I'm so mad, people are trying to steal from me, what should I do

[r3vbr]

There are people that are trying to steal my hard earned money and they threaten to kidnap me if I don't payup. I gotta pay 25% of what I make to them, or they will hunt me down and throw me in a cell.

I live in Brazil, and these people that wanna steal from me are actually my own goverment. They wanna take my money, and give it to people who don't work, and sit all day long on huge public buildings doing essentially nothing. [censored] this system. I'm thinking of moving to Hong Kong or somewhere else that doesnt rape your income and offer NOTHING in return.

[FishHooks]

I think your describing the U.S.

1 point for melodrama

-1 point for being pale

0

[Broken Glass Can]

You'll get little sympathy here. Most of the liberals here want the government to have all your money.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll get little sympathy here. Most of the liberals here want the government to have all your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true. We hate everyone.

[FishHooks]

No, even the liberals are pissed, the govt is only taking 25%, they want to take more!!!

[ QUOTE ]
You'll get little sympathy here. Most of the liberals here want the government to have all your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee Dub said that he thinks the federal government should take no more than 1/3 of your money. Wow, that's re-assuring. That sure sounds like someone who believes in limited government. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[FishHooks]

Much more limited then when Clinton was president.

[Felix_Nietsche]

In Brazil you are required to vote by law and you can't get a job unless you can prove you voted. As a result, every brain dead-knuckle-dragging-slobbering-fool votes and these fools tend to vote for socialists. Brazil's current president is a socialist. I suppose he hasn't heard that Adam Smith defeated Karl Marx in the cold war. Laws like these will keep Brazil from becoming an economic powerhouse.

[ QUOTE ]
Much more limited then when Clinton was president.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a load of bullshit if I ever heard one, and I'm going to call your freshman economic butt out on it.

proof (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Bush-Government-Grows4sep03.htm)

"Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, and Daniel Mitchell, a Heritage Foundation economist, argue that government was much better contained under President Clinton, in part because Mr. Clinton faced a skeptical Republican Congress.

"We are now seeing the biggest expansion in government since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House," Mr. Moore said. "It is pretty much an across-the-board mushrooming of government. We have the biggest education, foreign aid and agriculture bills in history, and bigger expansions are on the agenda."

Mr. Mitchell called the growth of government under Mr. Bush "very troubling for conservatives." He calculates that domestic spending is up about one percentage point of gross domestic product. "That is quite discouraging," he said, "particularly since we made so much progress under Clinton in reducing the size of government."


---------------------

Tax rates may be lower, and that's all very nice. But it don't mean s**t when spending is increasing and deficits are growing as a result.

Non-defense discretionary spending has been much higher under Clinton than Bush and you have no way to disprove that statement. Look at the farm bill, look at the gigantic Medicare prescription drug bill, etc.

Divided government produces less government growth. It would be better if we had a Democratic President with a Republican Congress or vice versa.

But we were spending much less under Clinton than under Bush(inflation-adjusted of course). There is no disputing this fact.

[FishHooks]

First you talk about taxes now you go talk about something else in the middle of an argument. The fact is less taxes under Bush than Clinton.

[DVaut1]

Scoot:

[ QUOTE ]
That sure sounds like someone who believes in limited government.

[/ QUOTE ]

FishHooks:

[ QUOTE ]
Much more limited then when Clinton was president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scoot:

[ QUOTE ]
"Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, and Daniel Mitchell, a Heritage Foundation economist, argue that government was much better contained under President Clinton, in part because Mr. Clinton faced a skeptical Republican Congress.

"We are now seeing the biggest expansion in government since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House," Mr. Moore said. "It is pretty much an across-the-board mushrooming of government. We have the biggest education, foreign aid and agriculture bills in history, and bigger expansions are on the agenda."

Mr. Mitchell called the growth of government under Mr. Bush "very troubling for conservatives." He calculates that domestic spending is up about one percentage point of gross domestic product. "That is quite discouraging," he said, "particularly since we made so much progress under Clinton in reducing the size of government."

