PDA

View Full Version : Lolz From DU: "What Happened???"




angelatc
01-03-2013, 11:33 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/185778_10200257621066576_1372033116_n.jpg

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022125273#post88

Good. Stupid SHOULD hurt.


Here's a great comment:
It's my experience that most people want to work.


So much so that many work for abusive employers who pay less than subsistence wages.

That's wrong.

The minimum wage needs to be increased and welfare benefits ought to be generous enough to compete directly with crappy, abusive employers.

Every last person ought to be able to say "Take this job and shove it!" without fear of starvation or homelessness.

specsaregood
01-03-2013, 11:42 PM
Just wait until she figures out that SS is bankrupt and that money they took won't be there when she retires.

angelatc
01-03-2013, 11:47 PM
Just wait until she figures out that SS is bankrupt and that money they took won't be there when she retires.

I just added the link - you should read the comments. Lots of people there believe in unicorns.

RSLudlum
01-04-2013, 12:15 AM
JDPriestly
82. You are being asked to pay the Social Security tax that you used to pay before Obama
gave a payroll tax vacation.
Your tax did not go up. It was artificially low there for a while.
You will get it back when you need it even more than you do now. Don't worry. Stay happy and healthy. You will get it back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022125273#post82

If it was artificial, then I'd like to know what a natural level of taxation is.

AGRP
01-04-2013, 12:19 AM
Trying to make sense out of people like this hurts my head.

twomp
01-04-2013, 12:38 AM
I used to think like them. Looking through those comments, I feel so ashamed. Sorry guys!

AGRP
01-04-2013, 12:39 AM
Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people! http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022125273#post20


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY


Did someone from here make that comment? Its from a new user.

COpatriot
01-04-2013, 12:43 AM
Jackasses.

John F Kennedy III
01-04-2013, 01:33 AM
Lol:


27. Amen...

That Dems were fiscally responsible was one of my original attractions to the party.


39. A Good Start

Hopefully this is just the beginning. I am tired of being poor and low class just because I wasn't born into privilege. I wish the government would confiscate property and equalize pay for all. Then we wouldn't have to worry about this. We would be provided for and taken care of in our old age on an equal basis, as we should be!!

devil21
01-04-2013, 01:48 AM
I used to think like them. Looking through those comments, I feel so ashamed. Sorry guys!

So why did you used to think like them? Be specific. What was your logic at the time?

Ben Bernanke
01-04-2013, 01:50 AM
Reading their responses is giving me a headache

Occam's Banana
01-04-2013, 03:18 AM
I am tired of being poor and low class just because I wasn't born into privilege.

And I am tired of being ugly just because I wasn't born handsome. :rolleyes:

For some reason, I suspect that this person is "poor and low class" for reasons that have nothing to do with not being "born into privelege" ...


So why did you used to think like them? Be specific. What was your logic at the time?

I can't speak for twomp, but I wouldn't be surprised if he told you that logic didn't have anything to do with it.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
01-04-2013, 05:33 AM
Just saw mine. Feels like I've been robbed. FUCK YOU OBAMA! I'm not rich, far from it, although you probably think because both my wife and me work and barely bring in over $100k, you think we're privliged. Wife works 4 nights a week, yeah, a lot of family time there. No, asshole, we're not even close to privliged. We live in such a great neighborhood, we have to send our daughter to a private school, unless we want her taught in a foreign language. That's your fault, Obama and liberals, who think school boundaries should be gerrymandered to "right past wrongs". No FUCK YOU - my kid never did a damn thing to discriminate against anyone, so why should my kid be punished for her skin color? And why should I be taxed triple for this? And now you want to take my gun? Kiss my ass, liberal fucktards. Hope you choke on what you just stole...but no, you'll just spend it on some stupid entitlement and keep the poor idiots dependent on you so you can keep your power.

itshappening
01-04-2013, 05:53 AM
it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

We have members who will also probably be paying a grand more in taxes this year.. I doubt they can afford to have Obama picking their pockets either

pacelli
01-04-2013, 06:25 AM
They wanted democracy, and they got it. People that voted for this administration and bought into the lie are directly responsible.

