Fuck You Barack Obama

[BigWill]

Pretty vague.

Interestingly you jump straight to accusing me of something you know nothing about (how much money I make).

Well enjoy seeing the wealth gap continue to expand, slashing spending on infrastructure and basic needs, science budgets (e.g. Nasa) cut. But it's cool - the ultra rich pay a few percentage points less in tax, maybe America can just turn into a land of 10% of rich people with a sea of zombie poor?

Poor people are generally poor for a reason. Entitlements. They don't have to work because "rich" people supply the tax money for them. They are generally drones who value fun and entertainment more than work. They just have a different mind set. They care about different things. They hate that they don't have money but do nothing to increase it.

Even a "rich" person at 5% tax pays more than you at 50% tax. Furthermore they most likely don't even use government services. They are paying out and getting little to nothing in return while you reap the benefits. You think that is "fair"?

Fuck you mooching little bitch :action-smiley-052:

 

[d_diggler]

It's the middle people who get fucked with this shit.

If you have 40 mil or 50 mil, you're still rich.

If you have 100k or 50k it's completly different.

The rich don't need to give a fuck, the poor don't give a fuck.

This isn't just America it's every Western goverment.

It's time for Governments to accept the experiment didn't work and step the fuck off.

 

[pixelo]

Poor people are generally poor for a reason. Entitlements. They don't have to work because "rich" people supply the tax money for them. They are generally drones who value fun and entertainment more than work. They just have a different mind set. They care about different things. They hate that they don't have money but do nothing to increase it.

Even a "rich" person at 5% tax pays more than you at 50% tax. Furthermore they most likely don't even use government services. They are paying out and getting little to nothing in return while you reap the benefits. You think that is "fair"?

Fuck you mooching little bitch :action-smiley-052:

Nah... You just lumped everyone who is "poor" as having the same attitude.

Retarded.

"They dont use government services"

Nonsense, their employees drive to work on government built roads, customers live in a safe country so they can buy their products, the justice system makes sure that if someone burns down their house theyll get caught and prosecuted. To name a few simple examples. Obviously there are many more indirect services that they benefit from.

 

[JakeStratham]

Poor people are generally poor for a reason. Entitlements. They don't have to work because "rich" people supply the tax money for them. They are generally drones who value fun and entertainment more than work. They just have a different mind set. They care about different things.

You're touching upon an important factor in the way man values his time against his acquisition of future and present goods. That folks place a higher value on enjoying fun and entertainment today rather than investing time and effort to gain more fun and entertainment in the future is not, in itself, a bad thing. Every individual has his own time preference, which influences his decisions regarding how he allocates his limited resources (time, capital, etc.).

Rothbard makes this point (far better than I can) in Man, Economy, and State:

An individual can rank prospective and currently held future goods on his or her value scale, just as he or she can rank any goods in the current time period. Thus, an individual might prefer two units of steak next year over one unit of steak this year. (Because of time preference, an individual will always prefer the same quantity of a given good earlier rather than later.) A different individual, however, might consider one unit of present steak to give more utility than two units of future steak. There is thus a potential gain from (intertemporal) trade, with the first individual selling one unit of present steak in exchange for the other individual’s promise to deliver two units of steak next year. The pure rate of interest (i.e. exchange rate between present and future goods) will be established by the various individuals’ time preferences in the same way that any other price is established. The demand for present goods is constituted by the supply of future goods, and vice versa. Although we cannot compare the marginal utility that various individuals enjoy from present and future goods, we can certainly compare their time preference schedules.

Robert Murphy also makes this point in Chapter 4 (titled "Robinson Crusoe Economics") of his book, "Lessons For The Young Economist."

Here's a link to the PDF. Here's a link to buy.


The thing that screws this process up is giving those who have a shorter time preference (i.e. consume now rather than later) the power to vote for themselves the property of those with a longer time preference.

... which is the predictable outcome of a democracy.*



* "We're a republic!" lol

Random humor break (click pic to enlarge).
​

 

[infoslob]

Wow...

He actually made a lot of sense in that speech. That retard John Boner is a inarticulate shyster who is representing corporate interests alone...

I wouldn't care as much as where I live we don't subscribe to "TAXES ON BILLIONAIRES KILL DEM JERBS" school of thought, but it just so happens that if the US defaults, the whole world is fucked. Thanks republlitards/tea party.

