this post was submitted on
1,262 points (61% like it)
3,455 up votes 2,193 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,566,998 readers

9,957 users here now

Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1261
1262

Yes you didPolitics - removed (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by kacperp

top 200 commentsshow all 208
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]mrbarry1024 67 points68 points ago

I'm not even going to pretend that I know how national debt and worldwide banking works.

[–]brainlessnick 9 points10 points ago

National debt isn't that hard. Country says "shit, I need a certain amount of money, who wants to give me some for x years?" They then auction off who may give them money (with the lowest interest rate winning). After X years, whoever gave them the money gets his money back + interest. At least in theory.

National debt was always seen as incredibly safe, as a country could just raise taxes to avoid becoming insolvent (i.e. can no longer pay the creditors bills), so you'd always get your money back. This is why a lot of people saw this as a safe haven for their money, resulting in rather low interest rates, encouraging more debt.

Stupid thing is, that countries can go insolvent (see greece for a very close call/partial insolvency). Business schools have taught the oppositve for a very long time, that's why stuff is crazy right now in Europe.

[–]miss_jessi 2 points3 points ago

What happens if the nation collapses? Like, the Federal Government just says 'fuck it' one day, and the state ceases to exist. Are the countries that loaned us money just never going to get paid back?

[–]brainlessnick 2 points3 points ago

Exactly. Quite often a follow-up state will honour the debt, but if the state comepletely collapses (or just refuses to pay), then that's that. They could of course just print money (if they have the authority to and the debt was given in that currency).

Last resort would be forcing the country to pay/take things of the value of that debt (as done with Germany after WW1).

That's what's so interesting about the US-Debt. What country could force the US to pay back their debt? China maybe.

Oh and it's often not countries buying other countries debt. Banks and insurance companies use it as a save haven to counter the volatility in their other investments. That's why so many banks in europe ran into trouble when the Greek bonds were devalued by 80%(?).

edit: The whole thing basically works like with any other debt. Just imagine you'd tell the bank that you're not paying your loan back. What would they do? 1) Not give you any money anymore and 2) Sue you so you'd go to jail/whatever. 1) is possible with countries, 2) isn't.

[–]miss_jessi 1 point2 points ago

Then why don't countries just invade and start taking things? And why the hell do we keep borrowing money we can't pay back?

(You don't have to answer these if you don't want. I'm just curious and nobody's taken the time to explain it all to me)

[–]SirSoliloquy 2 points3 points ago

My personal opinion on why we keep borrowing money we can't pay back is that politicians know they can get reelected by supporting programs they can't afford.

Not enough people take national debt seriously, so there's very little political risk to it.

As for why they don't invade? It's not like a nation's weapons go away once it goes insolvent.

[–]miss_jessi 0 points1 point ago

Huh, all right. Thanks :]

[–]brainlessnick 1 point2 points ago

  1. Because it's incredibly expensive to start a war (wether you win or loose). And usually the attacked has friends that will help, so the whole affair becomes not worth it. See Iraqs history (not only the US-Iraq war but also Iraq-Kuwait etc.).

  2. Because we can. If you had a bank that would give you a loan with incredibly low interest and no guarantees, it'd be kinda tempting. Now imagine you had this really hot girlfriend (let's call her electorate) which really likes nice things like roads, bridges, healthcare etc. but doesn't really like to chip into your bank account. And there's this other guy who promises your girlfriend all these nice things every 2 to 4 years. Would you?

[–]mrbarry1024 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for this.

[–]Ragnalypse 46 points47 points ago

It's very simple, you see. Republicans fucked everything up, and Democrats always make things better, except when Republicans are fucking things up, even if we control congress and the presidency.

Feel free to disregard any elitist bullshit like "incentives" or "efficiency," those are just ways to hurt poor people.

[–]simjanes2k 83 points84 points ago

Warning to stupid Redditors:

The above post is satire.

[–]lowertechnology 5 points6 points ago

I am amused by the huge list of comments that have been downvoted below.

