Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

Without suggesting that any of this is accurate information (it was posted by Kosmo, after all), I'll respond assuming arguendo it is.

Funny, I thought supporters would know what was actually in the bill. Now ask who will be paying these (i.e. taxes always get passed to consumers).

The new taxes, which cost some $675 billion over the next decade, include:

• A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that's already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.

This is one of the industries that is responsible for gouging Americans who are sick. It got off easy with a tax. It should instead be subjected to a monopsony buyer, which I assure you would cost it more than 2.3%.

Several major manufacturers have been roiled, including: Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs; Indiana-based Zimmer Corp., which cites the tax in laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Indiana-based Cook Medical Inc., which has scrubbed plans to open a U.S. factory; Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc., which expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million, and Boston Scientific Corp., which has opted to open plants in tax-friendlier Ireland and China to help offset a $100 million charge against earnings.

All of that is fine. The US government can create jobs at will, including jobs researching medical devices (if the point was supposed to be the loss of jobs in a specific industry). You present this as a problem. It isn't.

• A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.

What's the problem? While I'd prefer taxes be raised on people making more than a million, people who earn $200,000 can certainly afford 3.8% more. If people in the $200,000 to $1,000,000 range are feeling oppressed, they can join with the sub-$200,000 crew and demand higher taxes on the over-$1,000,000 crew. Problem solved.

• A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance" and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.

So they can just meet the standards. Problem solved.

• A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.

Okay. What's wrong with controlling pollutants?

• A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.

Okay. I personally support removing all taxation from corporations, provided we also stop pretending that they aren't government entities and stop treating them like citizens. But, until then, what's the problem? They are lucky they aren't subjected to monopsony purchasing power. This is a privilege, not a penalty. They should be thankful to Americans that we have allowed them to continue to gouge us.

• A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons.

Tanning beds cause cancer, which American citizens pay for. So consider this an end to free riders.

• An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.

Not sure if they are double counting the taxes on the over $200,000 crowd, but this only applies to people making more than that amount. Again, I welcome the $200,000 - $1,000,000 income earning crew to join forces with the sub $200,000 income earning crew against the + $1,000,000 earning crew. Until then, fuck the +$200,000 income earning crew.

• A hike in the threshold for writing off medical expenses to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

Affects high income earners only.

• A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year.

Affects high income earners only. You can tell the author was getting more desperate as his/her article went on.

• Elimination of the tax deduction for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients.

Also called, eliminating the donut hole, which means that employers no longer require the subsidy. I thought Republicans were against government spending? Oh, that's right, they consider the elimination of government subsidies to businesses as "taxes."

• An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK'd by the government.

Social responsibility. I think it's a stupid way to do universal health care, but, hey, no stupider than the Republican plan of killing Americans.

• A $2,000 tax charged to employers with 50 or more workers for every full-time worker not offered health coverage.

See above.

• A $60 billion tax on health insurers.

Well, they do get to profit from a faux market, no? Surely we can take some of that back from them?

• A 40% excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or higher cost, health insurance plans.

This will basically simply eliminate such plans. Also stupid, but a consequence of caving into capitalists who insist on exploiting sick Americans. Because, you know, they are patriotic Americans.

All told, there are 21 new or higher taxes imposed by Obama's health care law.

http://news.investors.com/article/6...urt-confirms-obamacare-massive-tax-burden.htm

Yay!

 

[Terra Firma]

"You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans."

Wow.

I don't even live in the US.

Haha, same here. I don't live in the US and I got them all right as well...

And I haven't really been following the entire health reform bill except the barebones knowledge that I have about it - which I got from Republicans!

 

[RustyNails]

EDIT: missed post above.

To be fair, I am not for corporate tax credits, such as this and others that the oil industry, big agriculture, etc. benefit from. Eliminating them, however, is a tax increase, not matter how you slice it.

This reminds me of BigSicily's posts (god I miss the luls) where he cropped previous data in his charts and only focused on present data. In this case he would've cropped tax cut (subsidies), and only focused on tax increase (removing of subsidies)

whee

 

[GaimeGuy]

EDIT: missed post above.

