[ SECRET POST #2148 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2148 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 080 secrets from Secret Submission Post #307.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 3 4 - doing a bit of troll-weeding ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

There is no incentive for working hard or getting a decent education in this kind of scenario. You try to do a little better for yourself and it is stolen to give to others who didn't put in the effort you did? It is nothing less than thievery.

[(Anonymous)]

And yet there are still million and billionaires who live in the United States (and take advantage of the roads the government builds and maintains, the military that protects corporate interests overseas, the currency system that allows people to actually measure and preserve and ultimately build their wealth, the police forces that keep angry mobs from coming in and stealing all your stuff, and the courts that ensure contracts are upheld and enforced), so it can't be that discouraging to people wanting to work hard and get decent educations or, more accurately, to people who have the right skill set and connections that are profitable in this economy.

Most tax dollars go toward stuff like that; safety net programs, which are super helpful when that decent education and hard work of yours ends up being meaningless in light of a financial crisis caused by foolish lending practices and a complete lack of understanding of how markets function, make up about 13% of the federal budget.

[(Anonymous)]

It all comes down to I work very hard and make a decent salary. I don't want more than is absolutely necessary to keep society funtioning taken away from me in taxes. It is absolutely not fair that I spent years in school and years building up my career so that I and my family could afford to live comfortably. I don't have millions, not by a long shot. I'm not even affected by this $250,000 income designation. I admit to envy when I look at the incredible homes and lifestyles of the wealthy. But I don't think some kind of jealous vendetta against people who have more than me is the answer. The people who vote in these higher taxes would scream bloody murder if they were asked to pay more themselves, but take it from others? Sure.
What a crock.

[(Anonymous)]

But who are you to say that spending years in school and building your career is any harder work than a janitor (or coal miner, or factory worker) who does an immense amount of regular physical labor, is injured or has their job eliminated by cost-cutting measures, and has retire or to enter a workforce he or she is 30 years behind in training for? Is it really that much to ask that such a person get some help while they readjust to the job market? And who are you to say what applies w/r/t keeping society functioning? Maybe making sure people aren't dying of hunger in the streets is a part of that. Maybe giving some of those misplaced workers training (another part of this terrible "redistribution" the government does) is a part of that too.

Look, if we're getting personal here, my parents are well into upper middle class, and were able to pay for my college education on their own. I was able to find a decent paying job straight out, which I left after saving up enough to go to law school; all things that would have been a lot harder (as in, requiring a lot more hard work) if I'd come from a lower income background, and a lot less likely. I've worked hard, but I know people who've worked ten times harder and will never make what I will, because market economies aren't all about hard work; they're about hard work that's in demand. Which I don't, per se, have a problem with: there's absolutely nothing wrong with making money, even outrageous amounts of money, if the service you provide is really that much in demand. But I also think it's not unreasonable to expect that you should give a little back to the society that's allowed you to make that kind of money, because in a service economy, you're serving people. CEO of Walmart's rich because a lot of people who make way less than him buy his stuff, and so on.

And for what it's worth? I love paying my taxes. Because I'll never be out on the frontlines of a war, but I respect the people who're willing to defend our nation, and the least I owe them is a decent wage and safety net when they come back, plus the same protections for their families and their children; I'll never be out there paving roads myself, but I do sure like my roads paved; and I may personally never have been poor, but that's a matter of luck, because my skills are market-compatible, so I believe in giving people who aren't that fortunate some help (and at my most pragmatic, that's so they won't end up on the streets and/or robbing people out of desperation). Every school I've ever gone to has been a public one, and my education has been amazing, so I believe every student out there deserves that much. These are values I hold, and as an American citizen, even if I disagree with some aspects of public policy, it's a freakin' honor for me to contribute to a country that's given me so much. So don't tell me about screaming bloody murder if I were asked to pay more myself; I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[(Anonymous)]

DA, here. I think I love you.

[(Anonymous)]

Aw, shucks.

I just kind of feel bad about hijacking a secret that was totally not about this. Secret!OP, if you're getting notifications on all of this, I'm sorry :(

[(Anonymous)]

It's sad, but sometimes, this kind of eloquent smack down is just what's needed.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Damn. You rock, anon.

[(Anonymous)]

Geez, calm down. You sound like the Romney voters who were having conniptions over the election results.

Most people do not make over $250k a year. That is truly like the top 5%. It's not KILLING AMERICA to raise taxes on the income people make OVER that amount. You'd think someone was shooting Papa John in the eye with a nail gun.

/$140k household income nonny, not panicking here

[(Anonymous)]

As a matter of fact, I was a Romney voter. And I was very upset by the results of the election. Very rare in fandom, I know. But we are out there - those of us who don't believe that government is the answer to every question. And before you go off on me, I am an athiest, campaigned for gay marriage in my state, believe in evolution and am pro-choice. A registered Independent. I am, however, a fiscal conservative to the core.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

Oh. Thanks for selling me out on every single one of those issues because Romney promised to save you some dimes. Whatever keeps the war wheels on turning even if it's at the expense of people's rights.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

It's not just to save me a dime, it's to save the entire country and everyone in it from financial ruin. Priorities, nonnie, priorities. Give me a good god dammed liberal who advocates for fiscal conservatism and I'd follow them like a dog after bacon.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Try again when you aren't valuing money over human lives kay?

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

False dichotomies R Us?

[(Anonymous)]

Not exactly. Wanting to cut funding to PBS rather than defend the woman's right to choose is not an example of a false dichotomy.

Women without access to safe abortions die. Romney stated he intended to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Butting in here

[(Anonymous)]

Serious question: what exactly was this magical plan Romney had to save the economy? Because I didn't get it. At all. Not his proposed tax cuts or his proposed spending cuts.


And, um, just because you believe Romney is better for the economy and your priorities are budget>rights doesn't mean everyone shares that belief and those priorities and that's cool.

Re: Butting in here

[(Anonymous)]

A healthy economy will benefit all of us. At the top and the bottom. As a businessman, I believe he would have Managed the country better (as opposed to Obama, who I believe is an excellent Leader). Letting people and small businesses keep more of their earnings will allow them to expand, hire, buy, trade, ect. and keep the wheels of the economy turning. I think our social agenda is important too and I didn't see where Romney being president would limit any rights long term. For example, I believe that it is inevitable that gay marriage and other rights will someday be the law of the land; it's an evolution of our society that I don't see changing with one president in office. I'm OK with having a social conservative in office for a short while to sort out the fiscal mess we are in. I wouldn't vote that way if I didn't see the financial issue as the most pressing problem we face as a nation, bar none. I think we are truly heading off a cliff and are in for a very bumpy ride downhill. I thought Romney had the best chance of helping us at this time in history. At another time and place I would not have been a supporter.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

...Uh. This doesn't give us his plan for the economy at all, dipshit.

Re: Butting in here

[(Anonymous)]

1. The economy initially took a nosedive under George Bush (social and fiscal conservative, also a "businessmen"). Maybe he should've done a better job of keeping it running, and if he had the Republican party could've held onto the White House?

2. Private industry is a very, very different game from public administration. "Businessmen" skills don't automatically translate. I'm not saying they can't be helpful in improving efficiency, but certain things that government provides (parks, transportation improvements, regulations, expanding communications, public goods in general) make no sense in profit-earning terms. So I don't think there's that much of an inherent advantage in having a "businessman" running the country, especially since historically, their record is mixed.

3. There aren't just two parties/candidates out there. Gary Johnson, as a Libertarian, is socially progressive and fiscally conservative; if you wanted to vote your conscience, that's a valid alternative that wouldn't have screwed anyone over.

But look, Romeny-voting anon, don't despair. The Democratic party (and the fact that it's only really got the Executive branch and half of the Legislative) isn't going to be able to get much done. Y'all will get your chance again, if you maybe smarten up about treating minorities like crap and stop it with the rape stuff.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, because cutting the rich people some slack like we did to get into this mess in the first place and taxing the middle class out of extinction is going to keep society running.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

Er, into extinction or out of existence, I accidentally spliced them together.

[(Anonymous)]

That would make you the Token on the Republican party then.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT.

I see your concern about the economy and the debt, but Romney and his team failed to show their work regarding how their nebulous "better plan" was supposed to fix anything.

It's also quite another thing to demonize the poor during a bad economy. Of course people are on freaking food stamps; because they are eligible and because there are no jobs. Jobs are not going to magically appear if we don't raise the upper tax limit on millionaires and billionaires.

The reason I couldn't vote for Romney (besides the social politics and the very real threat of neanderthals on the Supreme Court) is the impression I get that he, and the GOP, are really out for the investor class. Hey, I'm an investor, but the US doesn't run on people buying stock in companies who outsource everything to save a few bucks on employees and healthcare. AND I think the real reason the Republicans are shitting over Obamacare is the fact that they want to keep the people who are employed here shit-scared of quitting and dependent on the scraps the employer class is legally obligated to provide: the bare damned minimum.

[(Anonymous)]

I fucking LOVE YOU for this comment. It articulates everything I fail to express whenever I try. Please run for office so I can vote for you.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT. Thanks. :)

I couldn't even really articulate it myself before the election, and seeing some of the outsized panic of the Romney voters afterward really just solidified the feeling.

I'm a middle class person and a veteran. I have a little money in the bank and investments and a mortgage, and the GOP is STILL not speaking for people like me. We can only conclude that people just don't realize they're getting biased opinions from Fox News, I guess.