[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

yet it's the ultra-capitalists on Wall St. that are advocating a *huge*, statist, government intervention into their free market.

My point all along has been that Wall Street is not ultra-capitalist. Government is sufficiently involved in Wall Street that it's less capitalist than, say, a child's lemonade stand. You're confusing wealth with capitalism.

[Firekite]

Zipperfish wrote:

For the last few presidents, unless I'm mistaken, Clinton--a self-confessed liberal--was the only one that ran a surplus, at least back to Reagan.

That's more than a little intellectually dishonest, even if you were right. Clinton never ran a surplus, nor does a surplus necessarily mean small government. The surplus was what was predicted might exist if the Dot Com bubble had continued at its break-neck pace. As it is, the recession that started under Clinton when that bubble burst eliminated any pie-in-the-sky numbers from Democrat pollsters.

Kjorteo, get a job. Being a furry isn't a legitimate disability. You sit around your apartment making niche/novelty furry products for a pittance, and thus you claim to be self-employed. And with a gross income of $11,000/yr, I'm pretty damn sure you'd easily claim a net loss, considering the cost of everything that could be claimed and deducted. Stop acting like this is directly costing you money.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

My point all along has been that Wall Street is not ultra-capitalist. Government is sufficiently involved in Wall Street that it's less capitalist than, say, a child's lemonade stand. You're confusing wealth with capitalism.

If anything, I'm confusing rapant, short-term greed with capitalism (I suppose not necessarily the same thing).

And your example isn't very a good one -- *any* market is less capitalist than a child's lemonade stand! Unless the government cracks down hard on unreported incomes and anti-monopoly suits for the stands in your neighbourhood, it's pretty much guaranteed that a lemonade stand operates without any government involvement at all.

[CKASlacker]

Firekite wrote:

Kjorteo, get a job. Being a furry isn't a legitimate disability. You sit around your apartment making niche/novelty furry products for a pittance, and thus you claim to be self-employed. And with a gross income of $11,000/yr, I'm pretty damn sure you'd easily claim a net loss, considering the cost of everything that could be claimed and deducted. Stop acting like this is directly costing you money.

People seem to be missing the point (or a point) of Kjorteo's situation. It isn't a matter of getting a job, or getting a better paying job, or what portion of the taxes go towards income taxes or social security, it's the fact that someone who grosses a meagre $11000 has to pay any of that to the government at all. Yes, yes -- how very *liberal* of me to suggest that those at the top end of the wage scale pay a higher percentage of taxes (income or otherwise) than those at the bottom.

[Firekite]

No, smart guy. He shouldn't be paying any taxes at all, unless what he ACTUALLY means to say is that he's making $11,000/yr NET PROFIT after all claims and deductions.

And people at the top end of the wage scale already pay a vastly higher percentage of taxes, along the line of the top 5% paying 95% of all income tax collected. What you probably meant to say is that their tax rate should be even higher than it already is, because anyone more successful than you owes you something.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Firekite wrote:

And people at the top end of the wage scale already pay a vastly higher percentage of taxes, along the line of the top 5% paying 95% of all income tax collected.

That's a gross exaggeration. The top 5% pay about 57% of the income tax while earning about 33% share of all income.

[Geryon]

I don't know much about economics and such so through all of this all I'm going to say is

Quote:

Kjorteo, get a job. Being a furry isn't a legitimate disability.

Mmmmm tasty tasty ad hominem.

[Zipperfish]

Firekite wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

For the last few presidents, unless I'm mistaken, Clinton--a self-confessed liberal--was the only one that ran a surplus, at least back to Reagan.

That's more than a little intellectually dishonest, even if you were right. Clinton never ran a surplus, nor does a surplus necessarily mean small government. The surplus was what was predicted might exist if the Dot Com bubble had continued at its break-neck pace. As it is, the recession that started under Clinton when that bubble burst eliminated any pie-in-the-sky numbers from Democrat pollsters.

Dishonest??? Who the fuck are you, noob? Clinton ruled through eight years of relative peace and prosperity, Bush through eight years of massive deficit spending and war. Take a look at this site from the Congressional Budget Office, dickweed...

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.xls

I'm sorry if the actual numbers don't agree with Rush Limbaugh's highly objective and scientific analysis of the US national economy--whihc I'm sure is where you get all your info. And I'm sure the CBO is staffed with Democrats bent on destroying the fabric of America that you far right-wing paranoids see in every corner, but That's the Fact, Jack.