Sorry but the Dodd-Frank job killing, entrepreneur-killing debacle was not the handiwork of the republitards/tea party.

And blaming the Tea Party for something? What? What did they do?

 

[conv3rsion]

Keep buying the huffpo hype. It's a wonder people like you make any money at all, you're more susceptible to marketing and weasel words than even the average acai buyer.

dude, john fucking boehner's speech, come on.

 

[conv3rsion]

I mean, we here all should have finally tuned bullshit detectors. There is no way I believe that my intelligent friends on the right can listen to boehner's speech last night and think that after all of these negotiations obama wants "a blank check", that 5 democrats in the house means "bipartisan", or that a guy who has been in washington since 1990 can act like an outsider. Over 71% of Americans disapprove with the way the GOP has handled this (including over 50% of republicans), how often do we get 70% of americans to agree on anything?

Here's what has happened in my opinion. Republicans figured they could hammer Obama on the debt ceiling issue, knowing that as president he would have to be accountable to the public (meaning he would have to approve massive cuts in order to avoid default) and that in doing so he would also piss off his liberal supporters. Republicans were going to use this issue to frame the 2012 elections. That has been their plan all year.

What they didn't account for was that Barack Obama is a smart motherfucker and to counter their efforts, he was going to go to the right of EVERYONE on this issue, making it so for the republicans to go to the right of him and to oppose him, they would be end up far away from the American public, at the point where it would become obvious that their primary goal was to protect the Bush tax cuts and do whatever it takes to make Obama fail.

He came out with a proposal to cut $3 trillion in federal spending in exchange for raising $1 trillion in revenue (mostly through reducing eligible deductions and allowing specific rate cuts to expire). Reasonable conservatives like David Brooks called this "the mother of all no brainers". The gang of six came out with a similar plan which would have resulted in lower tax rates FOR EVERYONE (again by using fewer eligible deductions). Unfortunately, republicans are absolutely united in their hatred of Barack Obama and couldn't agree with either deal because it would signal a win for Obama.

So now here is the situation as it stands. Republican members of congress are getting frantic phone calls from senior citizens concerned that their social security checks aren't going to come through. The public perceives that the democrats have been more open to compromise and republicans believe that if a default happens, the public will blame the GOP. Republicans have also lost their central "we gonna get Obama" issue. Obama gets to sound incredibly reasonable in his speech and even was able to invoke Ronald Reagan.

This is what happens when care about making someone else lose then you do about winning.

Also, to the pictures above, if you really think Obama is an extreme left marxist, you are a fucking idiot. He has gone to the right on significant issues (this one and Libya for example). I get that you guys hate him, but at least be rational in your hate.

 

[well_versed]

I highly recommend everyone read and re-read what JakeStratham wrote.

On another note, anyone who has studied economics knows that the dripple down effect from rich people is negligible. In other words, raising taxes by 5% on the richest 1% will hardly effect macro spending, as each tier of money being passed quickly diminishes if you account for that which is withheld by saving at each level, and therefore not passed down to the next tier.

A better idea, which just happens to not agree with the purely idealogical and not logicial or realistic view that republicans blindly follow, is to indeed raise taxes on these richest 1%-5% who would just save that remainder anyway (as spending flattens after a certain point), and at the same time lower taxes on the lower and lower-middle class who end up spending all of their money any wayand often use debt as leverage; this tax-break would for this middle and lower class would be unlikely to be put in saving (and even if it would be, proprotionally, it would be significantly less than the rich).

Thus, if you are worried about affecting spending at the macro level to truly "stimulate an economy," you get much more bang for your buck, and far less disruption, by raising taxes on the rich and slightly lowering them of the poor (should the government need to raise money.)

Also, fucking +rep to what conv3rsion said. Jesus christ, republicans care more about arguing and following idealogy than the realty that's smacking us all the in the face. And, both republicans and democratic politicans care more about re-election than fixing the messed up problems we're in. AND, there are too many fucktards in politics; popularity determines power and not intelligence -- we need scholars in politics, not egotistical bullies.

 

[guerilla]

Anyone who proposes raising taxes, or sunsetting tax breaks doesn't understand economics at all.

This includes everyone in Washington not named Ron Paul.

This includes the Republicans who love to tax and spend with the best of them.

 

[slayerment]

Nah... You just lumped everyone who is "poor" as having the same attitude.

Retarded.

