Canada's middle class Is better than ours. This is despite...

[francoHFW]

Dupe or liar- always the question....

 

[francoHFW]

It was a tax hike on the rich. Tiny tho.
A plan to raise American incomes
Hillary will:
Give working families a raise, and tax relief that helps them manage rising costs.
Create good-paying jobs and get pay rising by investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to strengthen our economy and growth.
Close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.
Hillary believes the defining economic challenge of our time is raising incomes for hardworking Americans.

Too many families are working harder and harder, but still not getting ahead. Our country is standing again, but we’re not yet running the way we should be. From her first day in office to the last, Hillary Clinton will fight for you and for more take-home pay so you can get ahead and stay ahead.

Hillary understands that in order to raise incomes, we need strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth. And she has a plan to get us there.
Strong growth
Hillary will invest in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to create jobs and strengthen our economy. And she’ll provide tax relief to working families and small businesses. That’s how we’ll move toward a full employment economy that creates jobs, pushes businesses to compete over workers, and raises incomes.
Strong growth
Provide tax relief for families. Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families to increase their take-home pay as they face rising costs from child care, health care, and sending their kids to college. She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.
Unleash small business growth. Hillary’s father owned a small business—and she understands that small businesses are the backbone of jobs and growth in America. She’s put forward a small-business agenda to expand access to capital, provide tax relief, cut red tape, and help small businesses bring their goods to new markets.

Create a New College Compact. Hillary’s New College Compact will invest $350 billion so that students do not have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college in their state. Her plan will also significantly cut interest rates on student loans and enable an estimated 25 million Americans with student debt to refinance at today’s lower rates, saving the typical borrower $2,000 over the life of their loans.

Boost public investment in infrastructure and scientific research. One of the best ways to drive jobs and improve our nation’s competitiveness is to invest in infrastructure and scientific research. Hillary has called for a national infrastructure bank that would leverage public and private funds to invest in projects across the country. She will call for reform that closes corporate tax loopholes and drives investment here, in the U.S. And she would increase funding for scientific research at agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Lift up participation in the workforce—especially for women. For too long, issues like equal pay, paid leave, and affordable child care have been put off to the side as "women's issues." Hillary believes they are crucial to our competitiveness and growth—and to lifting incomes for working families.
Hillary has a strategy to "Make It in America"—and harness the strength of manufacturing nationwide.
Learn more
Fair growth
Inequality is a drag on our economy, and to get incomes rising again, we need to renew our country’s basic bargain. With near-record corporate profits and stagnant wages, the deck is stacked against working Americans. If you work hard, you deserve to get ahead and stay ahead.

fair growth 2
Ensure more workers share in near-record corporate profits. Corporate profits are near record highs—but workers have not shared through rising wages. Profit sharing is linked to higher pay, benefits, and productivity. That’s why Hillary’s plan creates a 15 percent tax credit for companies that share profits with workers on top of wages and pay increases.

Raising the minimum wage and strengthening overtime rules. Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for 15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. She also supports the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.

Reform our tax code so the wealthiest pay their fair share. Hillary supports ending the “carried interest” loophole, enacting the “Buffett Rule” that ensures no millionaire pays a lower effective tax rate than their secretary, and closing tax loopholes and expenditures that benefit the wealthiest taxpayers to pay for her plan to make college affordable and refinance student debt.

Expand early learning. Hillary’s proposal would work to ensure that every 4-year-old in America has access to high-quality preschool in the next 10 years.
Long-term growth

It's time to push back against the forces of "quarterly capitalism" and boom and bust cycles on Wall Street.

Long-term growth
Put an end to “quarterly capitalism.” We need an economy where companies plan for the long run and invest in their workers through increased wages and better training—leading to higher productivity, better service, and larger profits. Hillary will revamp the capital gains tax to reward farsighted investments that create jobs. She’ll address the rising influence of the kinds of so-called “activist” shareholders that focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth, and she’ll reform executive compensation to better align the interests of executives with long-term value.
Impose accountability on Wall Street. Nowhere will the shift from short-term to long-term thinking be more important than on Wall Street. Hillary will defend the Wall Street reforms put in place after the financial crisis—and she’ll go further. She’ll tackle dangerous risks in the financial sector, and she’ll appoint and empower tough, independent regulators and prosecute individuals and firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrong-doing.

Yes, another Clinton lying about taxes. Durr.

