65 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
Speaking of budgets and taxes
And one of the largest
companies 'taking advantage' of those tax laws and 'avoiding civic responsibilities' is GE....and who was/is the CEO and BO's jobs czar????? Another case of 'pot, kettle, black'. A perfect example of those 'nasty un-patriotic' capitalists that BO and the Dems talk hyped-up phony disgust for yet covet endlessly. "Pay attention to this hand, while the other hand picks your pocket" mentality....but it works on the stupid and ignorant voters.
stupid and ignorant voters will decide the fate of the Tea Party.
Perhaps that term "stupid and ignorant voters" would make a good slogan for the Tea Party.
You're stupid and ignorant and I'm not. Vote for me.
RE: 'avoiding civic responsibilities' is GE
As you've stated lately...Since corporations are LEGALLY responsible to their shareholders and investors, it is LAW that they protect that side first and foremost and if that means moving to a lower taxed country for their headquarters, that's what they do..When it comes to GE..... YOU have a problem?
companies have the responsibility to their shareholders and investors to make the best decisions about how to keep profits coming in, and if that means they move overseas, then that's what they do. I don't like the hypocricy of Dems and this administration especially berating that capitalistic and legal method of doing business in the USA which has the largest corporate tax rate in the entire world and wants even more of that pie.
Do YOU believe that companies that start off with, usually, personal money and/or loans or investments from other private persons risking THEIR money to make a profit by building a better mousetrap having to 'share their wealth' with the government (all levels since they tax separately) just so the government can give it people who haven't earned any of it?
Perhaps a better method, instead of handing out paychecks to employees, all companies should do what Buffett does with his OWN companies....take a paycheck in the form of stock in the company instead. That way, every company would be co-owned by the employees........without any cash, perhaps they would all then be eligible for the freebies that the government hands out. Oh wait.....if they all did that, the government would fold because there wouldn't be ANY money coming in the door to 'share'.
So, when you said this
banks were too big to fail to he felt the need to protest BofA for that reason, but not GM. At least the banks were FORCED to take the TARP money......GM and Chrysler just stood around with their hand out to BO for theirs...GM twice.....and they don't feel obligated to repay it.
You weren't complaining about GM?
RE: Nope...I don't
And one of the largest 'taking advantage' of those tax laws and 'avoiding civic responsibilities' is GE
A perfect example of those 'nasty un-patriotic' capitalists
Your above statement says you DO have a problem with GE....AND you have a problem with GM AND Chrysler.
here's another of your statements
I can't figure out how come you guys aren't upset over GE not paying any taxes.....and THAT information has been out there for a year already....and Immelt is a lot richer than Romney. Oh wait....Immelt is a Democrat, has most of his jobs created OVERSEAS, is a jobs advisor to BO, is protected by default, and isn't running for president. At least that will be the reason I get, right?
What IS going on with you Toni...it seems you've changed your position 180 degrees?
You think GE aren't paying enough taxes in 8/3/2012 and NOW Since corporations are LEGALLY responsible to their shareholders and investors, it is LAW that they protect that side first and foremost and if that means moving to a lower taxed country for their headquarters, that's what they do they should be avoiding as many taxes as they can.
Are you playing the market?
I haven't changed my position at all
I have no problem with GE moving overseas to protect their company's investors and shareholders because of the tax situation, which is the highest corporate tax in the world. YOU are the one who is taking 'sarcasm' and pointing out the hypocricy of this administration and assuming I've changed my mind. IF the tax rate was lowered, many companies would stay here and the revenue would again be going into the coffers to be taxed at a reasonable rate.....and if a deal could be made to tax money that is parked overseas to lower that rate as well, as has happened before, money would flow back at a huge rate.
How about protecting their employees
and they do use the American socialism but don't want to support that either.
Haven't you realized yet
that with this administration, the GOVERNMENT is supposed to take care of the employees, especially when they no longer have jobs to go to?
And what is American Socialism other than cradle to grave government 'protection' and 'care'? How do corporations use that?
I didn't know you approved of cradle to grave
You would rather people be homeless and starve and die of curable diseases..
American socialism is combining tax revenue for the good of all. It is fire and police departments. It is building infrastructure and fixing roads and bridges. It is plowing the streets and public schools. In other countries it is health care and public higher education but not here.
Fire and Police
are local level revenue, Diana....and in some communities, fire is volunteer and fund raising in the community pays for their equipment and buildings and training. (I know because I live in one of those communities).
Roads and bridges should be State level (not Federal).....the only reason Federal is involved is because of the intrastate taxes they can impose.
The Dept of Education is a joke.........schools should also be State level with the local level reporting what they need for their budgets. Local taxes pay for most of that already (I know about this also since I ran for office here), with extra funding coming from the Federal level because of the census.....if school population drops, that funding drops as well. And yet the Dept of Education is the all-knowing "God" that dictates not only what type of education the kids should have but also what foods they can eat and drink. It's out of control and takes more from the school budgets when the food is thrown away because it's not satisfying or tastes good. They might as well send in MR's from the military.
Only a liberal believes that 'combining tax revenue for the good of all' is a good thing..........the truly good thing is to have the State or Local communities combine their revenue for the good of the people within their state or community. Instead, the taxes go directly to the Feds, who then dole SOME of it back to the State so they can send MORE to states THEY decide needs it.