To be fair, I am not for corporate tax credits, such as this and others that the oil industry, big agriculture, etc. benefit from. Eliminating them, however, is a tax increase, not matter how you slice it.

Sorry, we have differing views on taxes. Corporations have been paying what they should, according to the law - those loopholes exist for a reason and unless we are willing to get down to a simplified corporate tax system, we're spinning our wheels. No tax breaks for Big Ag, no tax breaks for solar and wind, etc.

The law stated that they didn't have to pay those taxes because they met certain conditions - what the fuck are you talking about? This is no different than people not paying taxes because the "condition" they meet is they don't make enough money.

The law is the law - or are you suggesting there are a whole bunch of companies that qualified for these tax breaks/credits that we should be prosecuting?

1. Do you consider subsidies government spending?
2. Do you consider tax cuts government spending?
3. Do you consider tax credits government spending?
4. Do you consider creating a tax credit to be the same thing as a tax cut?
5. Do you consider removing subsidies to be tax increases?
6. Do you consider removing subsidies to be reducing government expenditures?
7. Do you consider eliminating tax credits to be raising taxes, or reducing spending?
8. Do you consider businesses which take advantage of tax credits to be welfare queens?
9. Do you consider farms which take advantage of subsidies to be welfare queens?
10. Do you consider individuals who take advantage of tax credits to be welfare queens?
11. Do you consider Medicare Advantage, which has the government subsidize pharmaceutical companies without any price negotiations, to be a form of corporate welfare?

I am trying to make sense of the fact that you seem to be opposed to creating tax credits because you consider them excessive government spending (rather than a tax cut), but at the same time oppose eliminating tax credits because you consider them a tax increase (rather than a cut in government spending).

Do you understand that, deficit wise, a $50 subsidy is the exact same thing as a $50 tax cut or a $50 tax credit? And that eliminating a $50 subsidy is the exact same thing as a $50 tax increase or removing a $50 tax credit? The differences appear only indirectly.

 

[PantherLotus]

SOOOOOooooooOO

after a page of hilarity with Kosmo, can we all agree that this is really a tax cut for those that participate?

And NO, expiring subsidies are not tax hikes, Grover.

 

[GTI Guy]

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz/results-page.aspx

Just for fun, have you done this? I got 8/10. I'm tempted to post this on my FB page.

10/10

 

[GaimeGuy]

SOOOOOooooooOO

after a page of hilarity with Kosmo, can we all agree that this is really a tax cut for those that participate?

And NO, expiring subsidies are not tax hikes, Grover.

I just wish we could move past discussing taxes and spending on principle. We'll never be able to discuss the merits of a society otherwise.

What is the purpose of the proposed carbon tax? To directly reduce our carbon footprint, and, indirectly, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil for energy.

What is the purpose of the tax credits for solar and wind and electric? To directly spur growth in our usage of renewable sources of energy, and diversify our pool of energy sources. Indirectly, it promote energy independence, research and manufacturing jobs, and reduces our carbon footprint.

But things boil down to a childish argument about taxes being bad, punishing companies, redistributing wealth, and it becomes a circus.

Instead of simplifying discussions to broad, sweeping generalizations like "We want people to have a lower tax bill/We want to reduce the size of government," we, as a society, should be taking a more nuanced look at our policies. Only then will we be able to do great things.

 

[Aaron Strife]

10/10 on the quiz. Wocka wocka.

I'd REALLY be interested to hear what opponents of the bill would score on this. It seems a lot of people believe there's a public option in the bill, and that all small businesses have to provide coverage.

 

[Diablos]

You answered 9 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 97% of Americans.

Whee

 

[cartoon_soldier]

You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans.

Weeee

 

[demon]

9/10. I'm smarter than 97% of Americans. Got the question about tax credits to business wrong.