[–]nbenzi 0 points1 point ago

I too find it amusing... but can four comments really qualify as a huge list? If so whats a small list? Or a moderate list? Or a large list?

...

How far does this rabbit hole go...

[–]wormsaregood -1 points0 points ago

I love you

[–]Ragnalypse 0 points1 point ago

wat

[–]wormsaregood 1 point2 points ago

I loved the sarcasm...because this is exactly how most of the redditors i have dealt with act.

[–]Bainemo 1 point2 points ago

Don't worry, redditors are perfectly happy to pretend for you

[–]ElBobo 0 points1 point ago

Don't worry it seems like the ones replying to you can pretend that pretty well.

[–]seedle 58 points59 points ago

r\funny?

[–]MIGHTYPOSEIDONSDICK 30 points31 points ago

People can't even afford the forward slashes anymore. Have to resort to backslashes.

[–]listentomyfarts 10 points11 points ago

Hurricane winds knocking them over.

[–]giwoon 1 point2 points ago

im the 1% motherfucker

/

[–]seedle 1 point2 points ago

well spotted, old chap!

[–]Mixed-Signals 8 points9 points ago

Get this shit outta here.

[–]Kelnoxx 7 points8 points ago

I didn't know there was that much money on earth.

[–]tswpoker1 16 points17 points ago

There isn't its all credit

[–]ThatCorrectOpinion 3 points4 points ago

On margin! Zoiby wanna buy on margin!

[–]MehNahMehNah 0 points1 point ago

can't we just drill for more?

[–]polarisdelta 39 points40 points ago

Please no:

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

[–]EpicBroccoli 4 points5 points ago

I thought this was just an interesting juxtaposition of images, I would think this was funny regardless of what party is under the sign.

[–]j_dunkle 19 points20 points ago

The state of political discourse in this country is pathetic.

[–]chazzeromus 5 points6 points ago

Pathetic discourse is a politcal state.

[–]adidasman100 1 point2 points ago

Is state a pathetic political discourse?

[–]CaptainSmartass 7 points8 points ago

I think we can all agree that the juxtaposition of these two signs is funny, regardless of your political persuasion.

In other words, lighten up, Francis.

[–]alexj678 2 points3 points ago

Hooray for a Stripes! reference.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Noelthemexican 2 points3 points ago

ANARCHY!

[–]jayce513 2 points3 points ago

YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

[–]Dormont 0 points1 point ago

Ask China, they own about a third of it.

[–]GeneralPeeEff 0 points1 point ago

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

A third of the USA debt is foreign-held, and that's split among quite a few countries. China is one of the largest, yeah, but that doesn't get them too close to a third.

[–]Dormont 0 points1 point ago

As China is the majority shareholder and the majority supplier of funding for private equity loans outside the USA, to equity in the USA, China owns more than a third. Public debt to China is less than half the picture.

[–]ScooterOTool 5 points6 points ago

Do people realize that its not one person that controls the fucking economy? People are thick in the goddamn skull these days.

[–]Bainemo 2 points3 points ago

No, man, the president basically plays the economy like a video game

Every dollar spent can be traced directly back to whatever president is currently in office because blame is easier than knowledge

[–]ScooterOTool 0 points1 point ago

You sir are a gold medal champion!

[–]Apostolate 8 points9 points ago

I don't know when this picture was taken, but we now owe:

~15,992, 529,000,000 and it's going to flip to 530,000,000 in a few minutes....

[–]thomfountain 12 points13 points ago

Funny, yet fake. From Buzzfeed

[–]zxcv73 4 points5 points ago

So you're saying op is a phony?

[–]DarkFoxTKD 1 point2 points ago

http://imgur.com/87Hw2

[–]CodeTherapist 0 points1 point ago

it's in the same fracking building.

it's funny because anyone would THINK it's unedited.

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points ago

The republicans did that? with a mostly democratic congress and a democratic president?

