moonbattery logo

Nov 28 2012

Parasites Nearly Outnumber Hosts

Some parasites sensibly allow their hosts enough nourishment to live. Others are so greedy that they kill their hosts in the assumption that another host can be found afterward. Liberals are parasites of the second variety. Anyone who doubts they are killing their host hasn’t seen this:

tax-burden

Some who draw a government paycheck perform needed services in return. Most do not — prominently including the best paid.

How many of them do they think we can carry on our backs?

On a tip from Bob Roberts.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter


  • Dr. 9

    For the weak, gullible, and mindlessly tolerant sheeple of America, the question shouldn’t be, how many more can we carry. The question should be, why should we carry any of them at all? We must return to the rules of the old South, rules that drove most lazy parasites to the socialist, “everything’s free” North. “You don’t work, you don’t eat“!

  • Buffalobob

    Dick Durban once again being a dick suggests that it is immoral for a hedge fund manager to earn millions when a Navy Seal on;y earns thousands. Should he also include the mindless hip hop artists, the nitwit hollywood actors, the TV celebs who earn hundreds of millions while the janitors working at their facilities earn minimum wage?

  • Comrade J

    Might I suggest that in the long run America lost the civil war? And the slavery is now expanded to all the willing fools who welcome it with both hands? The party of Slavery and KKK lives on.

    Runaway!

  • Jim

    Oh Pleeeeze, the problem is obvious, there are not enough parasites.

  • AC

    Time for the hyperinflation.

  • http://www.americanclarion.com dr. theo

    1.25 employed persons supporting one parasite. What’s even worse is that nearly half of that 1.25 block doesn’t pay taxes, meaning that the burden of supporting the parasites is nearly doubled on many of the most productive workers. I don’t know about you, but this makes me want to work some more overtime and maybe look for another part-time job so I can do even more.

  • http://popmogul.com/ Buffoon

    This infographic is racist.

  • Mickey Shea
  • Bill T
  • What???

    Way to call the our military a bunch of parasites.

  • Tax Slave

    AC,

    Wanna buy a Zimbabwe $trillion note?

  • M. Wilson

    Consider further that the average wage in the United States is $41,211.36 according to http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

    As you can see in another graph on the same site listed in the article, welfare benefits total up to $57,327.

    So, just looking at welfare, there are 1.65 workers per welfare recipient. On average, each welfare recipients makes 1.39 times as much as the workers. This means you would have to confiscate the entire paycheck of 1.39 workers to pay for one welfare recipient.

    If you divide that cost up between the 1.65 workers (if that sounds odd, imagine 100 welfare recipients and 165 workers) each worker would lose 84% of their paycheck to pay for this. Unfortunately, by the time the welfare leeches have taken their cut this means there isn’t enough left to pay for the Government, making debt inescapable unless you cut spending.

    The average government worker makes 85% more than the average private sector worker. This means for every dollar a private sector employee makes, a government employee makes 1.85 dollars. Therefore, unless you have more than 1.85 private workers per government worker, you get debt. As the chart shows, we could afford that, if it wasn’t for the fact that all of our money has already been sucked up by welfare.

    If you combine the government and welfare ratios and weight by population, together they make 1.505 times as much as a private sector worker on average. This means, at a 100% tax rate, you would need 1.505 private workers to pay for government and welfare combined. We have 1.25. Given this information, who here still thinks we can balance the budget by raising taxes?

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Here is another billionaire only liberals love saying we should now raise taxes (on his competitors) for purposes of “morale”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/27/buffett_tax_hikes_on_rich_would_raise_the_morale_of_the_middle_class.html
    Cronyists, government employees, and welfare brood sows agree.

    As with all skunks such as Buffett, always look to what he DOES, rather than what he SAYS
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-joins-team-whitney-sees-muni-pain-ahead-he-unwinds-half-his-bullish-exposure-ahead-time

  • Bill T

    D.C. Suburb Spending $100K on ‘Application Assistance’ for Illegals Seeking Obama’s ‘Deferred Action’
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dc-suburb-spending-100k-application-assistance-illegals-seeking-obamas-deferred-action

  • RealityCalling

    How about cutting pay for Senators, Representatives, Presidents, Governors, Secretaries of Whatevernobodyreallycares and their staff? Most of them are rich anyways. They can pay it for themselves!

  • Son of Taz

    When mentioning parasites, the one group that’s not often thought of is public sector employees. Many pay nothing into their pensions, but those of us stupid enough to hold gainful employment in the DPS (dreaded private sector) must fund our own retirement accounts as well as theirs.

    By the way, military do not count as public sector employees. These men and women serve and protect and I have no problem helping them. I do have a real problem with public sector paper-pushing bureaucrats that have no skin in the game.

  • Clingtomyguns

    The 2nd-century BC historian Polybius famously described the threat to freedom and order that results from an ambitious politician exploiting the selfish interests of the people by promising them the wealth of others: “For the mob,” Polybius writes, “habituated to feed at the expense of others, and to have its hopes of a livelihood in the property of its neighbors, as soon as it has got a leader sufficiently ambitious and daring, being excluded by poverty from the sweets of civil honors, produces a reign of mere violence.” Today, violent revolution is unlikely, not least because it is unnecessary. The expansionary federal government and its hoards of bureaucratic minions have replaced the ruthless tyrants of antiquity, creating the “soft despotism” de Tocqueville warned against. This entitlement leviathan increases its power and reach by giving more and more benefits and services to more and more people, all funded by expropriation of wealth from the productive.

    … Another way to see how the tax system redistributes wealth, consider how much each group receives in federal spending compared to how much they pay. According to the Tax Foundation, households in the lowest 20% of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, households in the middle 20% received $1.30, and households in the top 20% received $0.41. In other words, tax payments exceeded government spending for the top 40%, meaning there was a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion from one group of taxpayers to another. If this isn’t income redistribution from the “rich” to the “poor,” nothing is.

    … And Obama promised even more government booty, now disguised as “investments” to be paid for by appropriating even more money from those same greedy plutocrats. It was class-warfare at its nastiest, and it worked. Indeed, according to Jay Cost, it worked with the “lower-to-middle class, socially conservative whites” almost 10 million of whom, Cost calculates, stayed home because Obama had turned Romney into a super-rich “other” alien to the experience of the struggling masses.

    http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton111912.html

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy