Sunday, November 18, 2012

Ali Velshi Accommodates Economic Terrorists

Besides the reasons of a growing, larger, and aging population in America, as well as a massive economic downturn in 2008 that was caused by banking speculation, what else has been a big contributing factor for such a huge increase in social programs and government entitlements over the last 4 years? The Republicans have a one-word answer: "Obama."

I also have a one-word answer: "Greed."

It's one thing to be born and raised, and ultimately die, in poverty. Other than what they might see on "reality" TV shows, the abject poor have known nothing else. It's quite different than pulling yourself out of poverty to eventually become very wealthy. But what America has mostly seen over the past 35 years (and more so since the Great Recession of 2008) is millions of Americans being born and raised in middle-class households, only to become reduced to poverty over the span of their adult working years. I am just but one example.

It appalls and enrages me that Ali Velshi continues to allow economic extremists such as Stephen Moore and Alan
Greenspan to constantly spew their failed economic polices of Reaganomics, as well as their egregious and dangerous -- and even laughable -- farce of "trickle down" economics on CNN.

Since the Reagan era, it's been very well documented and proven that wealth for working Americans has dwindled and wages have remained stagnate or declined over the last 35 years because of the
"conservative's" failed financial, social, and economic
The middle-class shrunk and more Americans became poor while the already poor just got poorer (despite the fact 99% of all Americans have a refrigerator) -- all the while the top 1% has had their wealth skyrocket -- and they hoard their wealth for their own future generations (See my posts on wealthy heirs and gift and inheritance taxes).

What really stood out for me was when I heard Alan Greenspan on CNN yesterday complain of the enormous increase in what he called "the so-called social programs" (or, as Mitt Romney and Bill O'Reilly would called them,"free stuff".)

Most of this "free stuff" goes to our seniors, those who have worked hard all their lives to QUALIFY for all their "free stuff" (when they either retired or became disabled). They paid payroll taxes on 100% of their earnings for all their working lives in return for all their "free stuff". People like Mitt Romney may have paid 0.0001% of their total life-time earnings into Social Security and Medicare taxes; and the rich live longer, so they can retire earlier, collect more, and collect longer.

Much of all this bandied about "free stuff" also goes to our military Veterans who sacrificed for their country*, those who are poor, and millions of our children. The rest of this "free stuff" goes to corporate welfare and corporate subsidies that benefit millionaires and billionaires.

* Much of the time, American soldiers sacrificed their lives on the false pretense of defending working Americans at home (and this country) and defending democracy abroad, when what they were really defending were American corporate interests and their profits overseas. The corporations lobbied Congress against paying higher taxes, and Veteran's benefits suffered when our soldiers came home. Let China have Taiwan, and maybe all those cheap-labor manufacturing jobs might come back to the United States as good-paying union jobs for Americans.

Most people who get "free stuff" from the government (healthcare, food stamps, etc.) don't really WANT this stuff, they NEED it; most of these people would much rather a have a job paying a REAL living wage. But right-wing conservative extremists NEVER ask the question, "Why  has there been such a huge increase in social programs and government  entitlements?" I suspect I know EXACTLY why they never ask this question out loud, because they know, but they would just rather not say. Why didn't Ali Velshi ask this question of Stephen Moore or Alan Greenspan yesterday when they were on his show?

It's for the same old reason: the rich get richer as the poor get poorer. Prices go up and wages goes down (and/or jobs are shipped overseas for cheaper labor).  It's math. When 50% of the workforce (currently in this country today, data here) only earns less than $26,000 a year when it costs $26,000 a year for rent, heat, clothing, and transportation, they can not also buy healthcare and food (unless they give up some other living necessity). And how are they to also save for their kid's college education, their retirement, and any emergencies? How can they live without this "free stuff" when they are already struggling enormously just for their already meager existence?

If the much idolized "job creators" paid labor (wages and salaries) a REAL middle-class wage in a 2012 economy, the minimum wage would be $20 an hour, not $7.25. But instead, the job creators pay their employees at Wal-Mart, Staples, McDonalds, and Papa John's Pizza an average of $8.50 an hour, offer less than 40 hours a week, and give them no healthcare or pension plans. If labor unions dare to organize for fair wages and healthcare, multi-billion-dollar corporations move jobs to anti-union Southern states or to places like China (Just ask the auto industry or companies such as Boeing or Apple or Hostess).

