Math…
I was sitting on the can today and was thinking. I figured out a few things that I thought were worth sharing. Not as good a post like the haybale on fire post mind you, but this should be half as good.
We have what? About 300,000,000 citizens in this country?
something like 50,000,000 are children right? maybe more, but honestly, who gives a rat’s ass about our country’s children.
So we have about 250,000,000 adults in this country then?
minus the 5% that don’t work (AKA lazy worthless pieces of shit that collect welfare checks and get pregnant to make money)
That leaves about 237,500,000 people.
Take off the 1% that got us in this mess that then leaves like 235,000,000
Now, Bush wants to give the Banks 700,000,000,000.
If I divide 7 bil into the 230 mil I get like 3,000 a person.
BUT if I take that same number and divide it buy the 1% of the country that fucked the rest of the country it comes to like $300,000 a person.
Personally, I’m pretty sure that they could work it out up there considering over the past 8 years they have hoarded something like 30% of the wealth (not income dumbasses, income is way higher)
I think, that the rich people should take it on the chin considering the past 8 years have really swung there way.
Who is with me?
Small point but wealth is more important than income and the hoarding has been going on for more then eight years.
I’m with you! It is going to take all of us to Storm the castle, nothingless will do. It is obivious the don’t give a F about us, but even better they now want us to pay their tab.
I can’t say it enough..2007 Fannie Mae CEO 18million in compensation- 2 billion in loses..that’s some fuzzy math..they also hate us for our Freedommmmmmmmmm!
it increased at a faster rate over the past 8 years was my point.
which was why I said Wealth
“I was sitting on the can today and was thinking.”
Aha! I knew that was the end you used!!!!
Each and every one of our wealthiest 1% can afford a measley $300,000. o0. It is time to do their patriotic duty and pay up. They make at least $300,000 in interest on their vast fortunes in six months alone.
Communist!!!!!
i figured it was a better alternative to having them shot
I say just give us their young and train them to be excellent soldiers for our next war.
So you want to fuck over “the rich” because of the actions of a few greedy assholes?
Do you also support treating poor urban minorities like criminals just because a small subset of them commit violent crimes? Or all American muslims as terrorists because of the actions of the 9/11 hijackers?
You’re advocating punishing an entire group of Americans for the actions of a tiny majority. That’s wrong no matter how you try to justify it. Of course it fits perfectly with the mentality of the anti-gun crowd, so I’m not surprised.
ladies and germs
I give you…King Ad Hominem
Mike the Racist:
You want to “fuck over” the entire country cause of your party of “greedy assholes”. You want to punish the entire country for your mistakes.
Let them that can afford it the most pay to help restore our country. It is patriotic – but then repubs like you hate America.
Go play with your guns.
Ah, the good old “paying taxes is patriotic.” BS
I’ll also note that neither of you addressed anything in my comment. DTB, your comment was nonsense as usual.
Mike the Racist
Paying a fair share of taxes isn’t punishment unless you hate America like you do. From those who have the most, more is expected.
By the way “Do you also support treating poor urban minorities like criminals just because a small subset of them commit violent crimes?” is another one of your racist stereotype bigoted statements. You really hate those “urban minorities” don’t you?
Why don’t you go post on your gun and hate sites, or have they already banned you?
Go away.
“By the way “Do you also support treating poor urban minorities like criminals just because a small subset of them commit violent crimes?” is another one of your racist stereotype bigoted statements. You really hate those “urban minorities” don’t you?”
Way to completely misinterpret my comment. Seriously. Are you really that dumb? I was drawing a parallel between your enthusiasm at screwing “the rich” because of the actions of a few within that group, which is why I asked that question.
Of course treating poor urban minorities like criminals because of a small violent subset is bigoted. That’s why I pointed it out. It is likewise bigoted to claim that “the rich” should pay what you deem a “fair share” because of a few within the subset of “the rich.”
Should we punish all muslims because a few of them happened to be 9/11 hijackers? Should we punish 80 million+ gun owners because a small subset of violent criminals use guns to murder ~15,000 people each year?
Of course not. A large swath of the population should not be punished because of the irresponsibility of a few.
Mike the Racist:
I was simply pointing out that racists like you love to associate “poor urban minorities” with “violent crimes”. It is what you do.
Boneheads like you love to send young Americans off to sacrifice their lives in a meaningless war, but then think that asking the richest in America to sacrifice a few dollars to help pay the bills is “punishment” or “screwing the rich”. To repubs like you, money is always more important than lives, particularly the lives of “poor urban minorities”.
You are morally bankrupt. Go away.
“I was simply pointing out that racists like you love to associate “poor urban minorities” with “violent crimes”. It is what you do.”
Nothing racist about it. Poor urban minorities ARE responsible for a disproportionate number of violent crimes in this country.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html
Mike the Racist
You can use those stats to support your racist stereotype views, but they clearly show that the race of the perpetrator is unknown in roughly a third of the homicides. Given the large number of cases where the race of the perpetrator is unknown, the small difference between the number of white and black perpetrators is statistically meaningless and the actual difference between white and black homicides is unknown.
What the FBI data clearly show is that “In 2006, firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the Nations murders, in 42.2 percent of the robbery offenses, and in 21.9 percent of the aggravated assaults.”
Want to really stop homicides? Take away the guns. But nothing is more important in the world to gun nuts like you than having your precious killing machines.