Lindsey
01-04-2013, 07:36 AM
One of the links from that thread was to this article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/25

In reading the comments there, I came to realize that even though we are ideologically on opposite ends of the spectrum - they are just as disenchanted and disenfranchised by the "two-party" (realistically one-party) system. It made me think, that perhaps there is a way "opposites" could collaborate, so as to bring about real change - things that are good for us as human beings. We need to stand up for ourselves as beings who deserve to at minimum have the things guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. We've been artificially divided in so many ways, what could we accomplish if we worked together to defeat those who have been suppressing us, taking away our rights and our wealth...

otherone
01-04-2013, 07:41 AM
ROFL!
Freedom isn't free, bitches!

itshappening
01-04-2013, 07:42 AM
Forget it, the left are completely gone and are in la-la land. It's like trying to wake up neo-cons when troops were heading into Baghdad in 2003. Everyone was cheerleading American military mite and getting Saddam, only years later are people questioning it and seeing the true cost of that particular operation and occupation.

otherone
01-04-2013, 07:52 AM
Forget it, the left are completely gone and are in la-la land.

No one from either side ever questions the legitimacy of the state. Each side thinks it's might should be directed in a direction of their own choosing. Even many people in the Liberty movement don't understand this. Everyone has their "pet" issues.

Henry Rogue
01-04-2013, 08:43 AM
And I am tired of being ugly just because I wasn't born handsome. :rolleyes:

For some reason, I suspect that this person is "poor and low class" for reasons that have nothing to do with not being "born into privelege" ...



I can't speak for twomp, but I wouldn't be surprised if he told you that logic didn't have anything to do with it.
Envy is a powerful emotion for some. It can make anything sound reasonable. That and the desire to make the world conform to their ideal vision.

Henry Rogue
01-04-2013, 09:06 AM
ROFL!
Freedom isn't free, bitches!
I once watched a program on TV where a pilot sitting in a 142.7 million dollar F-22 said "Freedom isn't Free". You can guess what his definition of that phrase is.

Lucille
01-04-2013, 09:19 AM
I wonder if that person is married (http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/12/09/tax-this-22/):


Affluent people are much more likely than low-income people to have health insurance, and now they will, in effect, help pay for coverage for many lower-income families. Among the most affluent fifth of households, those affected will see tax increases averaging $6,000 next year, economists estimate. [That top fifth includes households making $75k or so a year.]

To help finance Medicare, employees and employers each now pay a hospital insurance tax equal to 1.45 percent on all wages. Starting in January, the health care law will require workers to pay an additional tax equal to 0.9 percent of any wages over $200,000 for single taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.
[...]
Ruth M. Wimer, a tax lawyer at McDermott Will & Emery, said the taxes came with “a shockingly inequitable marriage penalty.” If a single man and a single woman each earn $200,000, she said, neither would owe any additional Medicare payroll tax. But, she said, if they are married, they would owe $1,350. The extra tax is 0.9 percent of their earnings over the $250,000 threshold.

Since the creation of Social Security in the 1930s, payroll taxes have been levied on the wages of each worker as an individual. The new Medicare payroll is different. It will be imposed on the combined earnings of a married couple.

Employers are required to withhold Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes from wages paid to employees. But employers do not necessarily know how much a worker’s spouse earns and may not withhold enough to cover a couple’s Medicare tax liability. Indeed, the new rules say employers may disregard a spouse’s earnings in calculating how much to withhold.

Workers may thus owe more than the amounts withheld by their employers and may have to make up the difference when they file tax returns in April 2014. If they expect to owe additional tax, the government says, they should make estimated tax payments, starting in April 2013, or ask their employers to increase the amount withheld from each paycheck.

If anyone has an acct. at DU, feel free to inform them that they might owe even more to fund Barry's Big Fascist Medical System.

CaptLouAlbano
01-04-2013, 09:30 AM
I know a lot here don't care for Glenn Beck, but he said something yesterday in regards to this tax hike that we should all appreciate. He talked about how the increase in taxes is going to cause families to cut back in some way or another. He used the example I believe of no longer having someone cutting your lawn and doing it yourself, thereby reducing the income of the guy who cuts lawns for a living. He then went on to say that the people promoting taxes like this (and the others that have been raised) either do not understand how capitalism works, or they detest capitalism and want to see it destroyed.