[–]jordanritchie 92 points93 points ago

$4.899 trillion ~ 2 Terms = Bush | $4.939 trillion ~ 1 Term = Obama

Neutral just providing the numbers.

[–]DoodManBro 46 points47 points ago

The problem with this is that these numbers are based on the exact dates of which they were in office. Those numbers don't tell you how much of Obama's debt charged was to while he was in office was on the back of policies and decisions Bush made, just as Bush dealt with when he took over for Clinton. it is not as cut-and-dry as those two figures.

I'm too lazy to look it up so perhaps I'll get lucky and someone will do it for me.

[–]Demonweed 28 points29 points ago

It is worth noting that George W. Bush "dealt with" what he regarded as a budget surplus from the trajectory the nation was on in 2000. He was keen to "give the money back to the people," and users over 30 likely will remember those $300 gimmick checks issued to distract the nation from the major league tax break given to upper income citizens. As far as Dubya was concerned, if the debt wasn't growing, the collections were excessively high. Both his language and the policies he promoted made this abundantly clear.

[–]WideLight 24 points25 points ago

I remember that check. At the time it paid my rent for a month. Now my rent is more than double that but I make the same money. WTF happened?!

[–]Demonweed 24 points25 points ago

For over thirty years, the American economy has experienced an enormous amount of growth. For 80% of working people in America, this has been absolutely meaningless growth. Even today, we still haven't moved off the policies launched by the "trickle down economics" movement. As a result, gains are enjoyed almost entirely by the top 1% and literally entirely by the top 20%. In other words, there has been a little bit of trickling down into the top quintile of our economy, but for the ordinary working men and women of this nation, American growth has had no positive effect on real purchasing power. Yet still we cannot consider a return to Clinton era tax rates or a proper nationalized health care system because . . . well . . . socialism is bad . . . just trust us on that!

Seriously, what happened is that our nation was hijacked by fearmongers and hatemongers, and the damage is so severe that not even a Democratic President with Democratic legislative majorities could do no more than forge a compromise health care law heavily weighted in favor of parasitic insurers and profiteering pharmaceutical concerns. People smart enough to understand that Western Europe actually exists and, in some areas of public policy, has much to teach America about what works for building a better future -- who do we vote for? We should have an option for greater educational subsidy, ending the War on Drugs, pursuing universal health care and universal housing policies, etc. These things can be done and should be done, but so long as scumbag fearmongers in the media keep scaring people with mangled nonsense about socialism and terrorism, progress is likely to remain elusive.

[–]sammwwise 2 points3 points ago

Very well said.

I really wish we could get a legit Democratic Socialist party in the US. Who would fight to end the Drug War and get Americans socialized medicine.

[–]TheSimpleArtist 2 points3 points ago

You know, just because ending the Drug War is popular on reddit, doesn't make it an official stance of the socialist party.

[–]sammwwise 0 points1 point ago

In my little fantasy world it would.

[–]TheSimpleArtist 0 points1 point ago

I dig.

[–]tastethelink 1 point2 points ago

Can I vote for you? Would that work as a write-in?

[–]Demonweed 1 point2 points ago

Just last week I posted in r/trees. Since I'm not the sort to claim I didn't inhale, I am not qualified for American political life -- something about round pegs in square holes I think. A huge part of the problem is the way our culture treats hip people like monstrous demons while regarding clearly psychotic holy rollers as prime leadership material. We have a long way to go until everyone understands that, when you hear voices in your head, you are supposed to retreat to familiar surroundings and suck orange slices until the episode passes -- not announce your candidacy for President of the United States!

[–]tastethelink 1 point2 points ago

Hahaha, when I hear the voices I know I got a bad dose and just put on some Andrew Bird and stroke a fuzzy blanket until its over. But, fully understand the sentiment there. I think we may be seeing a change in that before our years have passed. Responsible harmless drug use seems to becoming more and more acceptable in culture, and I think that once the baby boomer generation has passed the torch we will finally be able to focus in the issues and turn things around.

[–]SaucyLoggins 4 points5 points ago

Tricky Dick Fun Bills!

