46

When you destroyed Hillary Clinton's campaign...

25 comments, 560 views, posted 10:47 pm 15/04/2018 in Funny Stuff by REALITY
REALITY has 18826 posts, 7303 threads, 1417 points
The Finest Prized West Sussex Gammon.

...and then retire off of selling your book to her supporters.

Extra Points Given by:

LordViscera (10), elsels (5), MASTERV (10), taz (5), Vormid (5), tamsnod27 (5), Edorph (5)

Comments

1
2:55 pm 16/04/2018

bytehead

It pretty much means that you don't have a constituency to sell it to. Nobody on the left appears to like the book, and nobody on the right appears to like the book.

2
2:58 pm 16/04/2018

Vormid

Quote by bytehead:
It pretty much means that you don't have a constituency to sell it to. Nobody on the left appears to like the book, and nobody on the right appears to like the book.

I think that some on the left were looking for some sort of magic bullet or new news. It's kinda like a Stormy interview. It's stuff we've already been told. I don't want another opinion. I want truth and justice and then for it to be behind us.

3
3:01 pm 16/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by Vormid:
I think that some on the left were looking for some sort of magic bullet or new news.


They didn't get it. All they anybody got out of Comey was that Trump is immoral. Well, no fucking duh! Anybody paying attention to what was going on during the campaign knew that!

2
3:08 pm 16/04/2018

Vormid

Quote by bytehead:
They didn't get it. All they anybody got out of Comey was that Trump is immoral. Well, no fucking duh! Anybody paying attention to what was going on during the campaign knew that!



Correct. I don't think anyone thinks Trump is a moral guy. Some don't care as long as they get what they want out of the deal.

1
8:10 pm 16/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by Vormid:
Some don't care as long as they get what they want out of the deal.


Yeah, like tax cuts. As long as you're a big international corporation. Are the little people getting their tax cuts. Current Magic 8 Ball says...

NO!

1
9:16 pm 16/04/2018

Quaektem

I must be a big international corporation because I'll be saving!

0
9:18 pm 16/04/2018

Vormid

I'm getting hit for the first time ever. Circumstances I'm sure. Though I haven't changed my exemptions in at least 5 years this past year about 3k less was pulled from my salary. No idea why...

0
12:18 am 17/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
I must be a big international corporation because I'll be saving!


Yeah, a whopping $2K.

Maybe.

0
12:23 am 17/04/2018

LordViscera

Quote by Vormid:
Quote by bytehead:
They didn't get it. All they anybody got out of Comey was that Trump is immoral. Well, no fucking duh! Anybody paying attention to what was going on during the campaign knew that!


Correct. I don't think anyone thinks Trump is a moral guy. Some don't care as long as they get what they want out of the deal.


kind of what Bill Clinton fans got??? Kind of what Hillary voters wanted to get? At least Obama was not in the same category as those two

1
12:25 am 17/04/2018

LordViscera

Quote by bytehead:
Quote by Quaektem:
I must be a big international corporation because I'll be saving!

Yeah, a whopping $2K.

Maybe.


so......at what point do you get to decide what is worth it to a family? For the record, that is a 7% raise for my family. Should I hold out for 10%? or is 5% enough for me to feel that it was worth it.

0
3:00 am 17/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by LordViscera:
at what point


When it's the Yugest Tax Cut Ever, and an average tax payer may, or may not, depending on whether that tax calculator that somebody is basing their tax savings is correct or not, especially without knowing or even realizing that something else just shot up in cost (like health insurance premiums) so that whatever was gained (and possibly more) has now been pissed away permanently.

The indications from what I've been reading are that a lot of people aren't seeing any increase in their paychecks.

Meanwhile corporate buybacks are heading to record territory because of the corporate tax cuts, in part.

Bloomberg on record corporate buybacks

2007/2008 again in 2018? Maybe.

1
9:07 am 17/04/2018

LordViscera

so that doesn't answer the question. Even if the amount was paltry to your sensibilities, it might be significant to some. I'm not sure about you, but a 7% increase in my income is a good bump. That is more than the average worker in America is going to experience as a pay raise. But.....you have acted like some author of an article is a better judge as to whether this is worth it. To a middle American family who gets a pay raise, the "corporate tax rate" is just a headline they see/hear on the biased news (whether biased against Trump or for) and contrary to popular narratives on the news, corporations play an important part in the economy in this country. But the left loves to demonize them saying they don't have "a right" to make such wealth. Funny, it's always the poorest complainers who "want their fair share" that are screaming about this.

0
9:06 pm 17/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by LordViscera:
that doesn't answer the question.


I think it does. If it's a record tax cut, it should be showing pretty much in everybody's paycheck that is paying federal income tax.

It plainly is not. If it was a great tax cut, the middle class should be making bank. $50 a year as has been reported for one woman? That's pretty fucking sick. $2k, yeah, more significant, but is it real? That's the question that I'm asking about.

"This website says that I'll gain $2k!"

That's nice.

Again, is it real? I'm not talking about amounts expected, I'm talking about amounts that actually exist. You can't answer that question.

1
11:41 pm 18/04/2018

LordViscera

since the tax act is.....4 months old and no one has done their taxers yet with these laws in place, you are right/ But in April. when my tax refund goes from less than 2K to over 4K I'll let you know.

0
1:49 am 19/04/2018

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
I think it does. If it's a record tax cut, it should be showing pretty much in everybody's paycheck that is paying federal income tax.



... and that amount should be proportionate to the federal tax paid. I do have a number of deductions (ahem.. children) so sure, someone that pays a higher rate will save more than I do but I am happy for an extra (based on what I've seen) $2,200 this year. That's two weeks take-home pay (sans bonuses or overtime). I don't know about you, but I certainly have a list of home improvements, kids activities and even charities I can use that money on.