Reading through that link at DU should gives us excellent examples of both of the above types of people.

angelatc
01-04-2013, 09:54 AM
I know a lot here don't care for Glenn Beck, but he said something yesterday in regards to this tax hike that we should all appreciate. He talked about how the increase in taxes is going to cause families to cut back in some way or another. He used the example I believe of no longer having someone cutting your lawn and doing it yourself, thereby reducing the income of the guy who cuts lawns for a living. He then went on to say that the people promoting taxes like this (and the others that have been raised) either do not understand how capitalism works, or they detest capitalism and want to see it destroyed.

Reading through that link at DU should gives us excellent examples of both of the above types of people.

One of the biggest problems we libertarian leaning types face is thinking that these people simply don't understand why their ideas won't work, when in fact, they detest capitalism.

Peace Piper
01-04-2013, 10:10 AM
One of the links from that thread was to this article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/25

In reading the comments there, I came to realize that even though we are ideologically on opposite ends of the spectrum - they are just as disenchanted and disenfranchised by the "two-party" (realistically one-party) system. It made me think, that perhaps there is a way "opposites" could collaborate, so as to bring about real change - things that are good for us as human beings. We need to stand up for ourselves as beings who deserve to at minimum have the things guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. We've been artificially divided in so many ways, what could we accomplish if we worked together to defeat those who have been suppressing us, taking away our rights and our wealth...

Great post. If the people of this country cannot get away from the BS divide and conquer we will all hang separately. If everyone would just drop the labels and concentrate on policy, real change might be possible. It's too bad that Barry lied yet again when he said he was a uniter not a divider- and where did we hear that before.

Sad that the people have been played so hard by scoundrels, liars and thieves. They have been trained to hate their fellow citizens more than the very criminals that have stolen their liberties and wealth.

It's going to take a real leader to bring people together, if it's still possible. And it better happen soon.

jclay2
01-04-2013, 10:42 AM
Great post. If the people of this country cannot get away from the BS divide and conquer we will all hang separately. If everyone would just drop the labels and concentrate on policy, real change might be possible. It's too bad that Barry lied yet again when he said he was a uniter not a divider- and where did we hear that before.

Sad that the people have been played so hard by scoundrels, liars and thieves. They have been trained to hate their fellow citizens more than the very criminals that have stolen their liberties and wealth.

It's going to take a real leader to bring people together, if it's still possible. And it better happen soon.

They might be disenchanted but the all powerful lesser of two evils has complete control over their minds. Honestly, that is the single biggest problem we have. No matter how hard I try, I can't for the life of me beat the lesser of two evils mindset out of anyone.

specsaregood
01-04-2013, 10:48 AM
One of the biggest problems we libertarian leaning types face is thinking that these people simply don't understand why their ideas won't work, when in fact, they detest capitalism.

I'm still laughing and crying about the post claiming that if welfare rates are "competitive" with actual wages that people will still work because they want to. lol

ronpaulfollower999
01-04-2013, 10:55 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022125273#post82

If it was artificial, then I'd like to know what a natural level of taxation is.

"Artificially low" taxes. That might be the funniest dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say.

Koz
01-04-2013, 10:57 AM
Just wait until she figures out that SS is bankrupt and that money they took won't be there when she retires.

Hahahaha! Couldn't have said it better.

TonySutton
01-04-2013, 11:00 AM
I have a question. It took me a bit to realize this because I was all caught up in the lolz of DU members crying over the taxes they hold in such high regard.

For just about everyone, this current paycheck should actually be for the last pay period in December so WHY are they taking out the extra 2%. It should not start until the next pay period!

itshappening
01-04-2013, 11:00 AM
There are people on there saying they paid into SS for 50 years for their check and that you'll appreciate it then.

But what they dont say is people in their 20's and 30's are not going to get that money because it's a Ponzi scheme with those already retiring enjoying the benefits of having paid in first.

People's pensions will have to be cut to make the scheme solvent .

specsaregood
01-04-2013, 11:09 AM
There are people on there saying they paid into SS for 50 years for their check and that you'll appreciate it then.

But what they dont say is people in their 20's and 30's are not going to get that money because it's a Ponzi scheme with those already retiring enjoying the benefits of having paid in first.

People's pensions will have to be cut to make the scheme solvent .