If you had a clue, you'd be be a liar. The 1993 tax hike was on the rich.
A plan to raise American incomes
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj4oLXw-5nNAhVEJiYKHfZOCPkQFggkMAE&url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_gist/1996/08/the_biggest_tax_increase_in_history.html&usg=AFQjCNEewG0rd91Tp3CxB_kgXH1nluLmYg&sig2=PclDOUo70bBrBTIr0nyf8g

As A Part Of The 1993 Budget, Bill Clinton Signed Into Law A $241 Billion Tax Hike. "Mr. Clinton and his supporters in Congress stressed that 80 percent of the new taxes would be paid by taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 and that 90 percent would be paid by those with incomes above $100,000.

Instead of a middle class tax cut, he raised taxes, even on those making less than $100,000 and also taxed poor old retired people on Social Security.

That was our first clue what lying scumbags the Clintons were.

"Only tax that affected the MC was the one on gasoline".
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...3CxB_kgXH1nluLmYg&sig2=PclDOUo70bBrBTIr0nyf8g

And those poor, retired couples making $44,000.....they were rich?
And all the taxpayers making $100,000 and less.....rich bastards too?

Those poor people only getting 73k in SS retirement in todays dollars lol...or making 166k in todays dollars. Middle class my ass...

 

[OKTexas]

Still got no balls I see. You pathetic hypocrite.

Wait I'm supposed to justify nudism to you? Nudism has never been considered a mental disorder you dumb shit.

A mental disorder can only be considered a mental disorder if it Causes distress to the individual and/or harms other people.

No, you want to completely reorder society for a minuscule minority who you claim aren't mentally ill, I just asked if your in favor of doing the same for another minority? I mean if faghadist don't have to accept societies definition of marriage, why should nudist have to accept societies definition of modesty and appropriate dress?

Lol what is this "reorder" non sense you are talking about? We are talking about what constitutes mental illness. We are also talking about having respect and maturity for one's sexual preferences that do not cause harm to others. If you cared at all about libertarianism, you wouldn't be the douche bag bigot that you are.

Well dumbass, you want to talk about libertarianism, you seem to forget that you freedom to be you, must include my freedom to be free from you if I disagree with your choices. So don't claim to be a libertarian and demand others accept your choices to the point you try to put them out of business if they chose not to associate with you. And FYI, we never discussed what constitutes mental illness, we only discussed if gays were mentally ill or not. And you still haven't answered my question, stop the dancing and answer the damned question, do you support the right of nudist to live as they chose the way you support gays? If not, why not?

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

Well once again you didn't address all my points but let's look at the ones you did for now.

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Why, they wouldn't be hurting anyone, why should anyone be distressed? They'd just be people going about their lives in a manner they chose. You have no concern for the women that are distressed about men going into their bathrooms, locker rooms or other private facilities, or the bakers, photographers and others distress about being forced to associate with gays at their events, due to the threats to their livelihood. So evidently, distress is a lame argument in your world, so why are you using it? Are you just bigoted against nudist?

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

But were not talking about public sex are we, or private sex for that matter? We are talking about gays demanding that we redefine our society to fit their lifestyle and we have no right, if we have a business, to refuse to associate with them. The same applies to the mythical trannies and their forcing their way into gender specific facilities. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you regressive sodomite enablers are nothing but hypocrites and the only thing you're consistent on is your inconsistency. So don't claim to be a libertarian, you ain't even close to the real deal.

 

[Billy000]

Wait I'm supposed to justify nudism to you? Nudism has never been considered a mental disorder you dumb shit.

A mental disorder can only be considered a mental disorder if it Causes distress to the individual and/or harms other people.

No, you want to completely reorder society for a minuscule minority who you claim aren't mentally ill, I just asked if your in favor of doing the same for another minority? I mean if faghadist don't have to accept societies definition of marriage, why should nudist have to accept societies definition of modesty and appropriate dress?

Lol what is this "reorder" non sense you are talking about? We are talking about what constitutes mental illness. We are also talking about having respect and maturity for one's sexual preferences that do not cause harm to others. If you cared at all about libertarianism, you wouldn't be the douche bag bigot that you are.

Well dumbass, you want to talk about libertarianism, you seem to forget that you freedom to be you, must include my freedom to be free from you if I disagree with your choices. So don't claim to be a libertarian and demand others accept your choices to the point you try to put them out of business if they chose not to associate with you. And FYI, we never discussed what constitutes mental illness, we only discussed if gays were mentally ill or not. And you still haven't answered my question, stop the dancing and answer the damned question, do you support the right of nudist to live as they chose the way you support gays? If not, why not?