Ask big-mouth Donald Trump. After repeatedly (and falsely) bashing President Obama's stance on trade with China, and while also praising Mitt Romney's intended policy with China (branding China a currency manipulator during his first day in office and possibly starting a trade war), Donald Trump went on the David Letterman Show to pimp his new line of clothing that's on sale at Macy's. When asked where his ties were made, Trump claimed he didn't know (micro-managing his businesses?)...and then Letterman read the label and it said, "Made in China".

The average weekly unemployment check: $309 --- The look on Donald Trump's face: PRICELESS!!! See the video at YouTube.

Why does Apple's CEO Tim Cook need a $400+ million salary when most of his employees work in China at Foxconn (a Taiwanese multinational electronics manufacturing company) for $1 an hour? Couldn't Mister Cook have earned $10 million and put Americans to work for $20 a hour? How much money is ever enough for the "job creators"? The CEOs at American corporations on the Fortune 500 list would rather squeeze their workers to increase their own salaries from $10 million a year to $15 million a year, because for them...$10 million a year just isn't enough to adequately live on. Now there are millions of workers in China (and elsewhere) paying taxes to THEIR country and contributing to THEIR economy.

Bill O'Reilly can pay CASH for a multi-million beachfront mansion in a wealthy neighborhood on Long Island, but he threatens to quit his job at Fox News if his federal income taxes go up just a measly 4% to contribute to the social programs that might help keep poor families from becoming hungry or homeless. Am I the only sane person left in this country that sees how ludicrous, evil, selfish and mean Bill O'Reilly really is?

People like O'Reilly think that just BECAUSE of their financial success, that that somehow makes them special and more entitled -- and makes people like O'Reilly think they are wise old sages, and they believe that also makes them pompously correct on all their public policy opinions. People like O'Reilly and the bankers on Wall Street (as opposed to those in Hollywood) rarely attribute their vast wealth to any luck at all, but attribute their good fortune to skill, hard work, and by pulling up their boot straps.

I pulled up my boot straps, and I'm still poor. I'm pulling them up right now, at this very moment, as I type. I've been tugging on my boot straps for 35 years before I finally became laid off from work in 2008 while in my 50's, denied re-employment just for BEING unemployed and in my 50's, and denied Social Security disability for arthritis in my back (from working hard over the last 35 years at labor intensive jobs). I'm no longer a "maker" but a "taker" because I rely of "free stuff" (food stamps).

Regarding "entitlements" and those who are the "government dole" --- last week I heard Steve Doocy on Fox News say people who earn $45,000 a year are saying to themselves, "Why I should I go work when I can stay home and watch TV and make just as much."

Doocy is a douche bag, plain and simple. Where I live in Las Vegas, welfare (TANF) pays a single male person without kids $400 a month ($4,800 a year). The average Social Security payment is $1,111 a
month ($13,332 a year) . I get $200 a month for food stamps ($2,400 a year).

So even if I COULD qualify for ALL this "free stuff" (which is impossible to get SSD and TANF at the same time), it would total only $20,532 a year, less than HALF of what Douche Bag Doocy claimed on Fox News to millions of his viewers. And that is STILL below the poverty level for a family of four. But Douche Bag Doocy thinks people like me would rather quit their job and live on half their previous salary just so they can sit on the couch and watch more TV. Is he serious? How could I afford cable TV living on only $20,532 a year? Basic cable would be a luxury!

A couple of months ago on Fox News big-mouth Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "millions of Americans are leaving their jobs to go on disability." O'Really O'Reilly? You're telling us that millions of people would prefer to live on much less, or nothing at all, rather than go to work?

Will someone please tell me where I can sign up for all this "free stuff", because I was laid off in 2008, my unemployment benefits ran out in 2010, I was denied disability in 2012, and I won't qualify for EARLY Social Security until 2017. I won't be able to pull up my boot straps much longer because my boots are worn out and frayed with holes, and the boot straps are in disrepair...and without any income, my boots can't be replaced.

I would only hope that Ali Velshi only continues to allow economic extremists such as Stephen Moore on his show to point out the stark contrasts to economic fairness and the ridiculous and selfish economic polices that people like Moore and others consistently promote.

