Stephen King tells rich people upset over tax increases: ‘Tough shit’

[hellrazor]

Originally Posted by Stephen King

"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.”

For those few that don't browse reddit (or the majority of those that do):

Originally Posted by Stephen King

“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.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/3...ases-tough-st/

[FordGT90Concept]

Stephen King has publically supported Obama in the 2008 campaign. He's a Democrat and Democrats support the welfare state (steal from the rich to give to themselves).

Most "rich" people invest. Investments mean money keeps flowing. When money flows, the economy grows. He basically supported the concept whilst, at the same time, attacking it. I am confused.


Again, I stress that Buffett is going to make a TON of money if the "Buffett rule" becomes law. Doesn't he have enough money? Why doesn't he cut a $25 billion check to the IRS? Because he's a greedy bastard. He wants more money--not give it away to an irresponsible government that leeches it.

[twilyth]

Oh, but you see, he will put that money in the bank and bankers will lend it to people who build shit and make shit - IN CHINA!!!

[m1dg3t]

Fuck you and your Reaganomics bullshit. It doesn't fucking work, where have you been for the last 30 year's?

They make large coin of our dumb asses and then reinvest that $$$ in foreign market's where it affects no one but their profit margin's.

The only thing rich people care about is making more money.

[theJesus]

Halfway through so far, but I think I like Stephen King a lot now.

[Magibeg]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Stephen King has publically supported Obama in the 2008 campaign. He's a Democrat and Democrats support the welfare state (steal from the rich to give to themselves).

Most "rich" people invest. Investments mean money keeps flowing. When money flows, the economy grows. He basically supported the concept whilst, at the same time, attacking it. I am confused.


Again, I stress that Buffett is going to make a TON of money if the "Buffett rule" becomes law. Doesn't he have enough money? Why doesn't he cut a $25 billion check to the IRS? Because he's a greedy bastard. He wants more money--not give it away to an irresponsible government that leeches it.

It's been a while I looked through my textbooks but I always thought it was consumers that stimulated the economy, not investment. To my knowledge investment allows you to exploit markets but markets only exist with consumer demand which has been dropping because consumers are broken, companies have huge stockpiles of money due to extremely low taxes, and the richest % of individuals are also hoarding money and also not spurring demand.

I could be wrong though.

[m1dg3t]

We live in a world that operates on a fractional reserve banking system; debt = money and money = debt. As long as this system is in place we are perpetually fucked because when the music stop's (so to speak) WE will be left holding the bill, NOT the rich

The prelude to what is coming happened a few year's back '08 was it or '09 i forgot?

Didn't anyone watch the vid i posted a couple day's back in the crazy vid section? zeitgeist addendum, quite informative/thought provoking IMO

[twilyth]

GDP is private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

But note investment means investment in things like plant and equipment or inventories, not financial investment. Financial investment doesn't do jack for the economy. It does however increase the money supply (or cause it to contract, depending).

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by twilyth

GDP is private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

But note investment means investment in things like plant and equipment or inventories, not financial investment. Financial investment doesn't do jack for the economy. It does however increase the money supply (or cause it to contract, depending).

Which would be OK if they re-invested those fund's into businesses in N/A instead of outsourcing everything

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by m1dg3t

Fuck you and your Reaganomics bullshit. It doesn't fucking work, where have you been for the last 30 year's?

I said nothing of Reaganomics. I bring a simple message that is easy to illustrate.

Illustration (not inflation adjusted as far as I am aware):

Note how all aspects of government have grown over the last 30 years (except the balance, no surprise there).

Message: Government is too fucking big and inefficient.

Originally Posted by Magibeg

It's been a while I looked through my textbooks but I always thought it was consumers that stimulated the economy, not investment. To my knowledge investment allows you to exploit markets but markets only exist with consumer demand which has been dropping because consumers are broken, companies have huge stockpiles of money due to extremely low taxes, and the richest % of individuals are also hoarding money and also not spurring demand.

I could be wrong though.