The SS used to have an entire page devoted to explaining how it wasn't a ponzi scheme:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

now its gone....wonder why. it was still there at the end of 2011.
This is what it used to say: http://web.archive.org/web/20101110091356/http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

EBounding
01-04-2013, 11:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slPAiGyX61s

Henry Rogue
01-04-2013, 12:00 PM
The SS used to have an entire page devoted to explaining how it wasn't a ponzi scheme:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

now its gone....wonder why. it was still there at the end of 2011.
This is what it used to say: http://web.archive.org/web/20101110091356/http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm
Probably why monetary deflation is so feared by government. Article doesn't address inflation or deflation at all. The supposed "Pay As You Go Scheme" the article talks about doesn't take into account paying SS employees a wage.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
01-04-2013, 12:01 PM
Considering the average person who posts on that site has an IQ somewhere between that of a houseplant and an eggplant, this logic would be lost of them.

In my particular case, my take home pay was reduced by about $53. I get paid every two weeks (26 checks). Therefore, I'm having $1378 more taken from me this year. That $1378 is supposed to go to Social Security, although we all know it's just going to the general fund. Even if it did go to Social Security and was invested in my name, the most it would earn in interest is 2%. If I was allowed to keep my own money (because aren't y'all saying that SS is yours and you'll see it when you retire?), and invested it in a very conservative "income" fund, I'd get 5% return. That's probably way too complicated for the average Democrat, so I'll go even simpler.

I see $26.50 less in my pay every week. Everyone else at my salary sees the same cut in pay. I have $26.50 less a week to spend. I will have to cut back. I will not be able to take my family to the local sports bar/restauarant two times a month. It will have to get cut back to once. Everyone else will have to make similar cutbacks. That means the restaurant will see less business. They will make less in profit. They will have to let a few people go because they can't afford to pay them. That goes for the retailers as well. This does not hurt the guy making over $250k a year, but anyone under $150k has to cut back. And those in the lower service industry jobs will either see tips reduced, or worse, their jobs gone, all because your savior King Obama wanted to "raise revenues".

AGRP
01-04-2013, 12:03 PM
Labeling SS a ponzi scheme is insulting to ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes are voluntary.

Occam's Banana
01-04-2013, 12:52 PM
I'm still laughing and crying about the post claiming that if welfare rates are "competitive" with actual wages that people will still work because they want to. lol

Three cheers for the New Socialist Man (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1186949)!

CaptLouAlbano
01-04-2013, 01:01 PM
Considering the average person who posts on that site has an IQ somewhere between that of a houseplant and an eggplant, this logic would be lost of them.

In my particular case, my take home pay was reduced by about $53. I get paid every two weeks (26 checks). Therefore, I'm having $1378 more taken from me this year. That $1378 is supposed to go to Social Security, although we all know it's just going to the general fund. Even if it did go to Social Security and was invested in my name, the most it would earn in interest is 2%. If I was allowed to keep my own money (because aren't y'all saying that SS is yours and you'll see it when you retire?), and invested it in a very conservative "income" fund, I'd get 5% return. That's probably way too complicated for the average Democrat, so I'll go even simpler.

I see $26.50 less in my pay every week. Everyone else at my salary sees the same cut in pay. I have $26.50 less a week to spend. I will have to cut back. I will not be able to take my family to the local sports bar/restauarant two times a month. It will have to get cut back to once. Everyone else will have to make similar cutbacks. That means the restaurant will see less business. They will make less in profit. They will have to let a few people go because they can't afford to pay them. That goes for the retailers as well. This does not hurt the guy making over $250k a year, but anyone under $150k has to cut back. And those in the lower service industry jobs will either see tips reduced, or worse, their jobs gone, all because your savior King Obama wanted to "raise revenues".

Great post, however for the part I bolded, we should never, ever have this mindset. Tax increases hurt everyone because it is less of their money that they have to spend. The reality of it all is regardless of how much money one earns you always spend it. I have mentioned several times on here that I have done very, very well for myself. I am in that over 250K bracket and then some. But, guess what, every dime that I have coming in is allocated to something. Either I spend it, invest it, donate it or save it. When there is less coming in that is less that will be spent, invested, donated or saved.

cajuncocoa
01-04-2013, 01:07 PM
Labeling SS a ponzi scheme is insulting to ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes are voluntary.Good point.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
01-04-2013, 01:12 PM
Great post, however for the part I bolded, we should never, ever have this mindset. Tax increases hurt everyone because it is less of their money that they have to spend. The reality of it all is regardless of how much money one earns you always spend it. I have mentioned several times on here that I have done very, very well for myself. I am in that over 250K bracket and then some. But, guess what, every dime that I have coming in is allocated to something. Either I spend it, invest it, donate it or save it. When there is less coming in that is less that will be spent, invested, donated or saved.

