Is This Child Abuse?

[sappstuf]

h5fH3np1jsw

Here are the lyrics in case you can't get through it all..


Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea
We don’t have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you
We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
The Earth is cracked
Big Bird is sacked
And the atmosphere is frying
Congress went home early
They did their best we know
You can’t cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it’s welfare dough
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you
Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair
It’s a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term’s kind of a drag
We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we’re blaming you
You did your best
You failed the test
Mom and Dad
We’re blaming you!

[olevetonahill]

Soviet Russia Circa 1960

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yes, child abuse! The parents should lose parental rights for making the kids sing this ****!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am the adult of now, i am driving as much as I can and heating and cooling my house as I wish and comfortable, and there is no global warming...

[TitoMorelli]

Didn't I see those kids in "Village of the Damned"?

[XingTheRubicon]

It takes a special kind of person to become a liberal. You pretty much have to be young and stupid. Hence the targeting of the little ones.

[yermom]

I am the adult of now, i am driving as much as I can and heating and cooling my house as I wish and comfortable, and there is no global warming...

what does wasting resources have to do with global warming?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I just farted into the open air.

I failed to capture it in my hand or a nice jar for burning later to generate power and I have to admit, the atmosphere in the direct vicinity of my anus warmed considerably.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

what does wasting resources have to do with global warming?

Uhmmm, "The atmosphere is frying" ...

[cleller]

It would be more effective if it didn't sound stupid. They could have better spent their time discussing those issues with their kids instead of making a bad video.

[badger]

There's no doubt that the generations of the past have robbed the current generation... of the passenger pigeon, the dodo bird, endless seas of American prairies... but I'd like to think that when we inherited the earth, we got a lot of what they never got to experience.

[diverdog]

The words may not be right but we have really handed our kids a mess. Most of it is because we we will not take responsibility to pay for the mess we made. Liberals won't cut spending and conservatives don't want to pay more in taxes or cut spending on certain programs.

[badger]

Liberals won't cut spending and conservatives don't want to pay more in taxes or cut spending on certain programs.

This. This is everyone's mess, not either side's. And neither side will clean up the mess, so phooey on em all

[LiveLaughLove]

Phooey, I don't buy the moral equivalency as equal. We have had dozens of tax hikes with promises of cuts later, only to never get them.

Do republicans bare some responsibility in that? Sure. But in no way to equal measure.

Democrats live and breath to give away largesse for votes. There's not one single democrat that I can think of that will seriously entertain deep meaningful cuts to anything beyond the military.

They want republicans to propose those cuts so they can politicize it to beat that republican that suggests those cuts. But beyond the political gains democrats aren't serious about it.

[KABOOKIE]

Phooey, I don't buy the moral equivalency as equal. We have had dozens of tax hikes with promises of cuts later, only to never get them.

Do republicans bare some responsibility in that? Sure. But in no way to equal measure.

Democrats live and breath to give away largesse for votes. There's not one single democrat that I can think of that will seriously entertain deep meaningful cuts to anything beyond the military.

They want republicans to propose those cuts so they can politicize it to beat that republican that suggests those cuts. But beyond the political gains democrats aren't serious about it.

Exactly. And there's only one party that is starting to talk about it. Obama and the (D)s will have every knuckle dragging, pitch fork totin', give-me-more-ons that this gravy train will last forever.

[badger]

But in no way to equal measure.
This reminds me of what I read on another message board while looking for meltdown material earlier (if you don't visit the football thread, there's a huge college football meltdown thread where i post funny sh!t from other boards when other fanbases act crazy... not our own, of course... usually...). I'll paraphase:

An Alabama fan called out Mississippi for being 50th in education but first in obesity, so the Mississippi poster responded that they were third in obesity and fourth and something else that sucked, so them calling out Mississippi for being worse was like being a taller midget (their word, not mine, although I have heard that some short people don't mind it but use it themselves).

Regardless of who has 51 percent of the blame versus 49 percent of the blame or 47 percent or 1 percent of 99 percent or whatever percentage blamefall, both sides are responsible.

You can't tell me that Republicans and Democrats alike don't promise stuff in exchange for votes. So do independents. Vote for me and I'll make this I-44 turnpike between Tulsa and OKC free!

It's time to stop passing blame and start accepting responsibility. When God asks whether you ate from the Tree of Knowledge, for the love of the almighty one himself, do NOT blame Eve! Or the Snake! Just say "Yes, Lord, I screwed up."

