Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Time Perception of 1 Minute | Photos I’ve taken with my 3.2 megapixel camera phone Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Time Perception of 1 Minute | Photos I’ve taken with my 3.2 megapixel camera phone Next »
Indeed.
I dunno, I feel like Fey will still have a very viable income stream if Obama wins, because her main focus is on 30 Rock, and not Saturday Night Live.
Tina is a brilliant comedian and will do just fine regardless.
Yes, but she’d make more money if McCain were to win, and to compound that, if Obama wins, she’ll be paying a lot more in taxes too.
…but middle class citizens (like me) will be paying less!! yay!
once Obama’s tax hike on the rich takes your job away, how much less will you be paying?
tax cuts for the rich create more jobs.
tax cuts for the poor create more poor.
lol, rich people only spend their money on shackles to enslave the poor.
oh and on foreign trips.
>tax cuts for the rich create more jobs.
>tax cuts for the poor create more poor.
Please explain this apparently cut-and-dry causal relationship, because it looks to me like bogus conservative rhetoric.
Uh… let me see if I can explain this. Tax cuts are relative to the amount of tax you pay. Tax cuts aren’t “for” the rich. They pay more in taxes, and thus get a larger sum back. The poorest bracket in America doesn’t even pay taxes to begin with. Tax cuts are said to “favor the rich” because the poor get little or no money, but they don’t pay taxes and therefore cannot get a return on money they never paid. Rich people’s tax cuts are not paid by poor people’s money.
A tax “break”, on the other hand, is a reduction in taxes only for those in lower earning brackets. These people pay less than normal, while others pay the same, or more to compensate.
McCain favors tax cuts, Obama favors tax breaks, with a sharp increase in tax for those outside of his bracket.
Whichever you prefer, that’s your choice.
Hm, you fail to mention that only 1% of American citizens fall “outside of his bracket”.
Trickle-down economics? I think you took a wrong turn, the ’80s were a few exits ago.
(Or is that a “right” turn?
)
who creates jobs in this country, the rich or the poor?
how are those jobs paid for?
if the rich are taxed to the point they cannot/will not create jobs, it does not help the poor who want/need those jobs.
therefore, tax cuts for the rich create more jobs.
tax cuts (in Obama’s mind) equal “refundable tax credits”. this is political shorthand for “refunding taxes paid by taxpayers, and writing checks to non-tax-payers”.
if people get paid for barely working (and not/barely paying taxes), they have the incentive to continue to not work…or start working less.
therefore tax cuts for the poor create more poor.
it comes down to a simple question, do you want to tax the people that create jobs, or the people that have jobs? if you want to tax those who create jobs, that’s fine….just don’t complain when they stop creating those jobs.
>who creates jobs in this country, the rich or the poor?
What do you mean by “create jobs?” Do you mean employ other people? If so, see below.
>if the rich are taxed to the point they cannot/will not create jobs, it does not help the poor who want/need those jobs.
What does this mean? Are you implying that rich people pay their employees out of their own pockets? A corporation’s ability to employ people is dependent on the company’s success, not the income of the members of its upper management.
you do realize that 70% of jobs in this country have been created
by small businesses, right?
you do realize that 80% of the future jobs in this country will be created by small businesses, right?
you do realize that most small businesses are taxed on the owner’s personal 1040, right?
therefore, yes, rich people (as obama defines them) pay their employees directly out of their pocket.
the rest of them buy stuff that is made by other rich people’s employees, creating a whole industry of jobs.
again, I ask; how many jobs are poor people responsible for creating?
>you do realize that 70% of jobs in this country have been created
by small businesses, right?
>you do realize that 80% of the future jobs in this country will be created by small businesses, right?
Sure, I’ll buy that. But how many of those businesses would see an increase in taxes? Probably not many, and many would see a decrease in taxes.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
>again, I ask; how many jobs are poor people responsible for creating?
Plenty. Everyone in the country purchases goods and services, and that is the reason why jobs exist. They do not exist simply because the people at the top have money. That is broken logic.
Yeah because that’s worked SO well the past 8 years. Bush started tax cuts for the rich 8 years ago and now your job market it booming!
[/sarcasm]
Idiot.
it was working really well, until small businesses and companies with organized labor were forced to give their employees a raise regardless of work
performance.
every time minimum wage is raised, unemployment goes up. it should not come as a surprise, you force companies to pay more for labor, and companies will respond by buying less labor.
and why is it that back during the 90s, 5% unemployment was stellar, it was considered full employment.
……..but for some reason 6% today is the end of the world?
also, bush’s tax cuts put enough money into everyone’s pockets to spark investments, artificially inflating the housing and stock markets….now that the housing market bubble has burst, injuring the stock market, it’s his fault?
sounds more like people were willing to join the bandwagon, until too many greedy people toppled it over.
….then they all complain it wasn’t big enough.
yeah, but she’s said she hopes that this is one job that dries up by November
Umm… shouldnt this be a bar graph… just saying…
Yep. Those are definitely not two parts of a whole.
yes.
She said that she is done playing Palin this November no matter who wins. Whiny bitch.
Learn to choose an appropriate graph format.
Terrible.
1) As has been pointed out, this should not be a pie chart.
2) She just won three Emmys for the primetime comedy show she created, writes for, and stars in. She also starred in a successful movie just six months ago. I don’t think she’s particularly cash-strapped, nor will she ever be in the future.
3) I can’t imagine they’re paying her much to make once-a-week appearances on “SNL”.
4) She already stated that, no matter who wins, she won’t continue to portray Palin after the election.
If we were able to rate a graph as a zero, I wouldn’t think twice about doing so for this one.
Not to mention that she has just signed a $5million book deal.
RAHR! SERIOUS BUSINESS!
anyway, I thought it was funny.
Lame. If anything it should be called her SNL appearances or something. Not income. Never heard of 30 Rock? Too bad, it won a couple of Emmys.
Um…yeah…she’s already said there is no way she’d play Palin ever again if Johnny won. This graph is teh lamez.
Oh hush, it’s amusing.
My feelings for Tina Fey parallel the same feelings I had for Glenn Close back in the 80’s. I fell in love with her as the baseball muse in The Natural, and then she had to play the psycho in Fatal Attraction.
Fell in love with Tina Fey as a brilliant writer and actress in Mean Girls, SNL, and 30 Rock, and then she has to go and do a spot-on scathing impersonation of the political candidate to whom I can most relate.
Arrgghhhhhh!
And after BHO’s tax plan, the blue part goes away.
Barack Obama’s middle name has absolutely no bearing on this political race.
You make no sense
Yet another reason to hope Obama wins. I must be the only person in the country who doesn’t think she’s America’s fabulous, hilarious sweetheart. I don’t think I’ve ever laughed at her once.
Palin or Fey?
Oh c’mon, Palin is hilarious. I mean dinosaurs and people coexisting, charging for rape kits, abusing public office. Now Tina Fey, not nearly as funny.
Too bad the chance of McCain winning is about the same as Palin’s income chances under Obama.
Bummer..