 

[PantherLotus]

I just wish we could move past discussing taxes and spending on principle. We'll never be able to discuss the merits of a society otherwise.

What is the purpose of the proposed carbon tax? To directly reduce our carbon footprint, and, indirectly, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil for energy.

What is the purpose of the tax credits for solar and wind and electric? To directly spur growth in our usage of renewable sources of energy, and diversify our pool of energy sources. Indirectly, it promote energy independence, research and manufacturing jobs, and reduces our carbon footprint.

But things boil down to a childish argument about taxes being bad, punishing companies, redistributing wealth, and it becomes a circus.

Instead of simplifying discussions to broad, sweeping generalizations like "We want people to have a lower tax bill/We want to reduce the size of government," we, as a society, should be taking a more nuanced look at our policies. Only then will we be able to do great things.

I think you're talking about the thread that TA and I started a few weeks ago:
PolicyGAF 2012 |OT| The Boring Thread of Nobody Replying

 

[empty vessel]

I think you're talking about the thread that TA and I started a few weeks ago:
PolicyGAF 2012 |OT| The Boring Thread of Nobody Replying

Is this a thing? Link, for ease of the lazy and voluntarily unemployed, food-stamp loving GAFers?

 

[Diablos]

9/10. I'm smarter than 97% of Americans. Got the question about tax credits to business wrong.

Me too!

 

[PantherLotus]

Is this a thing? Link, for ease of the lazy and voluntarily unemployed, food-stamp loving GAFers?

no, it's a joke. Sorry (i would probably like it as well, FTR). Invisible Insane was complaining about my use of pedantic discussions of optics rather than stuff that really matters, like GG was doing above. I'm like, enjoy your thread, but this one's about politics.

 

[empty vessel]

no, it's a joke. Sorry (i would probably like it as well, FTR). Invisible Insane was complaining about my use of pedantic discussions of optics rather than stuff that really matters, like GG was doing above. I'm like, enjoy your thread, but this one's about politics.

Ah. Leave it to me to be most interested in a thread expressly directed at the boring.

 

[SouthernDragon]

I, personally, am all for taxes as long as they are either well spent or aimed at incentivizing good behavior/discentivizing bad behavior.

 

[makingmusic476]

10/10

Woo!

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

"You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans."

Wow.

I don't even live in the US.

I live in the US and I BARELY paid attention to the whole fiasco. Yet I got 10 out of 10 right. Fuck people, all you have to do s simply pay attention to somewhat trust sources to know some of this stuff.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz/results-page.aspx

Just for fun, have you done this? I got 8/10. I'm tempted to post this on my FB page.

You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans.

What the cock-shitting fuck? I just guessed on several of these. There's no way I'm THAT well-informed.

 

[Zen]

whee

Ditto, it was ezpz (non American here).

 

[Oblivion]

Republican math alert: Boehner says Obamacare's $700 free rider penalty is MORE than Romneycare's $1,200 penalty

 

[Rocket Scientist]

10/10. Sad. Going to link it to my American friends.

Republican math alert: Boehner says Obamacare's $700 free rider penalty is MORE than Romneycare's $1,200 penalty

Only read the transcript, but it doesn't seem like he's saying 700 is more than 1200 just that the law as a whole is more comprehensive, I guess? Maybe the video is clearer but can't see it.

 

[Oblivion]

Not to get all Kosmo-y, but can one of you smarters explain this to me:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-09/business/1991160128_1_luxury-tax-yachts-harrison

It's a really old article from the early 90s talking about how a luxury tax congress enacted on yacht builders that almost destroyed the Eastern boat building industry. The tax was 10%, and it seemed to have pretty devastating ramifications. But this also goes against all the librul propaganda about raising taxes on the rich I've been feeding myself all these years.

Can someone explain why this situation turned out bad?

 

[Loudninja]

DGA Brings In $13 Million In 2nd Quarter

The Democratic Governors Association raised $13 million in the second quarter of 2012, setting a new fundraising record, the DGA announced Monday morning.