Go away. Your racism isn’t wanted here.
“Given the large number of cases where the race of the perpetrator is unknown, the small difference between the number of white and black perpetrators is statistically meaningless and the actual difference between white and black homicides is unknown.”
And you seem to be conveniently forgetting a very important fact. Blacks account for roughly 15% of the population. If you standardize those raw numbers to account for this you see that blacks are without question committing violent crimes at a disproportionate rate. Hell, this is true even BEFORE you standardize to account for overall population.
In the 2/3’rds where race IS known we see that blacks are committing a disproportionate number of crimes (of course further research of UCR data also shows that blacks are disproportionately the victims of violent crime)
To say that violent crime in this country is predominantly a problem confined to young urban black males isn’t “racist,” it’s reality.
More than half of robberies didn’t involve a gun, so how would banning guns stop robbery? or murder? (assuming of course that a gun ban kept guns out of the hands of criminals, which it it doesn’t)
Mike the Racist:
The skin color of the criminal is not important except to racists like you. Want to cut crime? Take away the guns.
Go away.
“Want to cut crime? Take away the guns”
Want to cut crime? Lock up violent criminals. Banning guns hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried. Not to mention that “taking away the guns” would require wholesale violation of the Constitution, but I guess you’re OK with that as long as we’re discussing icky guns.
Blacks are committing crimes. I consider that a valid observation. A statement of fact that just happens to mention race is not racist. It’s a fact, plain & simple.
Mike the Racist
Of course a racist like you thinks that “Blacks are committing crimes” is a “valid observation”.
Banning guns has reduced gun violence compared to the U.S. in every western country where is has been tried. You can look it up.
We have more people locked up per capita than any other country in the world. How is that working?
Take away the guns.
Go away.
“We have more people locked up per capita than any other country in the world. How is that working?”
And why is that? It’s because we lock up non-violent drug offenders. I’m talking about locking up violent offenders. If they’re in jail they’re not out committing crimes, gun or no gun.
“Banning guns has reduced gun violence compared to the U.S. in every western country where is has been tried. You can look it up.”
Yep, reduced gun violence but increased overall violent crimes (while simultaneously disarming all non-criminals) Sounds like a great plan! Ask the UK how that’s worked out for them. If gun violence drops 50% but violent crime with knives / swords increases 300% is that “success?” That’s only success in the mind of the delusional.
Getting back to the original post.
Do you guys really think that if you raised taxes on the rich to say 75% that you’d actually raise overall tax revenue?
Mike the Racist
You are making no sense. If there are 100 gun crimes one year and they drop 50%, then there are only 50 gun crimes. If there is 1 knife/sword(!) crime one year, but 3 the next, then that is a 300% increase. Your use of bogus percentages is amateurish and dumb.
Oh, and violent criminals are not locked up, only drug users. Right.
Go away.
Ok. If “gun violence” drops but overall crime increases exponentially then is the gun ban really a “success?” No, it’s not.
After all, the premise is that gun bans are necessary for “public safety.” Of course they don’t actually do anything to increase “public safety.”
Mike the Racist:
If overall crime increases “exponentially” without guns, it would be far worse (more violent) with guns.
Yes, gun control would a success regardless of the increase or decrease in non-gun related crime.
Go away.
“If overall crime increases “exponentially” without guns, it would be far worse (more violent) with guns.”
So Washington D.C., where guns are banned must be MUCH safer than say Arlington, VA, right across the river where gun laws are lax and open & concealed carry is easy and commonplace?
Wrong. D.C.’s murder rate is ~80/100K while Arlington’s is ~1.6/100K. Must be that gun ban working so well in DC.
Mike the Racist
The murder rate in D.C would be much worse if the gun ban were not in place.
Go away.
“The murder rate in D.C would be much worse if the gun ban were not in place. ”
Your problem is that the facts prove you 100% wrong.
The ban started in 1977. In 1976 the murder rate in DC was 26.8. 14 years later In 1991 it was 80.6. In 2007, 30 years after the ban was enacted the murder rate was 30.8.
In fact, the data shows that the murder rate only fell below 1976 pre-ban levels ONE year over a 30 year period and that was in 1985. Aside from that the murder rate was higher than pre-ban levels for every year it was in effect.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Mike the Racist
I am not arguing whether or not the murder rate in D.C. went up. It did. What I am saying is:
1) The murder rate would have gone up even more without the gun ban.
2) The gun ban has never been shown to be causative in the increase in the D.C. murder rate.
Correlation does not equal causation. (Not that I have much hope that you are capable of understanding that.)
Go away.
“The gun ban has never been shown to be causative in the increase in the D.C. murder rate.”
Agreed, but you’re claiming that gun bans = less crime. The numbers show this is not the case.
On point # 1 – Other than your opinion, do you have anything that would validate your claim?
Keep in mind these DC murder rates were the highest in the U.S. despite guns being banned.
Mike the Racist:
Look at any Western country with strict gun control and you will see:
Less guns = less gun crime than U.S. per capita
BTW, D.C. crime rates represent a failure in government.
I am done with this thread. You clearly believe that more guns=less crime without any non-anecdotal evidence to show that.
“Less guns = less gun crime than U.S. per capita”
Yes, but not less overall violent crime.
And actually I don’t think more guns always = less crime, only that gun control, and specifically gun bans do not in any way reduce violent crime.