[–]CodeTherapist 0 points1 point ago

came here for that reference..

[–]redpoint13 14 points15 points ago

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Plenty of graphs, charts, examples everywhere of the wars and tax cuts leading to that debt. All of which Paul Ryan voted for.

[–]CaspianX2 1 point2 points ago

What's more, just what that money went for is kinda' important. Some people, for example, might think that the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't put to quite as good use as the money spent on stopping the economy from spiraling into depression.

load more comments (5 replies)

    [–]I_Key_Cars 3 points4 points ago

    Why don't you post the spending numbers?

    [–]darkneo86 11 points12 points ago

    Just saying - I'll find the source.

    Reagan and the two Bushes did FAR worse to our debt than both democratic presidents in recent time, combined (Obama and Clinton).

    This is, in large part, due to a couple of unnecessary wars and erroneous spending.

    EDIT: jordanritchie - you are correct. However, look at the bigger picture. Bush was leaving just as the economy was imploding. If you take into account Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Carter - well, the supposed fiscally conservative Republicans take the cake when it comes to spending money.

    [–]jordanritchie 4 points5 points ago

    No doubt. I never once said you were wrong. I was merely implying that there is a larger picture to look at, as you said yourself.

    [–]loondawg -1 points0 points ago

    Neutral just providing the numbers.

    But also entirely devoid of analysis of the policies which were the causes.

    [–]mediumpulp -3 points-2 points ago

    source?

    [–]polarisdelta 2 points3 points ago

    Here is a government listing, though it isn't in easy to consume graph form, you might have to do some of your own math.

    [–]loondawg 7 points8 points ago

    What are the driving forces behind our current deficits and spending?

    1. Bush Tax Cuts - 2001 and 2003

    2. Afghanistan and Iraq wars - 2001 and 2003.

    3. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act - 2003

    4. Lost revenues due to crumbling economy due largely to lax oversight and deregulation. 1999 through 2008.

    5. Doubling of military budget 2000 - 2006.

    6. Interest costs for above issues.

    Republican President, check.

    Republican Senate, check.

    Republican House, check.

    Republicans to President Obama, here's the bill and the blame.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

    All you really did was blame Bush, which is what most people who like Obama tend to always do in an argument. Since Obama's become president, our deficit has multiplied. He was a huge fan of government spending, too. Obama's failure to turn it around is what the problem is, not some mess a previous president left us.

    [–]loondawg 2 points3 points ago

    All you really did was blame Bush, which is what most people who like Obama tend to always do in an argument.

    Actually I laid the blame primarily at the feet of the republican Congress and republican president.

    And the mess created over those years is the problem. Another problem is people expecting one man to then fix it in half the time without the support of Congress and the backing of the public.

    [–]I_Key_Cars 7 points8 points ago

    Bush had a GOP congress for 6 years but the facts seem to scare you teabaggers.

    [–]No_Easy_Buckets 7 points8 points ago

    Man don't you know teabaggery and facts don't mix? Like oil and water.

    [–]I_Key_Cars 7 points8 points ago

    Did anybody tell them that Ryan is a career government worker?

    [–]No_Easy_Buckets 4 points5 points ago

    Better yet, did anyone tell them FA Hayek never worked in the private sector and supported social security and social healthcare?

    [–]abrakasam 0 points1 point ago

    bro, don't shout out names like "teabaggers", we're talking about politics, not telling some minority to get off our lawn.

    [–]Thadenvy 1 point2 points ago

    Well, The House is dominated by republicans. It's just the senate, and by a tiny margin.

    [–]Robotman44 1 point2 points ago

    A tiny margin that is absolutely meaningless, given the filibuster.

    [–]SirSoliloquy -2 points-1 points ago

    The house that's refusing to pass any more bills if the programs aren't paid for?

    [–]ElBobo -1 points0 points ago

    Actually it is mostly due to Bush tax cuts and Bush wars. So, no.

