What A Great Article!

By Stephen King! He totally rules!

I'm off to Happy Hour but I wanted to leave you guys with this. See ya tomorrow! ;)


by Stephen King | April 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “He should just write a check and shut up,” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check—go ahead and write it.”

Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them?

At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don’t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you’re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I’ll … well, I won’t say I’ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff is made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn’t get made by America’s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it’s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin’-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they’re from different sexes, that is).

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God’s sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope’s balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

Think about it.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
 
By Stephen King! He totally rules!

I'm off to Happy Hour but I wanted to leave you guys with this. See ya tomorrow! ;)


by Stephen King | April 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “He should just write a check and shut up,” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check—go ahead and write it.”

Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them?

At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don’t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you’re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I’ll … well, I won’t say I’ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff is made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn’t get made by America’s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it’s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin’-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they’re from different sexes, that is).

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God’s sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope’s balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

Think about it.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

i am not a stephen king fan (my wife is though) but this article is very good and to the point

perhaps it is time for republicans to go back to school and take a civics course
 
Hmmmmm....must be because Obama didn't show "leadership" by paying more.

This is a great article. I love the way King writes...
 
By Stephen King! He totally rules!

I'm off to Happy Hour but I wanted to leave you guys with this. See ya tomorrow! ;)


by Stephen King | April 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “He should just write a check and shut up,” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check—go ahead and write it.”

Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Wow, Stephen King making fun of someone else's appearance. Hilarious.

Dear Stephen, you can pay 50% anytime you want. Nothing is stopping you.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

and yet Stephen continues whining rather than doing just that. He can still lobby to change the tax code while paying more in the meantime. But he doesn't. Because he, like so many other rich liberals, doesn't actually want to pay more in taxes.

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.

Exactly Stephen, which is why they, like you, aren't paying more voluntarily. So tell us Stephen... if you so firmly believe you should pay more... why don't you?

It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

Exactly Stephen. It doesn't take the government to fund everything. People are charitable on the whole. The wealthy do give on the whole. I am happy to see you pat yourself on the back for the money you give to charity.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts.

lmao... their paying more in taxes won't solve all of those either Stephen. The Buffet rule would pay about 11 days of government spending (assuming the ass clowns didn't right more loopholes into the tax code). Speaking of staggering debts Stephen... don't you think the profligate spending (wasteful spending to be more precise) should be addressed before you force others to give more money to the two incompetent parties in DC?

Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

So tell us Stephen... does global warming get resolved by taxing Zuckerberg or Ballmer another 10%? You know... them giving the IRS more money (which you proclaim doesn't cut it). That responsibility thing... again... if you have an idiot that has maxed out his credit card, do you solve his problem by giving him more credit?

And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.

Note to Stephen, that is what most Americans want. The government wastes money consistently. Why give them more? We as individuals are far more efficient at spending our money. Pretending that the government forcing people to pay more will solve any of the problems this country faces is nothing short of absurd. Because guess what Stephen, the wealthy do wish to keep being wealthy (as you do). If you tax them more, all that money to charity is going to dry up. Because as you said, they are not going to want to diminish their wealth. I wonder Stephen... since you and other rich liberals could live easily off of $250k, why not donate all but $5mm of your non-real estate assets to the government? You could easily get 5% on your money.

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids.

King, calling someone else creepy. Sorry, that deserved to be highlighted for pure irony.

Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy.

So King was wrong. The wealthy can indeed help fund education.

But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

Now we have King going off the deep end. If the rich can't solve all the worlds problems on their own (problems largely caused by the idiots in DC) then the rich should give more money to the idiots in DC. Great fucking logic. The levees were bad because of the dipshits in government Stephen. The education in Mississippi is bad because of the dipshits in government Stephen. Yet you want to give those dipshits more money. Great call Stephen, please join the other dipshits in the corner.

Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really?

Yes, really Stephen. It is the rich and the entrepreneurs (many who get funding to do so from the rich) that create the jobs. It is not the poor. I know that must be a shock to you. But who exactly do you think creates the jobs in this country? It ain't those dipshits in DC Stephen.

I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

Dear Stephen... many businesses fail or lose money. It is normally do to piss poor management and ownership. They typically lack a sound business plan that would help them be successful. So just because you are a bad owner with a failing plan, doesn't mean other wealthy people are as inept as you in that regard. Also... no one is suggesting any one owner will dramatically effect the economy on their own. But your dozen new hires would be added to all the other small, mid and large business owners hires. That is what drives the economy Stephen.