This brings their total fundraising for the first half of the year to $21 million – more than the $20 million raised over the course of 2011.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/dga-brings-in-13-million-in-2nd-quarter

 

[War Peaceman]

Not to get all Kosmo-y, but can one of you smarters explain this to me:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-09/business/1991160128_1_luxury-tax-yachts-harrison

It's a really old article from the early 90s talking about how a luxury tax congress enacted on yacht builders that almost destroyed the Eastern boat building industry. The tax was 10%, and it seemed to have pretty devastating ramifications. But this also goes against all the librul propaganda about raising taxes on the rich I've been feeding myself all these years.

Can someone explain why this situation turned out bad?

Different industries and different markets have entirely different situations. Some will be resilient to increased taxation and others not. Tax increases or decreases are not inherently good or bad. As with every business decision you need to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the industry under discussion. Elasticity will be a consideration - this can affect the impact of taxation. For example fuel and cigarette taxation is often a safe bet because price increases (induced by increased taxation) have little effect on consumer demand.

Moreover, this particular market is for the super-wealthy. These people can probably go to most places in the world to get their yachts. So the extra price caused by the taxation made this market unappealing and they had the resources to go elsewhere.

That wasn't specific to this case - I couldn't find anything with a quick search that was.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Different industries and different markets have entirely different situations. Some will be resilient to increased taxation and others not. Tax increases or decreases are not inherently good or bad. As with every business decision you need to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the industry under discussion. Elasticity will be a consideration - this can affect the impact of taxation. For example fuel and cigarette taxation is often a safe bet because price increases (induced by increased taxation) have little effect on consumer demand.

Moreover, this particular market is for the super-wealthy. These people can probably go to most places in the world to get their yachts. So the extra price caused by the taxation made this market unappealing and they had the resources to go elsewhere.

That wasn't specific to this case - I couldn't find anything with a quick search that was.

That seems to be exactly what happened.

If you own a yacht, you're not really planning on being grounded anywhere, so it doesn't matter.

Estate taxes, on the other hand..... People generally don't want to have to travel across the ocean for work. Even rich people. If their companies are in america, chances are they'll stay close just out of convenience.

A luxury tax on private jets would probably have the same effect as the yacht tax, because location doesn't matter for that kind of product.

It's a case by case situation. Same with any spending program.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/jan-june96/budget_01-01.html <-- this is the best I could find.


Anyways, you have a yacht. You're going to be going all over the place with it, in international waters, at resorts, etc. Borders don't really matter in yachthood, since you're mobile

 

[Invisible_Insane]

no, it's a joke. Sorry (i would probably like it as well, FTR). Invisible Insane was complaining about my use of pedantic discussions of optics rather than stuff that really matters, like GG was doing above. I'm like, enjoy your thread, but this one's about politics.

To be pedantic, I don't really think your use of the word "pedantic" applies here.

I also think it's a little disingenuous (or maybe just silly) to say that participating in PPACA is a "tax decrease." The law's objective is to drive down the cost of health insurance and health care, which in turn reduces the amount of money that the government is required to spend on it. Casting that is a "tax decrease" is very much playing into the hands of people who merely want to think about government in terms of its expenditures.

 

[gcubed]

It was also in the middle of the savings and loan crisis as well. Not the best timing for determining tax effects on an industry

 

[ErasureAcer]

Well after donating some cash to campaigns yesterday I got in the spirit of the election season and wrote a song set to The Fresh Prince theme song

Now this is the story all about how
Jim Graves took Michelle Bachmann down
And I'd like to take three minutes just sit right there
I'll tell you how he became the Rep from the Sixth, yeah

In North St. Cloud born and raised
Thinking about others is how he spent most of his days
Making jobs and payin' fair wages
His list of great deeds goes on for pages

But a batshit lady was totally insane
Disgraced the country and the district's good name
He said I gotta fight for what I believe in
So he tossed his hat in the ring, believin'

Hate, hate, hate she spewed day after day
He took the high road, hope to lead the way
She wouldn't change as she just didn't get it
Life is about love not constitutional amendments