    [–]No_Easy_Buckets -2 points-1 points ago

    The Wrecking Crew Thomas Frank.

    That will explain how they did it. I have an audiobook copy, if you'd like I'll upload it to the pirate bay. If not read it anyway. Because fuck you that's why. Eat a dick.

    [–]Cservantes 29 points30 points ago

    As did the democratic party and Obama, but I guess that's a little too politically incorrect to talk about on reddit.

    Inb4 a slurry of insults insinuating I'm a republican.

    [–]I_Key_Cars 13 points14 points ago

    What happened to the Clinton surplus?

    [–]zxcv73 2 points3 points ago

    What happened to that big social security surplus?

    [–]I_Key_Cars 10 points11 points ago

    Iraqi roads and hospitals. How is that investment working out?

    [–]komali_2 5 points6 points ago

    Iraq: Well certainly gave us lots more places to put IEDs! :D

    [–]lizardlikeslizards -1 points0 points ago

    youre looking at it and then some

    [–]Redcard911 5 points6 points ago

    Obama built a small portion of that debt in an attempt to get us out of the mess GW Bush got us in with Iraq, Afghanistan, and some changes to Medicare under the best intentions but not very well thought out. Be a Republican, good for you. But facts are facts.

    [–]Cservantes 1 point2 points ago

    Why do you liberal Obama dick-riding nerds always assume someone's a republican just because they point out that Obama isn't the messiah they build him up to be. I'm not a republican, the republican party is fucking idiotic and delusional. Maybe not as delusional as the democratic party, but still very much so.

    A small portion??? The national debt -- the cumulative tab run up by the U.S. government over its lifetime -- stood at $10.6 trillion when Barack Obama took office in January 2009. It's currently running at nearly $16 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. The Congressional Budget Office estimates project another $600 billion budget shortfall for the 2013 fiscal year. That would make a $6 trillion increase in a single term.

    But you're right, exponential debt growth is clearly only a "small portion."

    [–]Redcard911 3 points4 points ago

    I never said I was a liberal Obama dick-riding nerd. I have a degree in Poli-Sci and I try to stay neutral in terms of facts. Your stats are all true about how much the national debt is however just those numbers themselves are only the tip of the iceberg. The real question is where those increases came from. I argue this spending under Obama is from Bush era policies like the Bush tax cuts or the War in Iraq or Medicare reform OR from having the clean up the mess of a situation Bush era policies left the country in like the stimulus bill, or the bank bailouts. These were unfortunate expenses but necessary to keep many middle class citizens from losing their savings and jobs.

    So you make the claim Obama caused this debt and you are wrong. Bush era policies caused this debt not Obama and Obama is simply trying to clean it up.

    [–]DoodManBro 0 points1 point ago

    why do those people who assume that people are assuming they are part of the republican party assume those people are always liberal Obama dick-riding nerds?

    [–]Cservantes 0 points1 point ago

    Because they are.

    [–][deleted] ago

    [deleted]

    [–]ICanNeverThinkOfOne -3 points-2 points ago

    Downvote because it's true. Ha! Both administrations are just as responsible. Don't believe it? Just look up quantitative easing.

    [–]Cservantes 1 point2 points ago

    and QE2......and QE3.....

    [–]ICanNeverThinkOfOne 0 points1 point ago

    Amen.

    [–]Not_Pictured 8 points9 points ago

    The republican budget proposes a spending decrease of 4% of what the democrats are proposing.

    Neither party is doing anything to fix it.

    [–]Tucking_Fypos 2 points3 points ago

    Along with a revenue decrease that will likely eclipse the spending cuts.

    [–]CaspianX2 1 point2 points ago

    This is partly because we are still recovering from a recession. The national debt is an important problem, but it isn't nearly as pressing as getting our economy healthy again to lower the unemployment rates. Government spending helps to stimulate the economy (thus, "stimulus").

    Democrats aren't seriously addressing the national debt because they are more concerned about the economy and job situations... as well they should be. Republicans, meanwhile, are only concerned about the national debt because it's one more number to attack Obama with.