At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest.

Yes Stephen, they invest. In what Stephen? Corporate Bonds that allow businesses to continue operating (and thus keep people working), municipal bonds which allow state and local governments to keep going, Venture Capital that invests in new businesses like Google, Facebook, Ebay, Staples, Lowes, Home Depot etc... (as well as many that don't end up working... like Solyndra)

A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don’t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you’re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I’ll … well, I won’t say I’ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff is made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn’t get made by America’s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it’s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin’-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they’re from different sexes, that is).

So Stephen, you are saying we should only produce our goods here so that the costs of everything will skyrocket to the point that only rich people like you can afford the amenities. So that the economy can come crashing down due to Carter like inflation? Great plan Stephen. You do realize that an ever growing middle class in places like China and India actually helps our growth? you realize they buy our products as they gain more disposable income?

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years.

Quite ironic Stephen, because it is the rich liberals like yourself that continue to squall when this subject comes up. The check can be made payable to the US Treasury Department.

They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

Ah... and the George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and of course George Kaiser's of the world don't exist on the left Stephen? Are you really going to go that hypocritical?

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism

Alas Stephen, like yourself, Warren does not put his money where his mouth is. He, like you and Obama, refuse to actually pay more unless you can force others to do so as well. That is most certainly not putting your money where your mouth is. That is rhetoric. Nothing more.

made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God’s sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope’s balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

Yeah, Warren is rich Stephen. Thanks for the update.

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Dear Stephen, the rich currently pay more as a percentage of income tax relative to their share of total income. They already pay more.

This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.

Think about it.

I suggest you take your own advice Stephen. Stop and actually think about it. While the tax code is most certainly in need of an overhaul, the Buffet 'plan' is nothing more than a class warfare tactic from the left. It does nothing to solve the problem, yet Obama and the Dem leaders have people like you believing it will actually accomplish something.
 
LMAO

Did you really answer Stephen King point by point? I am cracking up. Will your jealousy never end SF? Your catty fixation on men like Krugman and King is hysterical. I love it.
 
LMAO

Did you really answer Stephen King point by point? I am cracking up. Will your jealousy never end SF? Your catty fixation on men like Krugman and King is hysterical. I love it.

Odd, I thought the whole point of message boards was to discuss the topics presented on them. Would you have preferred a Dung like response of 'Hilarious' and had me just attack the source rather than address the article itself as Dung would have done?
 
Wow, Stephen King making fun of someone else's appearance. Hilarious.

Dear Stephen, you can pay 50% anytime you want. Nothing is stopping you.



and yet Stephen continues whining rather than doing just that. He can still lobby to change the tax code while paying more in the meantime. But he doesn't. Because he, like so many other rich liberals, doesn't actually want to pay more in taxes.



Exactly Stephen, which is why they, like you, aren't paying more voluntarily. So tell us Stephen... if you so firmly believe you should pay more... why don't you?



Exactly Stephen. It doesn't take the government to fund everything. People are charitable on the whole. The wealthy do give on the whole. I am happy to see you pat yourself on the back for the money you give to charity.



lmao... their paying more in taxes won't solve all of those either Stephen. The Buffet rule would pay about 11 days of government spending (assuming the ass clowns didn't right more loopholes into the tax code). Speaking of staggering debts Stephen... don't you think the profligate spending (wasteful spending to be more precise) should be addressed before you force others to give more money to the two incompetent parties in DC?



So tell us Stephen... does global warming get resolved by taxing Zuckerberg or Ballmer another 10%? You know... them giving the IRS more money (which you proclaim doesn't cut it). That responsibility thing... again... if you have an idiot that has maxed out his credit card, do you solve his problem by giving him more credit?



Note to Stephen, that is what most Americans want. The government wastes money consistently. Why give them more? We as individuals are far more efficient at spending our money. Pretending that the government forcing people to pay more will solve any of the problems this country faces is nothing short of absurd. Because guess what Stephen, the wealthy do wish to keep being wealthy (as you do). If you tax them more, all that money to charity is going to dry up. Because as you said, they are not going to want to diminish their wealth. I wonder Stephen... since you and other rich liberals could live easily off of $250k, why not donate all but $5mm of your non-real estate assets to the government? You could easily get 5% on your money.



King, calling someone else creepy. Sorry, that deserved to be highlighted for pure irony.



So King was wrong. The wealthy can indeed help fund education.