So, before going calling me dishonest, get off your lazy, pot-smoking, unemployed ass and do a little fucking RESEARCH. OK? As it is, you just made yourself look like the biggest numb-brained douchebag on the planet, which you probably are.

Oh, and take some fucking responsbility for the government you voted in instead of whining constantly how, though the Republicans have been in power for the last eight years, it's somehow everyone else's fault, you knuckle-dragging fuckwad.

So put that in your pipe and smoke, along with whatever else the fuck you're smoking, you pea-brained flyweight.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

[Kjorteo]

I was a little late to respond here, so everyone else beat me to it. All I can say is thank you guys--it means a lot to me to have some support.

Better a late response than none, though, so...

Firekite wrote:

Kjorteo, get a job. Being a furry isn't a legitimate disability.

I have a job, thank you, and you have a peculiar definition of disabilities if I'm actually quite actively working and you still think I'm claiming any disability at all (let alone any based on that.) And when, not just in this thread, but in the entire history of my participation in this forum have I brought up the furry thing? I'm going to assume anyone who noticed my icon and isn't stupid could have figured it out, but I never actually mentioned it in any context at all, least of all as an excuse for anything.

Unless you're trying to dig at the fact that I'm on Medicaid, but I must point out that that's not unemployment benefits. Hell, it's not even welfare. What I'm on is basically just low-income health insurance. Low-income, not no-income.

Firekite wrote:

You sit around your apartment making niche/novelty furry products for a pittance, and thus you claim to be self-employed.

Actually, I make throws for Gretel Underwood Handweaving that are sold to various artsy stores around here like Pandora's, who then sell them to customers for ridiculous amounts of money. I'd be quite interested in hearing your explanation as to how those qualify as niche/novelty furry products.

Firekite wrote:

And with a gross income of $11,000/yr, I'm pretty damn sure you'd easily claim a net loss, considering the cost of everything that could be claimed and deducted. Stop acting like this is directly costing you money.

To claim a net loss, I'd have to be running a business that loses more money than it takes in. I have zero expenses, at least not expenses that are actually related to the weaving (there's still rent and utilties and the basic cost of living, of course,) because all I do is just weave and give my work to Gretel when I'm done. She does all the marketing and dealing with stores and paying employees and such separately.

And unless you want to nitpick about whether what I pay in taxes goes straight to Social Security or into the general fund or what, I am a taxpayer and taxpayers are being called on to give almost a trillion dollars to failed financial institutions. That sounds fairly direct to me.

Firekite wrote:

What you probably meant to say is that their tax rate should be even higher than it already is, because anyone more successful than you owes you something.

Actually, I really don't care what everyone else pays, so long as it all works out overall, the budget is at least fairly close to balanced, etc. It's just the pesky matter that $1,600-$2,000 or so from $11,000 is a little steep for me personally, is all.

Also, Zipperfish, I agree with the basic premise of the side you're taking, but please calm down. I don't really think that's helping, which is sad, because I think you're actually right somewhere down there beneath all the flaming.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

This is the part that always slays me as well. For the last few presidents, unless I'm mistaken, Clinton--a self-confessed liberal--was the only one that ran a surplus, at least back to Reagan.

I'm quite sure Clinton was the only President in my lifetime to run a budget surplus. But I don't find that to be a credit to him.

If government income is greater than government expenditures, you get a surplus. This can be achieved by holding spending steady while you increase taxes (or other revenue), by holding taxes steady while you decrease spending, or a combination of increased taxes and decreased spending. I am pretty staunchly conservative in that I oppose both spending increases and tax increases. Spending did not decrease under the Clinton Administration. Tearfully, Clinton informed us that, despite his hard work, it was impossible to cut taxes.

Two wrongs created a surplus, not a right.

Not that massive deficits are better, but I'd prefer deficits minimized by spending cuts and a tax freeze.

Zipperfish wrote:

I'm sorry if the actual numbers don't agree with Rush Limbaugh's highly objective and scientific analysis of the US national economy--whihc I'm sure is where you get all your info.

Don't relate Firekite and Rush Limbaugh. I respect and follow Rush, and yet I can still recognize Firekite is a toe-chewing moron.