"They dont use government services"

Nonsense, their employees drive to work on government built roads, customers live in a safe country so they can buy their products, the justice system makes sure that if someone burns down their house theyll get caught and prosecuted. To name a few simple examples. Obviously there are many more indirect services that they benefit from.

Are you talking?

 

[guerilla]

Nonsense, their employees drive to work on government built roads, customers live in a safe country so they can buy their products, the justice system makes sure that if someone burns down their house theyll get caught and prosecuted. To name a few simple examples. Obviously there are many more indirect services that they benefit from.

These services can all be provided by the free market. There is no need for them to be provided at the barrel of a gun, which is how the state does it.

One day humanity will grow up and realize that violence is counterproductive to prosperity. One day.

 

[Hav3n]

Obama's speech: "Let me just keep a couple more of these entitlement programs my voting base loves running just a bit longer until i get re-elected in 2012. So just let me fuck your voting base a bit longer republicans (the rich). Then we'll fix it."

Boehner's speech: "We want to fuck Obama and stick him with this bill that is a large part his fault and ours too cause we're fucking stupid. We're going to try and make some huge highly unpopular cuts on programs that make up Obama's base voters. That and we'd like to delay this crisis a bit so that it comes a little closer to re-election time too."

 

[secretagentdad]

When the fuck did giving to society become giving to the government?

You know all those foundations and shit that actually try to help people? How the fuck do you think they exist..........

As inefficient and wasteful as many of the major ngos are, they look like examples of efficiency next to the U.S government.

Believe it or not, society is not government centric. Contributing to society can involve making a profit. Or for those holy then thou types who think profit is evil, just plain giving shit away to the benefit of society in the form of foundations.

 

[conv3rsion]

These services can all be provided by the free market. There is no need for them to be provided at the barrel of a gun, which is how the state does it.

One day humanity will grow up and realize that violence is counterproductive to prosperity. One day.

Which country is currently doing well with entirely privately funded roads? Which one is doing well with entirely privately funded medicine? I'm curious, because you state this matter of factly and for the life of me I can't think of one example of a large, very functional, completely private nation, where the state exists soley to protect property rights.

In your world, there would be no internet for which you to make money on because the research to create many of the core pieces of it (when it wasn't then obvious how they would ever have been profitable) would have never been funded.

 

[guerilla]

Which country is currently doing well with entirely privately funded roads?

This form of argument is a logical fallacy.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Nor does it invalidate a principle.

Which country is currently funded voluntarily and without systematic violence?

I'm curious, because you state this matter of factly and for the life of me I can't think of one example of a large, very functional, completely private nation, where the state exists soley to protect property rights.

And yet?

In your world, there would be no internet for which you to make money on because the research to create many of the core pieces of it (when it wasn't then obvious how they would ever have been profitable) would have never been funded.

You cannot know this. The government created the infrastructure for military purposes by stealing from the private sector, the FEDs never designed the commercial internet. The market did. Did the government also invent newspapers, books, television, music, radio and movies?

You're taking a very stupid line of argumentation. You're arguing that government can do things we cannot, and yet I am sure you would argue that government is made up of people just like us. Is Barack Obama a super human? Are congress the smartest people in the world?

The difference between government and us, is that we do things peacefully and voluntarily. Venture capitalists raise hundreds of millions to develop things without anyone being threatened with jail time. And yet Government can commit billions to all sorts of projects which we cannot do, like genocide and nuclear weapons development, only because it steals resources from those of us who produce in the private sector.

Government creates NOTHING. It steals and allocates. If government is truly our agent, then they can only do what we can do. And I cannot steal or mass murder. I have no moral authority to do that, and therefor, neither can any government agent who CLAIMS to represent someone.

 

[slayerment]

Which country is currently doing well with entirely privately funded roads? Which one is doing well with entirely privately funded medicine? I'm curious, because you state this matter of factly and for the life of me I can't think of one example of a large, very functional, completely private nation, where the state exists soley to protect property rights.

In your world, there would be no internet for which you to make money on because the research to create many of the core pieces of it (when it wasn't then obvious how they would ever have been profitable) would have never been funded.

There aren't any. The closest we had was early America and it kicked ass back then. If we had free markets like early America with the technology and information we have now life would be way better and America wouldn't be the piece of shit it is today.