Now I am going to say something nice about Obama here... prepare yourself... I actually liked the SS tax cut he had going for a couple of years. It wasn't as much but it did significantly help out those that generally don't pay income taxes but still work (and helped the most wealthy less).

0
4:44 am 19/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
... and that amount should be proportionate to the federal tax paid.


Why?

1
4:31 am 25/04/2018

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
Quote by Quaektem:
... and that amount should be proportionate to the federal tax paid.

Why?



Because... that would be fair.

2
4:37 am 25/04/2018

LordViscera

dems don't care about fairness, they care about the appearance that THEY are being fair to someone else they particularly feel sympathy for

1
1:59 pm 25/04/2018

Vormid

Quote by LordViscera:
dems don't care about fairness



And Repubs only care about their bank account.

0
2:16 pm 25/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
Quote by bytehead:
Quote by Quaektem:
... and that amount should be proportionate to the federal tax paid.

Why?

Because... that would be fair.


And it still doesn't answer the question, does it. Your response is an instinctive yet uncorroborative one. And since you both want to bash without any kind of actual discussion that you two claim you want, I'm out.

0
5:22 pm 25/04/2018

LordViscera

Quote by Vormid:
Quote by LordViscera:
dems don't care about fairness


And Repubs only care about their bank account.


yep, because that is where the most unfair policies from the Dems come from, wealth distribution, ACA, ridiculous tax policies, regulations that strangle the family trying to have a business. remove those things, and we'll see the "fairness" doctrine flourish. Just a hint, I give over 10% of my income to charity yearly, even at an AGI of less than $35,000.00, imagine how many more people would benefit from people like me if they had more of their own earned money to give?

0
10:08 pm 25/04/2018

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
And it still doesn't answer the question, does it. Your response is an instinctive yet uncorroborative one.

I have to apologize, I keep overestimating your limited intelligence (though I must say the Word-a-Day calendar is really ramping up your syllable per word ratio!). It's a rather common sense argument (and I agree, rather instinctual) but I'll grace you with an explanation my seven year old wouldn't need...

Person A pays $100 in Federal taxes (taxes). Person B pays $100,000 in taxes. Person C (due to the Earned Income Credit) pays $0 taxes but is given $2000 for filling out a 1040A.

If we cut taxes by 5%, A gets $5 back, B gets $5,000 back, C gets $0 back. Pretty simple and fair. (By the way, the same thing happens when you go a 20% off sale, you save $2 on the $10 item and $20 on the $100 item!).

Now I know it doesn't seem fair to you that B gets $5,000 because 'he doesn't need it' and 'it only helps the wealthy' but given our tax system if he's paying $100,000 in taxes he is likely paying between a 30% and 33% of his total income in taxes while A is likely paying a 10% to 15% of his income in taxes.

Still seems pretty fair that B gets $5,000 back from that tax cut since he's still paying a much higher percentage of his income to the government than A. And what of poor C? Well we've already given him $2,000, I really don't think he's entitled to more.

All better now?

Quote by bytehead:
And since you both want to bash without any kind of actual discussion that you two claim you want, I'm out.



You've been spouting off this line quite a bit recently. Which liberal pundit has been using that one, Maddow?

I responded to you with a two paragraph response, including an actual rebuttal to one of your claims. You parsed one part of that and responded with a one word question... then have the audacity to get snippy and stop playing because I responded with a response only 750% longer than your question.

But I really suspect it's because you keep getting painted into a corner (and quite easily). That's fine. In retaliation I'm going to reveal tomorrow's word of the day before you get a chance to tear off the 4/25... obstreperous

0
11:18 pm 25/04/2018

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
I keep overestimating your


own intelligence.

FTFY

Quote by Quaektem:
You've been spouting off this line quite a bit recently.


It's an original thought, instead of your brain dead brain washing.

You're the one that's turned this personal. Yippee ki yay stupid mother fucker.

0
11:23 pm 25/04/2018

Quaektem

Oh, you're back! And ignoring everything but two snippits! What a shock.

0
12:51 am 26/04/2018

LordViscera

Quote by bytehead:
Quote by Quaektem:
Quote by bytehead:
Quote by Quaektem:
... and that amount should be proportionate to the federal tax paid.

Why?

Because... that would be fair.

And it still doesn't answer the question, does it. Your response is an instinctive yet uncorroborated one. And since you both want to bash without any kind of actual discussion that you two claim you want, I'm out.


because progressive tax systems are inherently unfair due to punishing the people who are succeeding because there are many more people who didn't succeed for whatever reason and it appeals to them that the winners in the society should shoulder the burden. But here is a simpler example.

Quote:
A group of college classmates get together to socialize after graduation. They keep this ritual going throughout the years. Eventually there is separation in income level due to whatever the reasons (different competence, or differing vocations that pay better, doesn't really matter) and when they get together, the "group" decides that the one classmate who has done much better economically needs to pay for the event because, "He can" Now if he has more bills due to more children, that doesn't seem to matter. If he has more expenses due to where he lives, that doesn't matter either. The group "feels" that would be fair. How long do you think the successful classmate is going to foot the bill? Eventually, he is going to drop out and not take part anymore.

Now as to the whole

Quote:
And since you both want to bash without any kind of actual discussion that you two claim you want, I'm out.


thing, we have had this over and over thru the years. You don't have conversations, at least with me. You try and lecture me how stupid I am and that you have no patience. I haven't gotten personal and have been conversing. Now the ball is in your court

Add Comment

via teoti, or register to add a comment!