Consumers can't spend if there is nothing to buy. Investors create markets which create consumers. For example, virtually every corporation you can name today was founded with investment money from the wealthy. Without those investments, they wouldn't have had the capital to become more than idea.

Companies have huge stockpiles of money because they don't like this economy. Companies would ususually invest that money back in to growth but they don't want to do that when there isn't demand for growth. Last time I checked, investments are live and well. New ideas are still being tested and some of them are taking off (e.g. look at Pinterest which was launched just two years ago during the "Great Recession"). The economy, at large, is not. A few successful companies can't cure an entire country's economic woes. They do bring something positive to the markets though.

Even the Blue Man Group is investing in a new kind of grade school that emphasizes on creativity.

FYI, corporations are heavily taxed in the USA and they're taxed many times over on the same thing. It slows the recovery but isn't what will stop it from happening.

[entropy13]

Health care spending problems can easily be remedied if every policy that doesn't fit like a glove to neo-liberal economic ideology are not automatically considered socialist/communist and shot down to Kingdom come.

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Stephen King has publically supported Obama in the 2008 campaign. He's a Democrat and Democrats support the welfare state (steal from the rich to give to themselves).

Most "rich" people invest. Investments mean money keeps flowing. When money flows, the economy grows. He basically supported the concept whilst, at the same time, attacking it. I am confused.


Again, I stress that Buffett is going to make a TON of money if the "Buffett rule" becomes law. Doesn't he have enough money? Why doesn't he cut a $25 billion check to the IRS? Because he's a greedy bastard. He wants more money--not give it away to an irresponsible government that leeches it.

The bold is Reaganomics, or the idea of it. The rich make more so they spend more or invest more which in turn stimulates the economy. True to a degree but it stimulates THEIR economy NOT our economy as they invest in THEIR interests NOT ours. Usually those are foreign interests because the returns are higher and they pay less taxxes, IF they pay taxxes at all, it's capitalism baby YEAH!

"Trickle down" economics DOES NOT work. It never has and it never will, just based on the simple fact that humans are greedy.

King was being sarcastic, don't get it twisted

I didn't realize TPU was into economics now? Where did you source the chart from?

[FordGT90Concept]

"their economy" and "our economy" are one in the same. $100,000 cars are still made by people making no more than $40,000 a year. Investments that founded companies like Google have created thousands of high-tech jobs as well as free services for everyone with internet access. Our interests are ultimately the same because if a large block of consumers aren't interested in the ideas they invest in, they lose too.

The federal government has completely failed its people in excise and duty taxes (the only two allowed to it by orginal wording of the Constitution) which not only raise capital, but prevent foreign markets from destroying our own.

Tickle down economics DO work. The "down" just happens to be Asia and Mexico--not the USA.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Originally Posted by entropy13

Health care spending problems can easily be remedied if every policy that doesn't fit like a glove to neo-liberal economic ideology are not automatically considered socialist/communist and shot down to Kingdom come.

Or by getting government completely out of it and shoving insurers back in the corner where they belong.

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

"their economy" and "our economy" are one in the same. $100,000 cars are still made by people making no more than $40,000 a year. Investments that founded companies like Google have resulted in huge financial gains for the investors but also many free-to-use services for everyone with internet access as well as thousands of employess that work for Google. We're all connected by value.

We aint connected by shit. In their eye's we are slaves, here to do their bidding and make thier live's better.

If your belief/s were true the "middle class" wouldn't be ready to colapse worldwide

[FordGT90Concept]

Do you have a job? Bet the guy/gal paying you makes more money than you do. That's micro-trickle down economics.

Even if you don't have a job and become a burden to the State, the government makes takes more money than you do so you're still being "trickled" on. Money flows up when making purchases and back down when you work. That is economics 101, you should know this.

As I pointed out, the "middle class" is voluntarily giving money to the "middle class" in other nations (which if placed on the same standards, would be lower class or less). These "other nations" tend not to trickled back up to the source so, you're getting fleeced. Inter-economy transactions need to be moderated with tarriffs to resolve that problem.

