parks? The whole reason they're trying to evict occupations is to crush morale before real action could take place.

[-] 2 points by TheMaster (63) 8 years ago

It's a public safety issue. Plus these morons need to stop leeching off the public.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Two Faced C-nt !! Like you give a SH!T about "the public" !!!

Caveat : Anguis in herba ...

[-] 0 points by IITheKidII (6) 8 years ago

i care about the public but as far as "occupiers" go i could care less if you guys keep raping and killing each other off. of course bongo sales will probably suffer...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Was I addressing you ?! You've spoken out of turn like "The Kid" that you clearly are ! Come back when your balls have dropped or when you've grown a pair ...

Semper ubi sub ubi ("lol")

[-] -1 points by IITheKidII (6) 8 years ago

oh so you must be a grown man that lives in his own filth in a tent on somebody else's property asking for handouts? why don't you come back when you're a working class homeowner.

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"Oh" ... as you've worked all that out by yourself, d'you think that you can pull your own head outta your (x) now ? There's a good lad ! ... Veritatem dies aperit.

[-] 0 points by User00001 (0) 8 years ago

What's there to leech off of when more and more people are loosing jobs?

Obviously you're trolling or completely ignorant as to what's happening in the U.S.

[-] 1 points by TheMaster (63) 8 years ago

You are a creation of 50 years of liberal dependent class creation.

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Whereas you're a figment of your own imagination and a nightmare in a damaged brain ...

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, eh ?!

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 8 years ago

They have no plan. They have no means. Judging by what they post here, they also have no work ethic or intelligence.

I agree, Master. It's over.

[-] 1 points by TheMaster (63) 8 years ago

They are spoiled rotten by liberal give away programs. They can't bear to have to fend for themselves. They don't get it that ever expanding government and increases in programs has a huge cost; not only the taxes it requires to feed it but the expansion of a dependent class of people.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 8 years ago

don't forget the "participation trophy" no keeping score culture, and the self esteem building that told them they were always right, even when they were actually wrong......we have a whole generation of people who have been told all their lives that they matter and they are important, and the REAL world is giving them the lesson that their training in the public school system never did......welcome to reality, where your opinion of yourself, and how you "feel" doesn't mean shit....what you can DO is what matters....and that is ALL that matters. no certificates for sharing, or participation trophies here......and your "need", we don't care about that....that is your problem......show us your "deed" and what can you contribute......otherwise....fuck off, and suffer.....

[-] -1 points by hbtotl (0) 8 years ago

Yea I'm with you. It's easy for them to complain then to put their noses to the grind stone and work. I hope I didn't offend the 99% by using the "W" word.

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"SupineSimon" simply simpers and bleats like The Sheep that he is ... yet again !!! Ba'aaack to the drawing board, Troll-boy !! Go see if you can get your fuzzy little head around, say : http://maxkeiser.com/ and actually learn something !

vincit omnia veritas ...

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 8 years ago

My wool puts clothes on your back.

As far as the link goes, I don't give a rat's ass enough to even click it.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

@ SupineSimon : Well of course you didn't click the link, HELL you might've learnt something & we can't possibly have that, can we ?! Stay happy in your ignorance and keep bleating on the way to the slaughterhouse et ...

nosce te ipsum ;-)

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 8 years ago

You could take the time to either paraphrase or repost the information right here, sourcing your information at the bottom of the post that you make. Baaa!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

You know "SheepishSimon", you are half way towards making a decent point & coz I'm a kindly and forgiving soul (or at least try to be!), I credit you with it as well as having that rare talent (Amongst American's Anyway!) to take a joke and a jibe and laugh at yourself.

I am born in England, Brit and I like that self-deprecatory humour in a person, so I'm going to meet you half way and leave you with : http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ & simply (and sincerely) recommend the last three Episodes {219, 220 & esp. 220} to you.

Max Keiser [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Keiser ] is an ex-Stockbroker, who even wrote some of the algorithms that enable some of the 'auto-trades' to occur to this day. Trust me when I say that the dude knows his SH!T ! Watch this and reflect that The Real Parasites (The 1% OF the 1%, ie The 0.01%) only laugh at us, when we The 99%, chuck Sheepshit & more at each other ;-)

Stop being a Right-Wing Troll ; stay well and Peace, Prosperity & Protection to you and yours (& to any and all readers) for this forthcoming Festive Season of Goodwill To ALL people.

pax et lux ...


[-] 0 points by rayl (1007) 8 years ago

you wish! wait and see!

[-] 3 points by TheMaster (63) 8 years ago

Wait and see? Lol. Your plan is to te-elect obama.

[-] 0 points by rayl (1007) 8 years ago

obama sucks, he's a politician

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

In that one little statement re. Warbama, this Rancid Repelican Reptile, 'TheMasterbator' - reveals all ;-)

multum in parvo ...

[-] -1 points by TheMaster (63) 8 years ago

Folding like a cheap OWS tent. Rofl!

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Said by a Troll who isn't even "the master" of his own sock drawer. Twat !!

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 8 years ago

Every day that you dont find work the more interest you will pay on your student loan.