    [–]Not_Pictured 0 points1 point ago

    Do you honestly think the nation debt will ever be paid off?

    The other school of economic thought claims that this 'stimulus' is doing the opposite.

    I'm of the opinion that all world currencies will collapse. Not that they have to, but they will.

    [–]CaspianX2 0 points1 point ago

    I honestly think the national debt is just a number. Pretty much every nation has a national debt... it's almost just a way of keeping score. Oh, I'm not saying it's not important, but that it's not something that will lead to the destruction of this country or anything like that.

    As for the "other school" of economic thought, that's the same school that brought us into the recession in the first place, so you'll forgive me if I don't trust their judgment on this matter. Besides, by every reasonable look at the numbers, the stimulus has helped. It just sadly wasn't enough to have as fast or dramatic a change as its proponents had hoped for, though this is largely due to the obstructionist Republicans limiting its size and scope.

    [–]Not_Pictured 0 points1 point ago

    I honestly think the national debt is just a number.

    This is why a currency collapse is inevitable. Please do not punish those of us who see what is coming and help pass laws that rob from people like me when it happens.

    Besides, by every reasonable look at the numbers, the stimulus has helped.

    GDP includes government spending. Of course GDP is going to go up when the government spends. Is your goal spending or national wealth, because by all measures we are poorer every day.

    And I know you have seen unemployment charts that show 'what would happen without a stimulus' compared to what should have happened with. http://www.rpv.org/sites/default/files/EmailBlasts/Fig3_Stimulus.jpg

    [–]CaspianX2 0 points1 point ago

    Is your goal spending or national wealth

    My goal is an economy that has better employment numbers.

    And I know you have seen unemployment charts that show 'what would happen without a stimulus' compared to what should have happened with.

    This is based on predictions that were made before we knew the full extent of just how bad the economic crash was - it was far worse than people actually thought. So yeah, the predictions were off, because the information we had was incomplete.

    [–]Not_Pictured 0 points1 point ago

    This is based on predictions that were made before we knew the full extent of just how bad the economic crash was

    And I and thousands of others said this is what you would say when you (not you personally obviously) were proposing it.

    What sort of graph would have convinced you the stimulus didn't help?

    [–]CaspianX2 0 points1 point ago

    Hypothetically, if there was no change from before it was passed to after its policies were enacted... but the numbers show there clearly was.

    [–]Not_Pictured 0 points1 point ago

    As the country goes forward and does another one of these QEs, just be aware of any conformation bias when future numbers come back and look identical to these.

    [–]Intergalactic_ID 2 points3 points ago

    Let me redirect you to www.reddit.com/r/politics

    [–]DonRon31 2 points3 points ago

    Take this shit r/politics!

    [–]AngriestCosmonaut 0 points1 point ago

    Why don't we all just secede from Texas, leaving them as the United States, and also leaving them with all the debt. US gets rid of debt, Texas become their own country, and when China and the rest of the world attacks them for the money they owe, they also get to fight foreigners. It is a win-win.

    [–]simjanes2k 3 points4 points ago

    I have to say, I'm still kind of pissed about the whole "we built it" and "you didn't build that" shit.

    I pay not only more taxes, but a far higher percentage, as a business owner. I pay way more than my share of government programs that help myself, and help others. It was my hard work that created jobs that support families, and almost 100% of my money is spent locally.

    How is this even an argument? Someone explain this stupid shit to me?

    [–]Narroo 6 points7 points ago

    The actual quote was to the effect of "The roads and bridges, you didn't build that" Slightly odd grammar and maybe a mistake there, but it was pretty clear that he was talking about infrastructure, not small businesses. Anyways, Fox cut the 1st part off to make it sound like small business owners didn't build their businesses, and it's been straight stupid from there.

    [–]simjanes2k 0 points1 point ago

    I guess that's fair. It's certainly true. Why even say that though? What's the point there?