I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that the increase doesn't affect you, of course it does. From a percentage basis though, it's not as "bad" as it is for someone making $30k. Plus, you get the "benefit" of being done with the tax by June :). Still, you are absolutely correct, that $150 check to the local food bank gets cut down to $75.

cajuncocoa
01-04-2013, 01:14 PM
Yes, the Left hates capitalism. And the mindset of the average Leftist is somewhere around 5-6 years old. They believe everything should be fair, that no one should have more than anyone else. They have no way to process the fact that there is (and should be) a correlation between what someone produces and what one earns. Furthermore, they cannot understand why someone should become a billionaire just because he/she invented something valuable (with the possible exception of the late Steve Jobs).

Seraphim
01-04-2013, 01:16 PM
FEDERAL. RESERVE.

Repeat those two words until it makes you want to scream.


One of the links from that thread was to this article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/25

In reading the comments there, I came to realize that even though we are ideologically on opposite ends of the spectrum - they are just as disenchanted and disenfranchised by the "two-party" (realistically one-party) system. It made me think, that perhaps there is a way "opposites" could collaborate, so as to bring about real change - things that are good for us as human beings. We need to stand up for ourselves as beings who deserve to at minimum have the things guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. We've been artificially divided in so many ways, what could we accomplish if we worked together to defeat those who have been suppressing us, taking away our rights and our wealth...

Lucille
01-04-2013, 01:20 PM
"They thought of it in simple terms of taxing the rich, perhaps with a vague infantile further expectation that the proceeds would be 'given to the poor.' Money obtained from the rich in any form except wages is never given to the poor. If it is taken by an ordinary hold-up man, it goes to the hold-up man. If it is taken by a philanthropic organization, it goes to the organization. If it is taken by the government, it goes to the politicians. Neither does increased taxation of the rich lower the rate of taxation on the poor; it is bound to cause an increase in all taxation, reaching down inchmeal until it expropriates a portion, not merely of the last dollar of the poor man, but of the first dollar he can earn. That tax will have to be paid before he can even touch his earnings. The present tax on wages, accurately described as 'the Social Security swindle,' could not have been imposed under the original Constitution; it is validated only by the income tax amendment. There is no means by which 'the rich' can be taxed without ultimately taxing 'the poor' far more heavily."
--Isabel Paterson (http://books.google.com/books?id=Bgw2nKffTXMC&pg=PA161&dq=isabel+paterson+taxing+the+rich&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TivnUJW0BNCcrQGspoAo&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=isabel%20paterson%20taxing%20the%20rich&f=false)

CaptLouAlbano
01-04-2013, 01:22 PM
I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that the increase doesn't affect you, of course it does. From a percentage basis though, it's not as "bad" as it is for someone making $30k. Plus, you get the "benefit" of being done with the tax by June :). Still, you are absolutely correct, that $150 check to the local food bank gets cut down to $75.

I know you had the right intention in mind. We just sometimes slip into the wording that the left uses, and it makes me cringe :)

Lucille
01-04-2013, 01:25 PM
Obama voters stunned to discover that they too are “millionaires and billionaires”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/obama-voters-stunned-to-discover-that-they-too-are-millionaires-and-billionaires/

h/t http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?400257-Obama-voters-stunned-to-discover-that-they-too-are-%E2%80%9Cmillionaires-and-billionaires%E2%80%9D

kathy88
01-04-2013, 01:28 PM
I have a question. It took me a bit to realize this because I was all caught up in the lolz of DU members crying over the taxes they hold in such high regard.

For just about everyone, this current paycheck should actually be for the last pay period in December so WHY are they taking out the extra 2%. It should not start until the next pay period!

I'll repeat Tony's question. This was my first thought after I spit coffee on my laptop.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
01-04-2013, 01:45 PM
I'll repeat Tony's question. This was my first thought after I spit coffee on my laptop.

Unfortunately, it's all about when you get paid.

Even though the income was "earned" in 2012, the income would show up on your 2013 W-2.