Republicans keep saying "You can't raise taxes in a bad economy." Does that mean that in a good economy we should raise taxes? Like in 2001 and 2003 when George W. Bush lowered taxes while starting two wars? What defines a "good" economy for people like Stephen Moore? When the stocks on the DOW JONES doubled in value over the past 4 years, like they did under Obama? Or when every American worker fresh out of high school can find a job in a local factory earning a "living wage" of AT LEAST $20 a hour in 2012?

Why have more people been reduced to using food stamps? Because of the greedy rich. "Wealth is like sea-water; the more we drink, the thirstier we become; and the same is true of fame." - by Schopenhauer

The Waltons (Wal-Mart) are collectively worth over $100 billion. Couldn't they have just as easily doubled their employees' wages and provided them all with healthcare insurance, and still be collectively worth $50 billion? How much money does one person need to live on in their life-time? Isn't over $1 billion pushing the limit on obscene when so many other Americans are being pushed out of the workforce and forced to need "free stuff" like food stamps?

Every time I see Stephen Moore (a shallow, selfish, putz, and a shill and pimp for the very wealthy) open his mouth on my TV set, I have to change the channel for fear I might throw a heavy object at the TV and break it. He is NOT a REAL "economist", but a snake in the grass selling snake oil.

As far as Alan Greenspan is concerned, it's been widely noted that he is one of those who are directly responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008, so why does Ali Velshi even give him any relevance at all on a national TV forum? Greenspan should be unceremoniously hung from the nearest tree for all the lives he helped ruin just to make a handful of already very wealthy people a lot richer.

Shame on Ali Velshi for giving people like this so much time on his show. Let's see Ali moderate an hour-long debate between Stephen Moore and someone like Senator Bernie Sanders...over even myself. I can tell the American people the truth about how Stephen Moore consistently LIES about corporate tax rates, and how Ali NEVER challenges him on "EFFECTIVE" tax rates...what big corporations are actually obligated to pay.

And although this might be off topic, why are all those white people in Southern and Mountain states petitioning the White House for succeeding from the union after Obama was re-elected? I say, let them. Those states get a lot more federal money than then pay in. The rest of the country would be much better off economically without them. They've been an infected pimple on the ass of this country since 1863, so let them all go.

That way, the South can "rise again" and they can keep their Dixicratic "small government" ideology, keep their anti-worker and anti-union philosophy, impose their fanatical religious beliefs on others, have their Constitutionally  guaranteed State rights, believe in their ancient and backward scientific theories, raise their Confederate flag, continue with their bigotry and racism, keep the Aryan Nation and the KKK, propagate their war and hate on the poor and minorities, make moonshine, continue their disrespect for woman (barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), build an electrified fence keep out Mexicans, and write their voter suppression laws so only rich white men can vote.

Maybe they can grow their economy by building cotton plantations again and they can all live in huge and obscene mansions, just like they did in the "good ole days" (when slave labor paid ZERO an hour). Let the South build their own infrastructure, railroads and Navy (they didn't before, and that's why they lost the LAST Civil War). That way, the rest of this country can just move on into the 21st century without the rest of those ignorant and idiotic morons.

And they can also take Alan Greenspan and Stephen Moore with them. We'll think about keeping Ali.

What did all the conservative bumper stickers used to say during Ronald Reagan's day? "America: Love it or Leave It." The South should leave -- the sooner, the better.

Full Disclaimer: I'm white. My family is from the South. My great-grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Germany. Most of my ancestors were farmers. They were mostly Catholic. Not one owned a single slave, instead they raised large families to help with the chores. Many went to serve in the U.S. military. One became a poor and unemployed blogger.

My latest related posts:

GOP Really Does Want Grandma to Die...and Fast!


The Makers and Takers: And Republican Bullshitters


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

GOP Really Does Want Grandma to Die...and Fast!

And not just grandma, but ALL the sons and daughters of the Greatest Generation (the Baby Boomers).

Why is it that, one day after Obama took office in 2009, SUDDENLY, the national debt became a national security issue for the Republicans and Obama was given all the blame?

From a surplus under Clinton to $10 trillion in debt under Bush with tax cuts for the wealthy and two unpaid wars was never a problem for Republicans before.

Since Obama took office more debt was incurred in "stimulus" and bailouts to the banks and auto save an economy that the Republicans destroyed by the end of 2008.