How many years have we had homeless people sleeping in cardboard shanties on the streets of NYC or Chicago or Detroit or Cleveland or anywhere else and have done little to nothing about it, Diana? Your 'poor wretch' rhetoric is disgustingly patronizing because I have to ask you if you have ever offered your spare bedroom to one of those homeless people or invited them into your home for a hot meal? I HAVE..........true compassion doesn't come from someone else's sacrifice or wallet, Diana........it starts with individuals who care enough to actually DO something. And most liberals DO NOT.
I didn't specify of which level of government
pool the tax revenue. BTW the interstate highway system is the responsibility of the Federal government.
As for the poor and homeless, I never said anything about poor wretch. So it will solve the homeless and poor problem if everyone comes up with a spare room and hands out a meal once in a while?
I like the idea that Utah came up with. They find apartments for the homeless. Turns out it's cheaper to do that than for the police keep rousting them and having them spend nights in jail and trips to the ER. They are assigned a social worker to help them become self-sufficient. Sounds better than giving a homeless person a sandwich once in a while. Here's the link. http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183
It's better than throwing them in jail or destroying their stuff or giving them a one-way bus ticket to anywhere.
The highway system
was originally all State and Local responsibility until many of those roads started crossing state lines...however, The Interstate Commerce Act was put into place in 1887 to regulate RAILROAD companies because they were privately owned and operated and the government saw this as 'monopolies' that became too powerful regarding pricing, etc.
>>>The act, with its provision for the ICC, remains one of America's most important documents serving as a model for future government regulation of private business.>>>
Grover Cleveland was President at the time and during the same year he also signed into law the Dawes Severalty Act into place that devastated the Indian Tribes putting them all under Federal law. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cleveland-signs-devastating-dawes-act-into-law
These are just two examples of how Democrats have consistently gone after total and complete control.
As for the interstate roads being under Federal jurisdiction, as roads began crossing state lines, the Feds decided that they had control of that just as they did with the railroads because there was money to be made or they wouldn't have bothered since no roads were ever privately owned or operated....the States controlled that and no matter what the Constitution says about States controlling themselves, the Federal Government has consistently undermined that control at every turn and continues to do so to this day.
The interstate highway system was put in place by Ike.
What does buses have to do with the highway system?
Regulation is always about money, Diana
Because buses and trucks would cross state lines just as the railroads did, many of them chartered like Greyhound, the Feds decided to regulate that because it meant more revenue due to the ICC laws. Do you have any idea how much trucking companies have to pay the Feds once they became a more popular mode of transportation than trains?
Still don't know what that had to do with
building an interstate highway system?
Ike said it was in case of an invasion and we needed to get equipment places quickly.
You're the one, Diana
who brought up the highway system as the Fed government's responsibility. I just pointed out that it wasn't until FDR started the ICC in order to tax the buses and trucking industry like they did with the railroads. IKE only wanted the funds on a temporary basis and put into place the actual numbering system. A Dem put the monetary issue into place, a Rep wanted to expand the road system but only wanted the funding to be temporary and then end and put it back into the hands of the States. The next Dem put in permanently and it's been that way ever since....
Dems love control and cash and will do whatever they can get away with (and it's been plenty) in order to keep both in place.
I was just bringing up things that are socialistic
Things are socialistic
because that's the only way Dems could/can control the people and the money.......that is not a Republican/Conservative desire. Dems and liberals don't like the fact that Reps/Conservatives have finally figured it out and are fighting back.
Toni RE: can control the people
make sure that all are treated equally?
There is a difference, JP
between 'equal treatment' and 'equal opportunity'.....liberals confuse those issues constantly.
There will never be 'equal treatment' strictly because of their own failings to take advantage of 'equal opportunity'.....
Talk to any person who was born into poverty but rose above it to be successful in life because they refused to stay in that position and seized opportunities or took legal personal risks in order to leave poverty.
And none of this 'deflect' and 'divert' topic of yours has to do with the 2009 Budget debate, does it?
RE; And none of this 'deflect' and 'divert' topic of yours
And none of this 'deflect' and 'divert' topic of yours has to do with the 2009 Budget debate, does it?
and 2009 events aren't diverting and deflecting what's going on in 2014?
2009 Budget is still
being discussed/debated even now, JP........and this new bill coming from the House to keep the government going will be discussed because BO wants $500M added to it so he can finally arm the 'farmers, physicians, and pharmacists' in Syria after scoffing at them a few short months ago.
Republicans will probably give it to him, but they are trying to see if something domestically can be cut to pay for it so it doesn't get added to the National Debt 'credit card'........isn't THAT ironic, since BO, Dems, and liberals complained about Bush's 'credit card' for wars for years now, even though they voted for that.
If BO and the Dems refuse to cut anything in order to pay for this new 'war', BO will do exactly the same thing that Bush did, even with bi-partisan support for it, and when he leaves office, he'll finally be blamed for the National Debt credit card debt that HE'LL leave behind.
Re:2009 Budget is still being discussed/debated even now, JP
Tell everyone WHY.
the term "crying over spilled milk" come to mind.
is what the Dems do best when they try to rewrite history and make everything about Bush and lay no blame directly at BO's feet....even HE can't handle the truth because he makes stuff up as he goes along.....he's probably the best at rewriting his own history.
I can't figure out how come you guys aren't upset over GE not paying any taxes.
Please tell us where is GE going to find a tax rate lower than not paying any taxes.
"not paying any taxes". Wasn't another on of your typos was it?
I still think you've "changed your opinion", even though you can't/will not admit it.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)