[dog77_1999]

Kjorteo wrote:

I was a little late to respond here, so everyone else beat me to it. All I can say is thank you guys--it means a lot to me to have some support.

Better a late response than none, though, so...

Firekite wrote:

Kjorteo, get a job. Being a furry isn't a legitimate disability.

I have a job, thank you, and you have a peculiar definition of disabilities if I'm actually quite actively working and you still think I'm claiming any disability at all (let alone any based on that.) And when, not just in this thread, but in the entire history of my participation in this forum have I brought up the furry thing? I'm going to assume anyone who noticed my icon and isn't stupid could have figured it out, but I never actually mentioned it in any context at all, least of all as an excuse for anything.

Unless you're trying to dig at the fact that I'm on Medicaid, but I must point out that that's not unemployment benefits. Hell, it's not even welfare. What I'm on is basically just low-income health insurance. Low-income, not no-income.

Firekite wrote:

You sit around your apartment making niche/novelty furry products for a pittance, and thus you claim to be self-employed.

Actually, I make throws for Gretel Underwood Handweaving that are sold to various artsy stores around here like Pandora's, who then sell them to customers for ridiculous amounts of money. I'd be quite interested in hearing your explanation as to how those qualify as niche/novelty furry products.

Firekite wrote:

And with a gross income of $11,000/yr, I'm pretty damn sure you'd easily claim a net loss, considering the cost of everything that could be claimed and deducted. Stop acting like this is directly costing you money.

To claim a net loss, I'd have to be running a business that loses more money than it takes in. I have zero expenses, at least not expenses that are actually related to the weaving (there's still rent and utilties and the basic cost of living, of course,) because all I do is just weave and give my work to Gretel when I'm done. She does all the marketing and dealing with stores and paying employees and such separately.

And unless you want to nitpick about whether what I pay in taxes goes straight to Social Security or into the general fund or what, I am a taxpayer and taxpayers are being called on to give almost a trillion dollars to failed financial institutions. That sounds fairly direct to me.

Firekite wrote:

What you probably meant to say is that their tax rate should be even higher than it already is, because anyone more successful than you owes you something.

Actually, I really don't care what everyone else pays, so long as it all works out overall, the budget is at least fairly close to balanced, etc. It's just the pesky matter that $1,600-$2,000 or so from $11,000 is a little steep for me personally, is all.

Also, Zipperfish, I agree with the basic premise of the side you're taking, but please calm down. I don't really think that's helping, which is sad, because I think you're actually right somewhere down there beneath all the flaming.

You would be better off working at McDonalds and not having to pay business taxes. I don't understand why you are restraining yourself to hardship like this and then complaining about it.

[Kjorteo]

Under normal circumstances, I don't have that much to complain about, honestly--the pay is low but there are other benefits, like the whole work-at-home aspect, which I quite enjoy. Thanks to not having a car, living in an area with a very low cost of living, etc., I can get by even after the taxes (which seem very high to me, but I've still managed for at least this long, anyway.) My entire point was that I felt it unfair that someone who somehow managed to make $11,000 work for him is being forced to bail out people who apparently couldn't get by on almost a hundred times that.

[Psudo]

I find it strange that Kjorteo is criticized (at least questioned) for being happy with what he has. Since when is the pursuit of happiness also the pursuit of money? And why does it take a conservative capitalist to point it out?

[Kjorteo]

Psudo, I know I've seen you in a "we disagree on most of the issues, but he's smart and a nice guy and I have major respect for him" noble-worthy-opponent sort of light for a while now, but that has to be the nicest post about me I've ever seen. Thank you so much.

[kettal]

Kjorteo wrote:

I'm...not especially happy with the bailouts.

Let me put it this way:

I make $11,000 a year. $11,000. That's below the poverty line in quite a few states. I get by by living in an area that's cheap to live in (this would never work in, say, Seattle,) not having a car, and watching what I spend. My means are quite limited, but I live within them. Somehow, I've even found a way to send $100 a month to my bank to put into IRA CDs, because my job doesn't have a 401(k) or any sort of retirement plan, so it's basically up to me. My CDs, much like my lifestyle in general, are probably meager compared to what others out there have, but they're something. I'm poor, but responsible, and surviving.

So either you are a student or you are very post materialist.

Either way, I salute you.