Add to that, more debt that we incurred since 2008 with unemployment benefits, TANF and food stamps for millions of Americans who lost jobs or were forced into much lower-paying jobs because of previous Republican economic policies.

Add to that, the natural demographics of an aging population going on disability and Social Security, most who would have anyway despite the Republican-caused economic downturn.

Now the Republicans are blaming Obama for food stamps and "entitlements". The conservatives say we should all be more "self-sufficient", but how? -- if their "job creators" are out-sourcing good-paying jobs to China and paying our domestic workforce sub-standard wages?

For the GOP, immigrants (legal or otherwise) were OK so long as they could be induced to take jobs that no one else wanted -- and paid them sub-standard wages. They will hire them to nanny their kids and cut their grass if they were cheaper to hire than "legal" American citizens. But when it comes to paying for their education, healthcare, and other "free stuff", then the GOP wants to toss them all back over the fence.

Add to that, the ever increasing high cost of healthcare insurance and the higher costs of healthcare. The GOP wants to pay American workers LESS than the minimum wage, then expect them to also afford healthcare too! What about rent, food, and heat...all that other "free stuff"?

The reason U.S. Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) refused to back down from remarks he made on the House floor in 2009 (in which he said the Republican health care plan calls for sick people to "die quickly") was because it's true.

Meet grandma. 86-year-old Gloria Pascale of Renton, Washington has worked as a Wal-Mart greeter for 15 years. She has to work to pay her mortgage and help support her children and grandchildren. She said she was recently told at work that her new duties would include heavy lifting and other activity beyond what she's physically able to do. She said she is under treatment for congenital heart failure. She had no choice but to was either that, or quit her job. (More on grandma below).

Libertarian Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman once said that Social Security redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy. As we're all well aware, ALL taxes are a form of redistribution for the collective good of a nation....usually.

The Republicans argue "a war of religion" when taxes are used for contraception, while myself and others argue that taxes spent on wars like Iraq could also be an attack on our religion. But the GOP (especially the Tea Party) always uses the "separation of church and state" argument for their own convenience, while imposing their religious beliefs on others in the form of their political policies (e.g. abortion, etc).

And then there's the redistribution of wealth from Social Security taxes. The wealthiest Americans don't NEED Social Security, so therefore don't want to contribute; whereas, I don't need oil subsidies or excess defense spending either. I prefer feeding our poor and one less nuclear submarine.

American workers (people who actually "work", especially in labor intensive jobs) must pay 12.4 percent, including a 6.2 percent employer contribution, on their wages below the Social Security Wage Base ($110,100 in 2012), but no tax on income in excess of this amount. Therefore, high earners pay a lower percentage of their total income because of the income caps; and because of this, payroll taxes are often viewed as being "regressive".

Furthermore, wealthier individuals generally have higher life expectancies and thus may expect to receive larger benefits for a longer period than poorer taxpayers. A single individual who dies before age 62, is more likely to be poor and receive no retirement benefits, despite their years of hard work and paying Social Security taxes all their life.

On the other hand, an individual who lives to age 100, is more likely to be wealthy, and is guaranteed payments that are more than he/she has paid into the system. Even though they have no financial need for them, they still file and collect these benefits in exchange for the "premiums" they pay for these "entitlements".

An NBER volume edited by Martin Feldstein and Jeffrey Liebman called The Distributional Aspects of Social Security points out that members of racial minorities with lower-than-average life expectancies and lower-than-average rates of marriage (and lower-than-average rates of pay) may also suffer from the program on average.

People who derive a high percentage of income from non-wage sources (e.g. Mitt Romney with capital gains/carried interest, etc.) get high Social Security net benefits because they appear to be "poor" for the purpose of Social Security means testing, when they are far from living in poverty -- almost half of ALL American workers earn less than $26,000 a year and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on 100% of their wages.

The progressive benefit formula for Social Security is blind to the income a person receives from non-wage sources, such as spousal support, dividends and interest, stocks and stock-options, the sale of fine art, profits from real estate, rental income, selling off gold and other SWAG :investments", etc, etc, etc.

At present the Social Security limit (cap) is $110,100 in 2012. But if the cap is lifted and it includes ALL taxable income, it will be able to tackle the problem of increasing benefits from an increase of revenues for the Baby Boomers. A benefit of lifting the cap on ALL taxable income, but NOT necessarily increasing the benefits, will allow the revenue from high income earners to lead to the solvency of Social Security. This theory is called "math".