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

Well once again you didn't address all my points but let's look at the ones you did for now.

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Why, they wouldn't be hurting anyone, why should anyone be distressed? They'd just be people going about their lives in a manner they chose. You have no concern for the women that are distressed about men going into their bathrooms, locker rooms or other private facilities, or the bakers, photographers and others distress about being forced to associate with gays at their events, due to the threats to their livelihood. So evidently, distress is a lame argument in your world, so why are you using it? Are you just bigoted against nudist?

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

But were not talking about public sex are we, or private sex for that matter? We are talking about gays demanding that we redefine our society to fit their lifestyle and we have no right, if we have a business, to refuse to associate with them. The same applies to the mythical trannies and their forcing their way into gender specific facilities. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you regressive sodomite enablers are nothing but hypocrites and the only thing you're consistent on is your inconsistency. So don't claim to be a libertarian, you ain't even close to the real deal.

Seeing people nude causes distress. How hard is that to understand? Transsexuals have used the bathrooms of their choosing for years. Long before republicans started to cry about it. They have not caused anyone any distress have they? At least no more than any non transsexual using the bathroom. You dumbasses trying to associate them with pedophiles doesn't change that. How are photographers being forced to do anything in regards to gay people?

What redefinition is going on with gay people exactly? Being gay has no mention at all in the constitution, especially in regards to marriage. The SC ruling simply expanded the right to people who should have already had it. Get over it.

 

[OKTexas]

No, you want to completely reorder society for a minuscule minority who you claim aren't mentally ill, I just asked if your in favor of doing the same for another minority? I mean if faghadist don't have to accept societies definition of marriage, why should nudist have to accept societies definition of modesty and appropriate dress?

Lol what is this "reorder" non sense you are talking about? We are talking about what constitutes mental illness. We are also talking about having respect and maturity for one's sexual preferences that do not cause harm to others. If you cared at all about libertarianism, you wouldn't be the douche bag bigot that you are.

Well dumbass, you want to talk about libertarianism, you seem to forget that you freedom to be you, must include my freedom to be free from you if I disagree with your choices. So don't claim to be a libertarian and demand others accept your choices to the point you try to put them out of business if they chose not to associate with you. And FYI, we never discussed what constitutes mental illness, we only discussed if gays were mentally ill or not. And you still haven't answered my question, stop the dancing and answer the damned question, do you support the right of nudist to live as they chose the way you support gays? If not, why not?

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

Well once again you didn't address all my points but let's look at the ones you did for now.

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Why, they wouldn't be hurting anyone, why should anyone be distressed? They'd just be people going about their lives in a manner they chose. You have no concern for the women that are distressed about men going into their bathrooms, locker rooms or other private facilities, or the bakers, photographers and others distress about being forced to associate with gays at their events, due to the threats to their livelihood. So evidently, distress is a lame argument in your world, so why are you using it? Are you just bigoted against nudist?

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

But were not talking about public sex are we, or private sex for that matter? We are talking about gays demanding that we redefine our society to fit their lifestyle and we have no right, if we have a business, to refuse to associate with them. The same applies to the mythical trannies and their forcing their way into gender specific facilities. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you regressive sodomite enablers are nothing but hypocrites and the only thing you're consistent on is your inconsistency. So don't claim to be a libertarian, you ain't even close to the real deal.

Seeing people nude causes distress. How hard is that to understand? Transsexuals have used the bathrooms of their choosing for years. Long before republicans started to cry about it. They have not caused anyone any distress have they? At least no more than any non transsexual using the bathroom. You dumbasses trying to associate them with pedophiles doesn't change that. How are photographers being forced to do anything in regards to gay people?

What redefinition is going on with gay people exactly? Being gay has no mention at all in the constitution, especially in regards to marriage. The SC ruling simply expanded the right to people who should have already had it. Get over it.

Now you're just lying, there was a thread just the other day about a lib lawyer who resigned her position after her two daughters freaked out when trannies came in to the bathroom they were in. Ask Target how their open bathroom policies are working for them. Seeing a couple of dudes swapping spit distresses and repulses many people. Like I said, distress is considered a lame argument in your world but you keep insisting on using it. Why is that? You folks just tell us to deal with it, yet you refuse to take the exact same position on nudist, proving you're just a control freak on subjects you claim to care about but you take the same stance we do on others. You know what that's called?