[m1dg3t]

I don't work and i don't take money from the government. Haven't received a single $$$ from my government in over 2 years thank you very much.

I live off my dividend's so in actuality i'm doing the trickling

[FordGT90Concept]

Nope, the corporations of the stocks you own are doing the trickling on you. Compare the corporations net worth to yours.

[WhiteLotus]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I said nothing of Reaganomics. I bring a simple message that is easy to illustrate.

Illustration (not inflation adjusted as far as I am aware):
http://img.techpowerup.org/120501/ch...t_spending.png
Note how all aspects of government have grown over the last 30 years (except the balance, no surprise there).

Message: Government is too fucking big and inefficient.



Consumers can't spend if there is nothing to buy. Investors create markets which create consumers. For example, virtually every corporation you can name today was founded with investment money from the wealthy. Without those investments, they wouldn't have had the capital to become more than idea.

Companies have huge stockpiles of money because they don't like this economy. Companies would ususually invest that money back in to growth but they don't want to do that when there isn't demand for growth. Last time I checked, investments are live and well. New ideas are still being tested and some of them are taking off (e.g. look at Pinterest which was launched just two years ago during the "Great Recession"). The economy, at large, is not. A few successful companies can't cure an entire country's economic woes. They do bring something positive to the markets though.

Even the Blue Man Group is investing in a new kind of grade school that emphasizes on creativity.

FYI, corporations are heavily taxed in the USA and they're taxed many times over on the same thing. It slows the recovery but isn't what will stop it from happening.

From the pic;

What the fudge is "Protection"?

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

From the pic;

What the fudge is "Protection"?

Protection is so sumtin unfortunate but avoidable does not befall you or your loved ones. Sumtin like maybe Vinnie here accidentally tossing a molotov cocktail through your lovely dining room window.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I said nothing of Reaganomics. I bring a simple message that is easy to illustrate.

Illustration (not inflation adjusted as far as I am aware):
http://img.techpowerup.org/120501/ch...t_spending.png
Note how all aspects of government have grown over the last 30 years (except the balance, no surprise there).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush (Rising rate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton (Rising in line with population growth and economics) also reduced deficit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush (rising rate)


Funny how that works......

[Screaming Beaver]

Meh, Stephen King is absolutely right but it really doesn't matter, the GOP just sneers and tells him "why don't you just cut a bigger check to the IRS yourself?" Because obviously the poor poor rich people won't be able to give the poor jobs if they are taxed. Brings a tear to your eye doesn't it?

So in order to get a Republican to support an economic plan is it required the advocate of said plan declare Ronald Reagan god and Grover Norquist as his prophet? Throw in Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan and Jesus as apostles?

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by m1dg3t

Which would be OK if they re-invested those fund's into businesses in N/A instead of outsourcing everything

Here is the problem with the GOP plan. The richer you are, the lower percentage of your income you spend on goods and services and therefore the less you contribute to GDP. It's that simple.

Sure, the rich provide the capital for investment, but that investment only becomes worth something if there are people able to buy the goods and services which the investment is used to produce.

It's really pretty simple.

[Screaming Beaver]

Originally Posted by twilyth

Here is the problem with the GOP plan. The richer you are, the lower percentage of your income you spend on goods and services and therefore the less you contribute to GDP. It's that simple.

Sure, the rich provide the capital for investment, but that investment only becomes worth something if there are people able to buy the goods and services which the investment is used to produce.

It's really pretty simple.

As it is the only way for that to be possible is to outsource. Certainly won't be able to buy all the cheap stuff we take for granted in clothes and ipods if we weren't basically enslaving Chinese workers.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by Screaming Beaver

As it is the only way for that to be possible is to outsource. Certainly won't be able to buy all the cheap stuff we take for granted in clothes and ipods if we weren't basically enslaving Chinese workers.

You lost me.

[Screaming Beaver]

Originally Posted by twilyth

You lost me.

I mean if we make our own shit costs will be higher given we actually treat our people like human beings so we give them pay and benefits and all that good stuff. So products would cost more. No one wants to give that up I'm sure.