Because the life expectancy has increased (especially for higher income people with superior quality healthcare insurance) and because it will most likely increase further (even in the absence of other demographic factors), the retirement age must be increased to maintain a sustainable system...UNLESS of course, the unfair cap on high-income earners is no longer exempt from being paid into Social Security.

The owners of Wal-Mart have a collective net worth of over $100 billion, but pays their workers slave wages with no healthcare insurance. The REAL reason why Republicans hate ObamaCare™ is because it starts to fairly tax "investment" income in 2013 (the same way everybody else is taxed on their hard-earned wages and salaries.)

If we removed the cap on Social Security contributions for the very wealthy, maybe Grandma won't have to slave at her low-paying job at Wal-Mart until the day she finally drops dead in aisle #12, but instead she can retire with some dignity and comfort while cherishing her life's memories and spending more time with her grand-children.

But the wealthiest among us, corporate America, and the Republicans would prefer that grandma NOT have healthcare insurance or a decent minimum wage, but instead that she "put more skin in the game" (regarding federal income taxes) and remain a "maker" and not a "taker" in our society until the very moment she draws her last breath.

Since Mitt Romney and the GOP lost the past presidential election, the Republicans are saying "we have to reach out more to the Latino community and women". Why? Just for their votes?

And what about the elderly and the poor, another growing segment of America's population? Will the GOP also reach out to them as well, providing them with Social Security and Medicare when they get old, and/or healthcare and good-paying jobs while they can still work? I think not.

Why the Rich Live Longer (Forbes)

Why the Rich Live Longer (2) (Forbes)

Do rich people live longer? (MSN Money) "Wealth and longevity are

Get rich and live longer! (The Daily Mail)

Rich Americans Live Longer (The Huffington Post)

How to live as long as the rich (CBS)

Why Do the Rich Live Longer Than the Poor?

Entitlements Favor the Rich —Because They Live Longer

Why Rich People Live Longer - Pay Dirt - SmartMoney

Wealthy live longer than the poor: Study (News Medical)

Do the Rich Live Longer? (Wall Street Journal - VIDEO)

* And if Grandma was disabled, poor, alone, and couldn't drive, she would be SOL while being brutally put the loops trying to qualify for Social Security disability; and unless she had a fatal illness or was a paraplegic, she would have a 50-50 chance of receiving SSD from a uncaring judge making an annual $100,000 salary that's paid for by grandma and other hard-working taxpayers...because the Republicans are more concerned about tax breaks and Social Security caps for the very the owners of Wal-Mart.

Friday, November 9, 2012

The Makers and Takers: And Republican Bullshitters

Speaker of the House John Boehner said that the reelection of the House Republican majority means that there is “no mandate for raising tax rates” on the American people.

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell also said, "We have a voter mandate not to raise taxes."

They just say "taxes", not taxes on the wealthiest top 2%, who earn more than $250,000 a year. And when they say raising taxes on "small businesses", they don't mean the owners of a small mom-and-pop store earning less than $250,000 a year, but people like hedge fund managers who earn over $1 million a year.

When John Boehner and Mitch McConnell say "the American people", they don't mean Americans earning less than $250,000, but wealthy Americans earning millions of dollars a year (e.g. Mitt Romney).

And the major reason House Republicans were saved from eviction during the last election cycle was mostly due to the gerrymandering of district seats. That's what saved the House Republican Majority -- the careful manipulation by Republican State legislators to rig the political demographics, not the "will" of the majority of the American public. There was no "mandate" for Republicans to NOT raise taxes on the richest Americans.

Speaking of mandates, why was there such a Herculaneum attempt by Republican State legislators to suppress the vote for Democratic voters (e.g. minorities, seniors, and college kids), those who usually vote early? If the GOP had a "mandate", why would suppressing the vote be necessary?

And when Republicans do lose their bid for re-election, they claim the other side is guilty of what they themselves have been guilty of. In Florida, Tea Party darling Allen West lost his bid for re-electron and is now claiming voter fraud and asking for a recount. Instead of inner circumspection, the GOP losers are whining like immature and sore losers.

Karl Rove, who spent over $100 million in dirty tricks against Obama, got a 1% return on his investment, so now says that Obama won because of voter suppression -- and I'm sure that most Fox News viewers will believe him.