[diverdog]

Phooey, I don't buy the moral equivalency as equal. We have had dozens of tax hikes with promises of cuts later, only to never get them.

Do republicans bare some responsibility in that? Sure. But in no way to equal measure.

Democrats live and breath to give away largesse for votes. There's not one single democrat that I can think of that will seriously entertain deep meaningful cuts to anything beyond the military.

They want republicans to propose those cuts so they can politicize it to beat that republican that suggests those cuts. But beyond the political gains democrats aren't serious about it.

Do you ever do any research?


Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?By BRUCE BARTLETT (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/author/bruce-bartlett/)http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs_v3/economix/todays-economist.png
Bruce Bartlett (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/economy/bruce-bartlett-bio.html) has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.
Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/gross_domestic_product/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) estimated (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12130) that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/), according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.
Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan (http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/jobs/theplan.pdf) to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident.
One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.
The G.O.P. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/o/organization_for_economic_cooperation_and_developm ent/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/31/business/31economist-bartlett2/31economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg
Revenue Statistics of O.E.C.D. Member Countries, 2010
If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.
For example, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal recently asserted (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html)t hat Democrats were trying to raise the top income tax rate to 62 percent from 35 percent. But most of the difference between these two rates is the payroll tax and state taxes that are already in existence. The rest consists largely of assuming tax increases that no one has formally proposed and that would be politically impossible to enact at the present time.
Ryan Chittum, in Columbia Journalism Review, responded with a commentary (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_62_percent_tax_rate_wsj.php) that called the Moore analysis “deeply disingenuous.”
Nevertheless, one routinely hears variations of the Moore argument from conservative commentators. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true (http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2825_495698_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#C_Co rporateCaptial)but not necessarily relevant.
The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains.
The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=203102,00.html) in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org), down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent.
The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment.






[*=left]

[Sooner Eclipse]

BTW, when should we expect the gov't to start arming this version of the Hitler Youth.

[olevetonahill]

BTW, when should we expect the gov't to start arming this version of the Hitler Youth.

Yup

[LiveLaughLove]

Do you ever do any research?

Was trying to figure out why you posted this since it has zilch to do with what I posted. Then went back to my post and saw I left off a word. The word is spending, as in spending cuts, not tax cuts.

Maybe you thought I meant tax cuts, I didn't. I meant we never do the spending cuts.

Give me the name of a democrat that has an actual proposal of significant spending cuts on the table, beyond cutting the military, and what is the cut.

[diverdog]

Was trying to figure out why you posted this since it has zilch to do with what I posted. Then went back to my post and saw I left off a word. The word is spending, as in spending cuts, not tax cuts.

Maybe you thought I meant tax cuts, I didn't. I meant we never do the spending cuts.

Give me the name of a democrat that has an actual proposal of significant spending cuts on the table, beyond cutting the military, and what is the cut.

Show me any Republican President in recent history that cut spending. Both parties are bad and you need to wake up to that fact.

[LiveLaughLove]

Show me any Republican President in recent history that cut spending. Both parties are bad and you need to wake up to that fact.

Didn't mention republican presidents. You can't name that fictitious democrat because, well, their fictitious.

Lots of republicans have proposed spending cuts other than military spending.

Connie Mack, Paul Ryan, Jim inhofe are just three I can think of without doing research.

I know there are more, but it would require me doing research. I don't care enough to spend time doing research on the obvious.

[Midtowner]

Didn't mention republican presidents. You can't name that fictitious democrat because, well, their fictitious.

Truman and Clinton off the top of my head.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Give me the name of a democrat that has an actual proposal of significant spending cuts on the table, beyond cutting the military, and what is the cut.

He can't, but to be fair, when has a Republican ever offered REAL budget cuts. They only speak of cuts to the increase of the budget... We NEED REAL SPENDING CUTS!!! I mean cut the damn budget to say 1962 level or something..

[MamaMia]

Republicans have had to resort to bending over in allowing heavy handed spending on the part of democrats just to try to get a spending cut in here and there. The democrats spend 2 mil for every mil the republicans cut. This is why we need republican control of both the house and the senate. Thats when the cuts will come.

[soonercruiser]

It takes a special kind of person to become a liberal. You pretty much have to be young and stupid. Hence the targeting of the little ones.

...and to want their children to be mindless robots; rather than free and free thinking.