Now we have King going off the deep end. If the rich can't solve all the worlds problems on their own (problems largely caused by the idiots in DC) then the rich should give more money to the idiots in DC. Great fucking logic. The levees were bad because of the dipshits in government Stephen. The education in Mississippi is bad because of the dipshits in government Stephen. Yet you want to give those dipshits more money. Great call Stephen, please join the other dipshits in the corner.



Yes, really Stephen. It is the rich and the entrepreneurs (many who get funding to do so from the rich) that create the jobs. It is not the poor. I know that must be a shock to you. But who exactly do you think creates the jobs in this country? It ain't those dipshits in DC Stephen.



Dear Stephen... many businesses fail or lose money. It is normally do to piss poor management and ownership. They typically lack a sound business plan that would help them be successful. So just because you are a bad owner with a failing plan, doesn't mean other wealthy people are as inept as you in that regard. Also... no one is suggesting any one owner will dramatically effect the economy on their own. But your dozen new hires would be added to all the other small, mid and large business owners hires. That is what drives the economy Stephen.



Yes Stephen, they invest. In what Stephen? Corporate Bonds that allow businesses to continue operating (and thus keep people working), municipal bonds which allow state and local governments to keep going, Venture Capital that invests in new businesses like Google, Facebook, Ebay, Staples, Lowes, Home Depot etc... (as well as many that don't end up working... like Solyndra)



So Stephen, you are saying we should only produce our goods here so that the costs of everything will skyrocket to the point that only rich people like you can afford the amenities. So that the economy can come crashing down due to Carter like inflation? Great plan Stephen. You do realize that an ever growing middle class in places like China and India actually helps our growth? you realize they buy our products as they gain more disposable income?



Quite ironic Stephen, because it is the rich liberals like yourself that continue to squall when this subject comes up. The check can be made payable to the US Treasury Department.



Ah... and the George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and of course George Kaiser's of the world don't exist on the left Stephen? Are you really going to go that hypocritical?



Alas Stephen, like yourself, Warren does not put his money where his mouth is. He, like you and Obama, refuse to actually pay more unless you can force others to do so as well. That is most certainly not putting your money where your mouth is. That is rhetoric. Nothing more.



Yeah, Warren is rich Stephen. Thanks for the update.



Dear Stephen, the rich currently pay more as a percentage of income tax relative to their share of total income. They already pay more.



I suggest you take your own advice Stephen. Stop and actually think about it. While the tax code is most certainly in need of an overhaul, the Buffet 'plan' is nothing more than a class warfare tactic from the left. It does nothing to solve the problem, yet Obama and the Dem leaders have people like you believing it will actually accomplish something.

I am going to forward this to him, never fear! I will let you know what he says SF.
 
Odd, I thought the whole point of message boards was to discuss the topics presented on them. Would you have preferred a Dung like response of 'Hilarious' and had me just attack the source rather than address the article itself as Dung would have done?

I actually loved the point-by-point letter back to Stephen. It was vintage SF.
 
Odd, I thought the whole point of message boards was to discuss the topics presented on them. Would you have preferred a Dung like response of 'Hilarious' and had me just attack the source rather than address the article itself as Dung would have done?

Why would you attack the source? You like Stephen King.
 
I just read his book about the Kennedy assassination - it was really an outstanding read, if anyone is a King fan. My fave of his and the best book I've read in quite awhile...
 
Why would you attack the source? You like Stephen King.

I said like Dung would have done. When Dung doesn't like an article, he attacks the source or the author rather than addressing the points.

That said, I do like King. I think he means well, I just think he has the incorrect message. I think he is also partially blinded by partisanship because as most of us will agree, the corporate/wealthy influence on the two parties is out of control. Simplification of the tax code will go along way to reducing that influence (as far as taxes are concerned).
 
I just read his book about the Kennedy assassination - it was really an outstanding read, if anyone is a King fan. My fave of his and the best book I've read in quite awhile...

I bought it a few months ago, just haven't gotten around to reading it. Have several trips this year, will try to read it on da plane rides. I have heard comments similar to yours from everyone that has read it.
 
I liked it, but IT is still my favorite King book.

Loved it, hated the end. It's funny - if you go on King-fan blogs, they talk about his "ending issues."

On the Kennedy book, his son actually suggested a new ending, and I thought he nailed it. When I'm reading his books, I always love the stories, but have a sense of dread about how he's going to wrap it up - was pleasantly surprised w/ the Kennedy book...
 
Back
Top