Made up facts, yo this is bad
It's about time she took a history class
Is this what Republicans have become today?
Honest Abe must be turnin' in his grave

No way! She grabbed her pitchfork, noose and stake
With your help her witch hunt did not last one more day
Can you believe it? Are you prepared?
For Jim Graves, a breath of fresh air

Well uh, guess this is the time to give a shout out
To our founding fathers and you for your turnout
This country ain't done so have no fear
Let's all stick together and we will persevere

Support grew and grew as the election drew near
Jim Graves signs popped up at houses everywhere
It was nice to know that the people cared
About this planet that we all must share

Graves won by many points, about seven or eight
As he yelled to supporters "I feel the love tonight"
Took to The Hill. He was finally there
To do the things Bachmann would not dare

Bachmann is beatable...in 2008 she only drew 46% of the vote. So now another Presidential year I'd expect the numbers to be about the same. It looks like a 3rd party candidate won't be in the race this year to take 8-10% of the vote so Jim Graves stands a chance.

Lyrics could use a slight tweak here and there as the whole believe in/believin thing is a bit too repetitve and the "I feel the love tonight" might go over people's heads as it relates to Bachmann's comment on how The Lion King is making kids gay. I don't have a mic at the moment and am not the greatest singer so I dunno if it'll go any further than this. Plus, I don't know how to extricate the music from the lyrics in editing but I'm sure there's some way. I assume it'd be covered in parody for posting on youtube.

Thoughts?

 

[GaimeGuy]

I think you need a new hobby

(Why?)

 

[Guileless]

If Justice Roberts does pay attention to media coverage as stated in that article, he will be clipping and framing a copy of Tom Friedman's column from yesterday.

Fareed Zakaria has solutions to everything. From immigration to debt to healthcare to fixing Syrian escalation. He should be in Whitehouse. Smart, smart man.

Supporter of the Iraq War.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I think you need a new hobby

(Why?)

Why not?

 

[Byakuya769]

Different industries and different markets have entirely different situations. Some will be resilient to increased taxation and others not. Tax increases or decreases are not inherently good or bad. As with every business decision you need to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the industry under discussion. Elasticity will be a consideration - this can affect the impact of taxation. For example fuel and cigarette taxation is often a safe bet because price increases (induced by increased taxation) have little effect on consumer demand.

Moreover, this particular market is for the super-wealthy. These people can probably go to most places in the world to get their yachts. So the extra price caused by the taxation made this market unappealing and they had the resources to go elsewhere.

That wasn't specific to this case - I couldn't find anything with a quick search that was.

My answer as well. But I'd add this caveat, super wealthy people are likely particularly sensitive to what they perceive as institutional slights. Raise their taxes in a highly particularized way, and because for once in their lives they'll feel like they couldn't control outcomes, they go out of their way to hit back out of spite.

 

[Guileless]

Stung by Recession, Young Voters Shed Image as Obama Brigade

In the four years since President Obama swept into office in large part with the support of a vast army of young people, a new corps of men and women have come of voting age with views shaped largely by the recession. And unlike their counterparts in the millennial generation who showed high levels of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama at this point in 2008, the nation’s first-time voters are less enthusiastic about him, are significantly more likely to identify as conservative and cite a growing lack of faith in government in general, according to interviews, experts and recent polls.

http://nyti.ms/NT48sJ

Plenty of vapid quotes from young people, and not a single mention of the ongoing wealth transfer to Baby Boomers after they already got rich in the postwar boom. Fascinating.

 

[Kosmo]

Stung by Recession, Young Voters Shed Image as Obama Brigade



http://nyti.ms/NT48sJ

Plenty of vapid quotes from young people, and not a single mention of the ongoing wealth transfer to Baby Boomers after they already got rich in the postwar boom. Fascinating.

Which quotes are you finding particularly vapid? If anything, they are no more vapid than shouting "Yes we can!"

