Obumski’s new tactic: tax the poor and the stupid

 

Hmm. Ran out of 1%ers. What to do, what to do?

Moves to legalize interstate gambling. Readers with the memory of an elephant may remember when, two years ago, the DOJ hauled two British gambling executives off a plane and incarcerated them for conducting an online gambling site in Britain (!). Those gentlemen are still awaiting trial but in the meantime, our president has moved on.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Obumski’s new tactic: tax the poor and the stupid

  1. DollarBill

    I’m in rare agreement with you. I think the interstate gambling racket acts as a tax, precisely on those who can least afford it. I don’t care how much it’s supposed to raise for schools et al., the state has no business trafficking in these pursuits. Better to raise taxes on the CFs of the world to pay for schools and roads and hospitals, not the poor.

  2. Walt

    Dude –
    I have tried very hard not to respond to Dollar Douche. His ignorance really is not worthy of the efforts it takes me to peck the keys. I would prefer he just thank us, for the freedom we provide. Jack!! A Few Good Men, Dude. I love that frigging flick.
    So firstly, he is in “rare agreement with you”. “Rare Agreement”? Is there any other kind? The fact he agrees with you proves my point he is a moron.
    Thirdly, he thinks “interstate gambling racket acts as a tax, precisely on those who can least afford it”. You walking douche bag. Not you Dude, Dollar Douche. They are using OUR tax dollars to fund their gambling habits. It doesn’t cost them a dime. They make no money and pay no taxes. Poverty used to be the great incentivizer. No more. We pay people to be poor. It is the new win. Why bother to work?
    Now this is the classic. “I don’t care how much it’s supposed to raise for schools et al”. IT DOESN’T RAISE DICK FOR SCHOOLS YOU IGNORANT TURD. They use the lotto money to fund schools, but then use the money earmarked for schools to PISS AWAY!! The school budget doesn’t go up. It is a zero sum game. Get it, or is that math to hard for you? ZERO from gambling money goes to education.
    “Better to raise taxes on the CFs of the world”. He makes no money, you moron. Tax him 100% and you still get squat.
    Everyone needs to pay taxes. Everyone needs to contribute. You need skin in the game, or else you don’t care. And we become an apathetic society, which is where we are right now.
    And Delving, thanks for the Steph link. That caused me to waste an afternoon!
    Dude – New Years Brunch? I will stuff an ommlette down your throat. My treat!!
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  3. fiddy cent, dollarbill's poor brother

    Not to Obama bash, but news is in Iowa he has eight offices opened, 350,000 phone calls to potential supporters and 1,280 events to recruit and train volunteers. me thinks the man is a tad bit worried. The article went on to say he (Obama) has spent more money in Iowa than the combined cash of all the Republicans.

    Best article on the web today about The Obama’s dinner out and the press that was not allowed to photograph it. Shopping at Target and BestBuy, yes. Dinner in Hawaii, um, no press.

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/12/29/middle-class-warriors-dine-260/

  4. Libertarian Advocate

    Don Pesci has a thoughtful piece on Dick Blumenturd’s position on internet gambling here

  5. Anonymous2

    Enjoyed Dollar Bill’s suggestion that people like CF be taxed more to pay for hospitals. Actually, the money’s needed to DEMOLISH all the hospitals that will be forced to close under Obummercare.

    Rather than gambling I’d like to see a minimum annual per-person federal tax, say $750, charged to everyone, including children. That would force the 49% who don’t pay income tax to pay some attention to the political process, particularly if we offered to cut the fee say $100 for each trillion dollars in real annual spending cuts. It would also discourage those who can’t afford children to have them at taxpayer expense. And no cheating by raising welfare handouts at account for the fee.