Free markets almost always find a way to do things cheaper and more efficient than government. I don't get how people can't conceptualize this. Government employees are inefficient. They don't have incentive. They don't have risk. Governments aren't going to do as much with capital as a private enterprise. Private enterprise forces people to do a better job and as a result things make more sense, things are cheaper, things are efficient and things are better. The free market algorithm as a whole is better for people than the government algorithm. History and logic both show this. We would have much MORE than simply the Internet today if we weren't held up by the government monopoly.

 

[BigWill]

This form of argument is a logical fallacy.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Nor does it invalidate a principle.

Which country is currently funded voluntarily and without systematic violence?


And yet?


You cannot know this. The government created the infrastructure for military purposes by stealing from the private sector, the FEDs never designed the commercial internet. The market did. Did the government also invent newspapers, books, television, music, radio and movies?

You're taking a very stupid line of argumentation. You're arguing that government can do things we cannot, and yet I am sure you would argue that government is made up of people just like us. Is Barack Obama a super human? Are congress the smartest people in the world?

The difference between government and us, is that we do things peacefully and voluntarily. Venture capitalists raise hundreds of millions to develop things without anyone being threatened with jail time. And yet Government can commit billions to all sorts of projects which we cannot do, like genocide and nuclear weapons development, only because it steals resources from those of us who produce in the private sector.

Government creates NOTHING. It steals and allocates. If government is truly our agent, then they can only do what we can do. And I cannot steal or mass murder. I have no moral authority to do that, and therefor, neither can any government agent who CLAIMS to represent someone.

Well said

 

[Pseudo Nym]

The government created the infrastructure [for the internet]

[...]

Government creates NOTHING.

I think you tried to twist out this contradiction in an edit, but it's still there.

Truth is, people can create things that are amazingly beneficial to humanity when they aren't driven by a profit motive. Not saying that profit-motivated things can't be beneficial, but where general good is at odds with profit, profit wins out more than not.

If the internet had been developed privately, we can only speculate, but I tend to think it would be much more like television - a 'push' medium, based on proprietary protocols, where the consumer is essentially fed commercially produced content. The concept of setting up your own website or blog might not even exist. Things like napster, bittorrent, etc. almost certainly wouldn't have existed. I think the development of the internet as a public resource has undoubtedly been much more beneficial than were it developed and kept private.

 

[BigWill]

I think you tried to twist out this contradiction in an edit, but it's still there.

Truth is, people can create things that are amazingly beneficial to humanity when they aren't driven by a profit motive. Not saying that profit-motivated things can't be beneficial, but where general good is at odds with profit, profit wins out more than not.

If the internet had been developed privately, we can only speculate, but I tend to think it would be much more like television - a 'push' medium, based on proprietary protocols, where the consumer is essentially fed commercially produced content. The concept of setting up your own website or blog might not even exist. Things like napster, bittorrent, etc. almost certainly wouldn't have existed. I think the development of the internet as a public resource has undoubtedly been much more beneficial than were it developed and kept private.

You don't seem to understand how the "internet" works. Its impossible for it to be private. There are many different lines of data transfer. If one some how became regulated to point where it was crippled, people could simply switch to another line of data. Although I did know it would not be easy getting people to switch unless it was something very major, the way the government is going to could happen very soon though.

For example, We could simply link all the wireless routers around town together via a protocol. This would create our own intranet and it would create a "internet" like network wherever the routers reach was. People could host servers for web pages and scripts and what not.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

You don't seem to understand how the "internet" works. Its impossible for it to be private. There are many different lines of data transfer. If one some how became regulated to point where it was crippled, people could simply switch to another line of data. Although I did know it would not be easy getting people to switch unless it was something very major, the way the government is going to could happen very soon though.

For example, We could simply link all the wireless routers around town together via a protocol. This would create our own intranet and it would create a "internet" like network wherever the routers reach was. People could host servers for web pages and scripts and what not.

I think I understand just fine how it works. If the infrastructure were privatized, where would these other lines come from? Cable companies/telcos already have monopolies on high-speed access in many areas, wouldn't that be even easier if it were entirely privatized and unregulated? Be pretty easy for the big players to buy up all the spectrum rights to shut out any upstarts, and/or buy them out directly, and/or employ other 'methods' for generating compliance.

As for wireless, do you think the chips that run those wireless routers would have been developed to use non-proprietary protocols? I think the only truly open networks under such a scenario would be 'hacked' underground networks. But then I imagine it would come down to hackers trying to stay one step ahead of corps triangulating on open access points and shutting them down, or drowning their signal out. Sounds like a dystopian novel...