    [–]greenthumble 2 points3 points ago

    Elizabeth Warren pretty much started this in her 2012 US Senate Run. The idea is that "nobody got rich on their own". It takes roads and police and fire and water and bridges and all kinds of other public services to build companies.

    Since then, Republicans have been fighting this very obvious idea tooth and nail. So much so that they've put this anti-Warren sentiment on campaign signage. I believe the idea is related to Grover Norquist, who's pledge never to raise taxes ever for anybody for any reason has been signed by a majority of congressional Republicans. They have included the Bush tax cuts in this, which were set to expire but now they will never let it happen if they have any say in the matter.

    TL;DR The GOP is funneling money to rich people by feeding bullshit to the masses.

    [–]Narroo 1 point2 points ago

    The overall point of what he was saying if I remember correctly is that no one is truly completely independent from society. Even business started from the ground up rely on preexisting infrastructure, for example. Basically, it was a whack on the Republican rhetoric that rich people were being fined in taxes for working hard and making wealth for themselves. It was: "yeah, you know that technically you guys aren't 100% self reliant~ you had teachers, parents, roads and bridges, etc, so stop complaining about the lower class and taxes please."

    A much more accurate representation of the speech (Only watched clips myself) can be found in this transcript.

    [–]simjanes2k -1 points0 points ago

    I guess I can see that, but it still doesn't fully make sense. I thought the whole idea of the freedom of this country was that anyone can be anything (Obama should know that more than anyone, haha).

    Everyone pays taxes that provide roads and education, companies and individuals alike. The only difference is that rich people pay way more of the taxes than poor people.

    So why can't they complain or have input?

    P.S. Don't get me started about huge companies or rich people that don't pay taxes, ala Mitt's 13%. That fucking drives me up a wall, when I pay almost 40% and make half as much.

    [–]Narroo 0 points1 point ago

    It's not that; if you look over his speech he kinda ignores the real issue: "It's not that rich people shouldn't pay taxes, it's how much. He kinda implies they should pay more without explaining how much or why.

    Honestly, if you go with the societal burden idea- the idea that society is a collective thing in which everyone "pitches in" to create a proper civilization, and that government is the embodiment of that~ The taxes one pays to the government should be an equal burden to all members. That is to say, everyone should be swearing the same amount when they get their returns or bills.

    From that idea, it is natural for people with different incomes to pay less~ 100 is much more to someone who works their arse off for $30K a year than someone who does the same for $200K. Off course, if taxes p___ people off, they're going to try to get them lowered, so we get politicians that bribe people with taxes, and others with wealth and power that try to game the system. 

    **The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.** *Alexis de Tocqueville*

    EDIT: Gah, why can't I get bold and italics to work?

    [–]kidtraze 0 points1 point ago

    As a business owner, maybe he didn't build the fucking bridge, but the bridge builders didn't build his business. You don't get credit for stuff you didn't do, sorry. Plus if it wasn't for commerce, made by businesses, there was no reason for a bridge to be built.

    [–]Narroo 0 points1 point ago

    But, that's what he wasn't saying. He was saying that you didn't build the bridges and roads used for every day life. You built your business, but you didn't build everything around it. And, you do realize that your example of commerce being a driving force behind bridge building can actually be interpreted as a boon given to business, right? I mean, if you want to expand you business and economy to other places, you need roads, right? Roads benefit those who want to trade outside their villages, so if you have a business that is large or successful because you were able to operate in an expanded area, well, that's thanks to roads and bridges, isn't it?

    [–]adidasman100 7 points8 points ago

    he said the roads. you didn't pave the roads did you? no. that was his statement.

    romney took the end of it and looped it to say that obama doesn't think you built your own business.

    it was a sleight of words. And you got tricked.

    [–]ddb1 2 points3 points ago

    I pay way more than my share of government programs that help myself, and help others.

    Its not just government programs like SBA loans that directly benefit you as a business owner. Its the fact that this country has security, stability, infrastructure, courts that enforce contracts, etc.

    [–]tweakingforjesus 1 point2 points ago

    I pay way more than my share of government programs that help myself, and help others.