[/ QUOTE ]

FishHooks:

[ QUOTE ]
First you talk about taxes now you go talk about something else in the middle of an argument. The fact is less taxes under Bush than Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]


-------------------------

He was talking about the size of government; and so were you.

[FishHooks]

Haha taking quotes out of context, nice work.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha taking quotes out of context, nice work.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's missing?

[ QUOTE ]
First you talk about taxes now you go talk about something else in the middle of an argument. The fact is less taxes under Bush than Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop dodging the facts you brat. I provided proof that government is not more limited under Bush than it was under Clinton.

What the hell does it matter if it's higher deficits or higher taxes? Government is still growing much faster under Bush than it did under Clinton. I actually prefer higher taxes to higher deficits, because at least we aren't paying interest on the additional debt.

My advice to you is to switch your major immediately. Change it to some bullshit major like children's studies, because you clearly have no clue about economics. The CEO of some company isn't going to care that you can quote Bush's campaign speeches or that you're a registered Republican. That's not going to make him give you the job.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha taking quotes out of context, nice work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when people take my one-sentence posts out of context.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate it when people take my one-sentence posts out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not as if it was particularly hard to capture what everyone was saying; he made two, separate, one-sentence posts; how can I take that out of context?

At least you see the humor his 'you're missing the context' claim. What context could I miss?

[BluffTHIS!]

If you play poker for a living then Canada looks good as it doesn't treat gambling winnings as income subject to income tax. If not, then move into your country's rain forest with a friendly tribe. Topless women, no tax or government. All you gotta do is hunt/pick/root for your daily meal.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]


Gee Dub said that he thinks the federal government should take no more than 1/3 of your money. Wow, that's re-assuring. That sure sounds like someone who believes in limited government. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what you took out of context, him using taxes and saying that thats why our govt isn't limited.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
In Brazil you are required to vote by law and you can't get a job unless you can prove you voted. Laws like these will keep Brazil from becoming an economic powerhouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they got hot women down there /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[FishHooks]

economics is too complex to explain to someone like you.

[Meech]

Only 25% sounds like a bargain relative to the USA. Add up your sales tax, gas tax, car registration fees, airline surcharges, etc. Heck, try to decipher a friggin phone bill.

It's time for another Tea party, IMO.

[FishHooks]

haha good post.

[Broken Glass Can]

Another great use for taxpayer's money:

Taxpayers To Pick Up Tab For Governor's Driveway (http://cbs2chicago.com/seenon/local_story_252174857.html)

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
economics is too complex to explain to someone like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

......especially in one-sentence posts.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It's time for another Tea party, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Americans for Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/)

Eliminate income tax, substitute national sales tax which taxes the massive underground economy, and give tax rebates to lower income families for what they paid on food, medicine etc.

[ QUOTE ]
economics is too complex to explain to someone like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I majored in economics, you dumb [censored], and at a much better college than UF, too.

[Benman]

Actually, the cold war defeated an authoritative system that happened to be socialist as well. This is a key distinction, in my opinion. If you have a well-functioning democracy (I have no knowledge of whether Brazil does or not), then there's nothing wrong in my opinion with a consensus socialist government. Democracy and socialism aren't mutually exclusive at all. There's a lot of nice Scandanavian contries that are proof!

[Meech]

I'm all for simplifying the tax code. I don't see any politicians lining up for this, and the average American cares more about Jerry Springer.

Heck in Michigan here we pay sales tax on federal and state gas taxes. Double dipping all the way to the bank.

I'm thinking about getting some T-Shirts printed up that say "I am NOT a &^%#*$& revenue stream".

[FishHooks]

sure you did, We are one of the best public colleges, and one of the top in business.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm thinking about getting some T-Shirts printed up that say "I am NOT a &^%#*$& revenue stream".