 

[The Librarian]

Funny, I thought supporters would know what was actually in the bill. Now ask who will be paying these (i.e. taxes always get passed to consumers).

http://news.investors.com/article/6...urt-confirms-obamacare-massive-tax-burden.htm

Obamacare is the largest tax hike in history.

 

[Tim-E]

Stung by Recession, Young Voters Shed Image as Obama Brigade



http://nyti.ms/NT48sJ

Plenty of vapid quotes from young people, and not a single mention of the ongoing wealth transfer to Baby Boomers after they already got rich in the postwar boom. Fascinating.

18-24 year olds generally have unrealistic or naieve expectations and have no real idea of how the economy or government work. Most people in that age group are typically apathetic about politics anyway. If you went into Obama's administration with realistic expectations you likely wouldn't be making "where's all the change hurr hurr hurr" comments. A campaign is designed to be generalistic and sweeping, but if your expectations about what can come of it are realistic then you should know that not everything is possible. His lead among that group is in the double digits, so even if turnout is low among that group, he really doesn't need them exclusively to win. He needs hispanics and women, and they do go out and vote.

And lol at the idea that an army of young people are going to be motivated to go door to door campaigning for Mitt Romney.

 

[dave is ok]

The idea that young people are going to reject Obama is fine to write an article about, but the idea that they'll reject Obama and embrace Romney is absolutely batshit.

 

[Byakuya769]

To be pedantic, I don't really think your use of the word "pedantic" applies here.

I also think it's a little disingenuous (or maybe just silly) to say that participating in PPACA is a "tax decrease." The law's objective is to drive down the cost of health insurance and health care, which in turn reduces the amount of money that the government is required to spend on it. Casting that is a "tax decrease" is very much playing into the hands of people who merely want to think about government in terms of its expenditures.

Liberals never tire of getting their asses kicked in arguments about taxes. Quit trying to win debates on the terms of conservatives!

Just the sheer mental throes you have to go through to get to "Aha! PPACA actually lowers taxes!" should inform you that it's not a winning argument. "Cut taxes," is as simple as messaging can get, combating that with "well actually's" is a waste of time.

I'm with you. Inform about what the law is for, focus on the simple benefits. And more importantly, begin talking about shared prosperity, fairness, and the American spirit that won't allow others to go without the dignity of health coverage and security.

 

[Kosmo]

LOL, gave me a chuckle.

 

[dave is ok]

LOL, gave me a chuckle

Overtly racist. Just like Kosmo.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

LOL, gave me a chuckle.

From: Kosmo
Subject: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Forward to all the LIEberals you know!

Reply: God damn it, Grandma. How many times do I have to ask you not to send me these things?

 

[Kosmo]

Overtly racist. Just like Kosmo.

Right, because most people getting food stamps are white.

 

[Byakuya769]

LOL, gave me a chuckle.

"Let's stamp out the cockroaches" didn't want in on that action?

 

[KingGondo]

LOL, gave me a chuckle.

Those lucky food stamp recipients!

 

[Sickboy007]

The message is that poor people should feed on themselves.

 

[The Librarian]

From: Kosmo
Subject: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: Forward to all the LIEberals you know!

Reply: God damn it, Grandma. How many times do I have to ask you not to send me these things?

You ruined it with the "Reply" edit.

 

[DynamicG]

Overtly racist. Just like Kosmo.

I don't think it's racist. It seems like one of those statements that is meant to look racist in order to shift the conversation to a nonsense discussion of "liberals always accuse Republicans of racism, but I never said anything about race." They aren't implying anything verbally and if you mention race YOU are the one obsessed with it. It's kind of cute.

Kosmo's too smart to post overtly racist stuff. This is like low to mid level obfuscation.

It's pretty juvenile to debase humans and refer to them as animals though. It's also an attempt to bait the conversation towards bullshit and keep the level of discourse low.

THAT seems pretty well in line with Kosmo's way of thinking / argumentation.

 

[gcubed]

The message is that poor people should feed on themselves.

They were working on it in Miami