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (and all the other GOP officials and Fox News pundits) are behaving as though it was Mitt Romney who won the presidential election, and are claiming they have a mandate to NOT raise taxes on the richest 2%.

Just like Mitt Romney, they all are pathological liars: lying when they don't have to and maybe not even realizing they are lying. Were they born as bullshitters, or does it take a lifetime of practice?

When President Obama recently sat down for an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, while referring to Romney as a "bullshiter", he said, "Kids look at the other guy and say that's a bull bleeper, I can tell.” That’s when the president offered his analysis of kids’ ability to detect others’ dishonesty.

But for grown adults to not see through the GOP's lies, one would have to be either very ignorant, mentally challenged, on drugs, or living in pathetic denial.

98% of all "small business" owners earn less than $250,000 a year (just like 98% of ALL working Americans earn less than that). According the Social Security Administration, 47% of ALL working Americans actually earn less than $26,000 a year.

The vast majority of Americans, in poll after poll after poll, have said that they favor allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2%. What "mandate" are the GOP bullshitters referring to?

The GOP bullshitters have claimed that if the top 2% (the "job creators") have to pay more in federal income taxes, then there will be massive job losses. But the top 2% has already had the lowest tax rates in U.S. history -- ever since 2001 and 2003 -- so where are the jobs now?

Most of the top 2% earns the majority of their income through "capital gains" and pays a lower tax rate (as a percentage of their income) than the other 98% of working Americans -- those who earn their living through regular hourly wages and weekly salaries.

VP candidate Paul Ryan (as a government worker in "big government"), in addition to his very generous $174,000 congressional salary for his part-time job, earned another $60,000 last year in "capital gains" -- and he proposed that NO federal income taxes at all be paid on any capital gains.

The GOP bullshitters want to tax you to pay for their "stuff", but very rich Republicans don't want to be taxed at all to pay for our "stuff". Instead, they just want us to work harder and longer, waiting until we're 70 years old to retire, while paying us the minimum wage and denying us healthcare...just to make them richer.

The owners of Wal-Mart have a collective net worth of over $100 billion, but wants Mitt Romney's 47% (those who earn less than $26,000 a year) to put more skin in the game to enrich the CEOs in the defense industry, but wants to pay their workers slave wages and work until the day they drop dead -- and with no healthcare insurance (free stuff).

Apple would rather hire workers in China for $1 an hour rather than pay an American worker enough to live on so that Apple CEO Tim Cook can cash in $600 million in Apple stock and only pay a 15% capital gains tax...and maybe, just like Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, renounce his American citizenship -- instead of reinvesting in the American people -- the 47% who just wants "free stuff".

I heard Fox News Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News bullshitters tell you that millions of Americans are leaving the workforce to go on Social Security disability, earning a third less than they would have at their job.

This week I just heard Steve Doocy on Fox News say people who earn $45,000 a year are saying to themselves, "Why should I go work when I can stay home and watch TV and make just as much." Doocy is a bullshitter because welfare pays about $400 a month -- and if you worked 35 years, Social Security disability pays an average of $1,100 a month (or $13,000 a year).

Will someone please tell me where I can sign up for all this "free stuff" (food, shelter, and healthcare), because after I was laid off in 2008 my unemployment benefits ran out in July 2010. I have since been diagnosed with degenerative arthritis in my neck and back, but 2 years later in 2012 after filing a claim, I was denied Social Security disability; and I won't qualify for Social Security retirement benefits for several more years.

Where can I get my hands on all this free stuff that the GOP bullshitters keep blabbing about? I only get food stamps, but that's because I'm poor with no income and would starve to death otherwise. According to the GOP, even though I was a "maker" for 35 years, because of the economy and my health, I'm now labeled by the GOP bullshitters as a "taker".

The top 2%, who evade taxes and bribes politicians to keep their taxes low, who over-charges me for their services and products, and who nickels-and-dimes me for everything else, and who paid me just barely enough for rent and food, and who was too cheap to provide healthcare...those are the "makers", who make jobs in China while leaving me (the "taker") dependent on food stamps while watching TV 24/7.

The top 2% doesn't want their taxes raised so they won't have to pay for my food stamps. The "takers" like me should go without food so that the "makers" (bullshitters) can hire more people in China.