    Every small business owner for whom I have had intimate knowledge of their finances has been gaming the system. They run personal expenses through the business. The business pays for cars, insurance, healthcare, food, alcohol, electronics, toys, real estate, vacation travel, gas, basically anything that can't be pinned down as a purely personal expense. On paper the owner may be taking home 100K, but in reality it is at least 2-3 times that. Why? Avoiding income taxes.

    [–]Kuskesmed 1 point2 points ago

    I have a friend who works as a consultant, she pretty much doesn't pay any taxes, she just writes everything off.

    If she were to get audited she would get in trouble, but she let me drive her Porsche for a weekend once, so there's that.

    [–]simjanes2k 0 points1 point ago

    I write off as much as possible as well. Every last penny that I can!

    I still pay damn near 40%. I don't think many people understand exactly how much tax is charged to people making a decent amount of money if you don't use what exemptions exist.

    [–]ThatCorrectOpinion 3 points4 points ago

    Finally somebody brave enough to take a swing at the republicans.

    [–]skytiger859 1 point2 points ago

    That's what most of r/politics does. Besides, it didn't exactly go down while Mr. Obama was president, did it? No. And neither did my taxes, neither did gas prices. My wages sure as hell did, that is, before I lost my job due to budget cuts.

    [–]adidasman100 1 point2 points ago

    how can they expect me to pay back my student loans, if they can't even figure out their own?

    [–]CanadaVsBears 1 point2 points ago

    and 59 cents!

    [–]ISatonYou 0 points1 point ago

    Yes WE did

    [–]theHoeniges -1 points0 points ago

    Let's just all be Libertarians and STFU

    [–]Heretical_Fool 0 points1 point ago

    The interesting thing is that the "it" being referred to was built by Eisenhower, so the Republicans can kinda claim that. But I feel like they wouldn't want to claim much of anything else he did.

    He was a moderate conservative who continued New Deal agencies, expanded Social Security and launched the Interstate Highway System.

    [–]MasterxAce 0 points1 point ago

    I'll kick in the 59 cents...

    [–]Mileskitsune 0 points1 point ago

    a lot of people are rambling on about how all the blame falls on the president. you guys do realize he doesn't wield much power right? the only thing he can really do is veto legislation. and even that can be overturned with a re-vote. the problem lies in that all of senate is run by the same people it has been run by for the past idk before i was fuckin born I know that much. we need new politicians. fortunately all the oldies are old, so they'll die off sooner than later so we'll have to elect new blood eventually

    [–]iamslm22 0 points1 point ago

    This is photoshopped

    [–]Fluffing_Satan -1 points0 points ago

    Upvote simply because I know four people in that photo. First time I've seen someone I personally know on Reddit!

    [–]Fishare 0 points1 point ago

    all the money they siphoned off from that LIBOR scandal would take care of that...

    [–]xbxiii 0 points1 point ago

    obama the trillion dollar man

    [–]kidtraze 2 points3 points ago

    You are absolutely wrong and lying to yourself if you believe republicans by themselves made that debt. Or you are just plain dumb. Obama has added 6 trillion, almost equal to all 43 presidents before him combined. I thought you libs LOVEDD going on about "republicans lied about this they lied about that WAHH WAHHH" But then you post this picture, which is OBVIOUSLY incorrect, in fact retarded.

    [–]I_Key_Cars 1 point2 points ago

    When is that Iraqi oil going to pay for Cheney's $3,000,000,000,000 war? The interest on those loans is killing us.

    [–]Rutawitz -2 points-1 points ago

    i love how their slogan is taken from an out of context speech from obama. obama was talking about bridges and roads, not businesses. how stupid are they! and the republicans made the debt what it is, democrats were the last to not have a debt! how stupid are these people!

    [–]iGoByManyNames -3 points-2 points ago

    And they came.

    load more comments (1 reply)

      Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

      REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

      π Rendered by PID 1609 on app-192 running 1403b79.