That's usually why tax changes that affect payroll don't go into effect on Jan 1. It's usually some arbitrary date within the year.

Henry Rogue
01-04-2013, 02:41 PM
Three cheers for the New Socialist Man (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1186949)!
Yikes, scary stuff. Yeah, I clicked on the link, know thy enemy I guess.

CaptLouAlbano
01-05-2013, 07:58 AM
Yes, the Left hates capitalism. And the mindset of the average Leftist is somewhere around 5-6 years old. They believe everything should be fair, that no one should have more than anyone else. They have no way to process the fact that there is (and should be) a correlation between what someone produces and what one earns. Furthermore, they cannot understand why someone should become a billionaire just because he/she invented something valuable (with the possible exception of the late Steve Jobs).

This struck me as interesting, and I believe you are correct in your assertion. I am thinking of the people that I personally know well who lean to the left. Now I am not talking about people that pull the "D" lever without thought who are part of the dependent class - those voters are voting for their own benefits (in fact, I have spoken with folks like this over the years and although they will vote "D" every time, they are generally conservative in their beliefs). I am thinking primarily of folks that I know who embrace the policies of the left -- they are a union workers, public school teachers, old hippies, gov't employees of various sorts, social workers and journalists (all retired now). If you think of how they spent their adult lives, they were in large part insulated from capitalism, likely surrounded by others who held similar views, and therefore heavily influenced by the notion that capitalism is evil because it lacks "fairness". The worked in a "fair" world, where everyone earned the same amount regardless of their performance and their jobs were essentially secure regardless of economic conditions or the performance of the company for which they worked. In that sense they lived in a bubble.

Lindsey
01-05-2013, 08:21 AM
FEDERAL. RESERVE.

Repeat those two words until it makes you want to scream.

I was actually surprised to see a few comments related to the Federal Reserve on that article. The Dems are becoming aware of this issue too.

Origanalist
01-05-2013, 09:10 AM
I get this at the link.


This message was self-deleted by its author (NCTraveler) on Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:36 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

QuickZ06
01-05-2013, 10:13 AM
So they are now crying over what they wanted, shocker.

Deborah K
01-05-2013, 10:36 AM
39. A Good Start

Hopefully this is just the beginning. I am tired of being poor and low class just because I wasn't born into privilege. I wish the government would confiscate property and equalize pay for all. Then we wouldn't have to worry about this. We would be provided for and taken care of in our old age on an equal basis, as we should be!!

Welcome to the United Socialists of Amerika!

squarepusher
01-05-2013, 10:38 AM
So they are now crying over what they wanted, shocker.

well actually I think they only wanted to tax the rich.

QuickZ06
01-05-2013, 10:54 AM
well actually I think they only wanted to tax the rich.

Anyone working is 'rich" to many of the dems.

BAllen
01-05-2013, 10:59 AM
Yes, the Left hates capitalism. And the mindset of the average Leftist is somewhere around 5-6 years old. They believe everything should be fair, that no one should have more than anyone else. They have no way to process the fact that there is (and should be) a correlation between what someone produces and what one earns. Furthermore, they cannot understand why someone should become a billionaire just because he/she invented something valuable (with the possible exception of the late Steve Jobs).

That's an insult to children, lol. Even they understand the concept of redistribution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNBr3PZQaE

angelatc
01-05-2013, 11:00 AM
I have a question. It took me a bit to realize this because I was all caught up in the lolz of DU members crying over the taxes they hold in such high regard.

For just about everyone, this current paycheck should actually be for the last pay period in December so WHY are they taking out the extra 2%. It should not start until the next pay period!

No, payroll taxes don't work that way. You get taxed in the period you get paid in, not the period you earned the money in. Assuming that person got a paycheck dated 2013, her employer correctly used the 2013 withholding.

BAllen
01-05-2013, 11:05 AM
I'm still laughing and crying about the post claiming that if welfare rates are "competitive" with actual wages that people will still work because they want to. lol

Yeah, that's another fallacy of the socialists. They think people will automatically work hard and efficient because it's the right thing to do. If everything was 'fair' there would be no more crime. Yeah, that's worked real well in the section 8 neighborhoods, hasn't it? No crime or drugs there, huh?

squarepusher
01-05-2013, 11:20 AM
Anyone working is 'rich" to many of the dems.

$250,000 and more was the long time Obama mantra, but he had to compromise.