The 97%'ers

[Water Closet]

You are so full of crap your eyes are brown! Your big cities have inflated salaries, in Sf, NY, LA etc, the trades in unions make tres more than us mooks in the south, how can you compare? Your inflated worth of yourself make it harder on all of us.

Uhm, we're not comparing salaries, we're talking about contributions to society, i.e., producers vs moochers. Whether you consider big city salaries inflated or not, people still pay taxes on those salaries. I'm a bit confused about your line of reasoning (such as it is) here.

[Rockntractor]

[Water Closet]

You got me!!! But what else could one expect from someone who has a pig for an avatar? Are you the guy in WI who was sleeping with his pigs and started the swine flu?

[Rockntractor]

You got me!!! But what else could one expect from someone who has a pig for an avatar? Are you the guy in WI who was sleeping with his pigs and started the swine flu?

I'm sorry I don't know what came over me.

[lacarnut]

Of course it does. And oddly enough, you, of all people, have proven my original point. Be careful who you deem a "moocher" as you may be considered one by those who make more than you. And, by extension, from the original discussion with p45, be careful who you call a "real American," because those faux Americans in NYC, SF, LA, etc. may contribute more to society than the locals in Greensbourgh.

Thank you...

I did not have a clue what your point was in reference to the term moocher. I thought you might have had too much to drink and were trying to flame those that paid less taxes than you. The term "real American" confuses me also and is a term that I don't ever remember using. Someone that lives in BFE may contribute as much or more than someone in NYC. This is also subjective.

[Water Closet]

I did not have a clue what your point was in reference to the term moocher. I thought you might have had too much to drink and were trying to flame those that paid less taxes than you. The term "real American" confuses me also and is a term that I don't ever remember using. Someone that lives in BFE may contribute as much or more than someone in NYC. This is also subjective.

Noppers. I really don't get off on bragging about my (or my girlfriend's) income. This thread was derived from the following post as found here...

Exactly! you hit it on the head. We want achievers not moochers. Sarah Palin does not want to increase the dependence on government, on the other hand you do know who does, it starts with a 0.

When you liberal knowitalls finally hit the tipping point, the point where there are more of you moochers than us productive people to carry you, well I guess then we will have to join your ranks.

[linda22003]

the statistic I was referring to was, in 2006, the top 5% (threshold only $153k) paid 60% of federal taxes

Dang, if that's true, then I'm as "ey-leet" as people accuse me of being. I've been in that group since well before 2006! That's only 5% who are above that level??

[linda22003]

Thanks. But when I was born, D. Eisenhower was president. :D

But I feel young at heart. :)

It's probably the spandex effect.

[Rebel Yell]

My a wife and I combined make about 45-50K per year. Could I be considered a mooch by someone like W? I guess so. Do I give a shit? No, because I know I'm not a mooch. What's the difference betwenn me and a real mooch, someone who pays in nothing but recieves a check? I actually have an argument, I frickin' work for a living. These baby factories who sit on their asses and do nothing, yet drive a nice car with $3000 worth of rims on it, have no argument. What are they contributing to society, more babies for the rest of us to take care of?


There is my reasoning between a true moocher and someone who just don't make as much money as you. A real mooch don't have an argument.

[Gingersnap]

I think that when most people use the term "moocher" they are referring specifically to people who are supported by the government through various programs. Now, that can include the formerly productive people who have been brought down by circumstances and it can include those unable to be productive through no fault of their own. In the context of this thread it's usually leveled at the people who could work but don't as well as those who make consistently bad decisions that require government intervention to repair.

The Founders certainly felt good about a pay-to-play voting system. They saw no compelling reason to give the franchise to a penniless servant. There was a reason we changed that position.

I would very much like to see a taxation system that is fairer to everybody. Of course, I'm also in favor of dismantling the agricultural subsidy system. That alone would eliminate a large chunk of the perceived fly-over country welfare (and it would deprive huge agribusinesses of undeserved income).