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for simplifying the tax code. I don't see any politicians lining up for this, and the average American cares more about Jerry Springer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the liberal democrats oppose such proposals. The fair tax proposal is that it should be revenue neutral, but the libs claim it wouldn't be. Of course it should be easy to pass it with a time limit so that the system could just be changed back if it didn't work. But what is comical about the libs opposing this is that they really don't want revenue neutrality, only to benefit certain economic levels of society over other ones. They really want taxing to produce as much as possible to spend on social programs to buy more votes. However, I would be willing for the fair tax sales tax proposal not to be revenue neutral if it didn't cause people under a certain threshold like 50K a year to pay more tax. Taxing the underground economy should produce a huge revenue spike, and although taxes should be lowered some in respect of this, some of such an increase should be used on needed infrastructure improvements imo.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the liberal democrats oppose such proposals. The fair tax proposal is that it should be revenue neutral, but the libs claim it wouldn't be. Of course it should be easy to pass it with a time limit so that the system could just be changed back if it didn't work. But what is comical about the libs opposing this is that they really don't want revenue neutrality, only to benefit certain economic levels of society over other ones. They really want taxing to produce as much as possible to spend on social programs to buy more votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting aside revenue neutrality for a moment, but getting to tax simplicity (although I think you could posit a similar argument for why Republicans are hesitant to produce revenue neutral taxes, as well) -

The flip side of what's quoted above, of course, is that no Republican would ever get behind simplifying the tax code, because it's a bread-and-butter issue for them.

Isn't the FairTax borne out a motivation for a simpler tax code?

Simplifying the tax code takes taxes off the front-burner.

And having taxes constantly on the front-burner means that every member of Congress will be faced with a seemingly endless series of votes to cut taxes (the more taxes, the more votes). Every vote against a tax cut is a huge political liability. Keeping various taxes alive enough to force regular votes on them is a Karl Rove wet dream. Was not "John Kerry = hundreds of votes to raise taxes" one of the oft-repeated talking points of the Bush campaign last November?

In other words, I think we can imagine why Republicans don't fully get behind tax simplification, either.

[Bluffoon]

Redistribution of income is a vital government function.

[FishHooks]

NO

[Meech]

I don't buy all the lib-this con-this crap.

They both spend like it's going out of style. They are both/all whores, IMO.

I'd like a simple system that neither party can "tweak" for thier own agenda/pork projects.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose he hasn't heard that Adam Smith defeated Karl Marx in the cold war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but Marx was only a baby, Smith was in the prime of his career. Later on Marx developed a hell of a left hook and his hand speed improved as well.

NT

[phage]

[ QUOTE ]
sure you did, We are one of the best public colleges, and one of the top in business.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's right...you're a freshman...in college. You must be well informed. Why do you insist on bringing Clinton into this debate? He has not been in office for years. Address the current situation. Alternatively you can create list after list of presidential rankings. Have fun!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, I think we can imagine why Republicans don't fully get behind tax simplification, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flat tax = simpler though not as simple as sales tax fair tax would be.

[cardcounter0]

Only 25%? hahahahahahaha!

Try 48%.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It's time for another Tea party, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked for it this time, you finally got the government you deserve.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
economics is too complex to explain to someone like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I majored in economics, you dumb [censored], and at a much better college than UF, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I dunno why this is funny but it is. Hook, line and sinker.

Mack

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
There are people that are trying to steal my hard earned money and they threaten to kidnap me if I don't payup. I gotta pay 25% of what I make to them, or they will hunt me down and throw me in a cell.

I live in Brazil, and these people that wanna steal from me are actually my own goverment. They wanna take my money, and give it to people who don't work, and sit all day long on huge public buildings doing essentially nothing. [censored] this system. I'm thinking of moving to Hong Kong or somewhere else that doesnt rape your income and offer NOTHING in return.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pussy.

[[censored]]

You have Shakira right? Stop complaining

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You have Shakira right? Stop complaining

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You have Shakira right? Stop complaining

[/ QUOTE ]

Shakira is Colombian. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Shakira is Colombian.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were the OP, I would move from Brazil to Colombia, then.

[tolbiny]

Bush is great!!! less taxes and more spending, the best of both worlds. i don't see why we can't just keep this up indefinately.