Hypocrisy

Also what you regressives fail to understand is there was no need to expand anything, gays already had the SAME ACCESS to marriage as every other person of their gender, there was no discrimination. Rights in this country aren't supposed to be given just because someone decides to conduct themselves in a manner not generally approved of by the society at large.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The mass exodus of US citizens to Canada that continues to never happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Calculating a median in that way is pathetic.

Do you know what median means? I don't think you do.

me·di·an
ˈmēdēən/
adjective

1. 1.
   denoting or relating to a value or quantity lying at the midpoint of a frequency distribution of observed values or quantities, such that there is an equal probability of falling above or below it.
   "the median duration of this treatment was four months"
2. 2.
   ANATOMYtechnical
   situated in the middle, especially of the body.
   "the median part of the sternum"

noun

1. 1.
   the median value of a range of values.
   
   
2. 2.
   NORTH AMERICAN
   the strip of land between the lanes of opposing traffic on a divided highway.

A median might be a useful stat for a normal distribution.

View attachment 77527

Not as useful for a Pareto distribution.

View attachment 77528

Tell us some more about the 1% middle class. ..Do you even understand what you posted?

William - "Americans (median)" - just hopeless. Americans are not the median American in the income distribution.

All income and wealth distributions are power law or steep peak, long level tail distributed, and have been everywhere in the world for as long as statistics in the matter have existed. The median in such distributions only characterizes the right tail. 85% of income in the US occurs above the median. That means most of what everyone relies on to live was earned by someone well above the median. The reality is the *mean* accurately reflects what happens with the American middle class. The median only reflects the status of the working poor. This happens because the median - count by noses - includes plenty of people only marginally part of the income distribution to begin with - part time, summer workers, students, retirees filing for their investment income and so forth.

The mean is a good approximation to the middle class, because the segment of the population with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 per year (by IRS filing) has half of all income and is about half of all filers. The mean is therefore not misleading for this set. The 5% above the upper line there have over 30% of all income and the 50% below the lower line there have less than 20% of all income. When journalist pretend the median is "normal" or is "everyone", they are therefore picking a line that is only at 40% of mean income and pretending everyone falls there. It is just statistical malpractice to characterized a power law distribution by its median.

Dude, where's my rate hike? Financials tumble post-jobs

This guy, Jason Cawley, does a much better job explaining it than I could.
I don't expect you to understand, you're not very bright.

Except your boy's esoteric take on what the middle class is, is not how it's done. It's not real world, it's fantasy.

Median has a meaning as a word as does mean. No one gets to rearrange them and redefine how they are used.

There is a point where 50% make more and 50% make less. That is the median. That's where the middle class lives and has always lived. Hence the moniker, middle class.

Only a moron would assert that a person earning a wage in the 99th percentile is a member of the middle class.
Therein lies your stupidity.

Annual Income:
200,000

That income percentile is:
99%
The next percentile begins at:
$309,288.00

Income Percentile Calculator - Find Your Percent With WhatsMyPercent.com

Is the middle class just that guy at the median?
Or is it a larger group of taxpayers on both sides of the median?

 

[Billy000]

Lol what is this "reorder" non sense you are talking about? We are talking about what constitutes mental illness. We are also talking about having respect and maturity for one's sexual preferences that do not cause harm to others. If you cared at all about libertarianism, you wouldn't be the douche bag bigot that you are.

Well dumbass, you want to talk about libertarianism, you seem to forget that you freedom to be you, must include my freedom to be free from you if I disagree with your choices. So don't claim to be a libertarian and demand others accept your choices to the point you try to put them out of business if they chose not to associate with you. And FYI, we never discussed what constitutes mental illness, we only discussed if gays were mentally ill or not. And you still haven't answered my question, stop the dancing and answer the damned question, do you support the right of nudist to live as they chose the way you support gays? If not, why not?

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

Well once again you didn't address all my points but let's look at the ones you did for now.

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Why, they wouldn't be hurting anyone, why should anyone be distressed? They'd just be people going about their lives in a manner they chose. You have no concern for the women that are distressed about men going into their bathrooms, locker rooms or other private facilities, or the bakers, photographers and others distress about being forced to associate with gays at their events, due to the threats to their livelihood. So evidently, distress is a lame argument in your world, so why are you using it? Are you just bigoted against nudist?

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

But were not talking about public sex are we, or private sex for that matter? We are talking about gays demanding that we redefine our society to fit their lifestyle and we have no right, if we have a business, to refuse to associate with them. The same applies to the mythical trannies and their forcing their way into gender specific facilities. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you regressive sodomite enablers are nothing but hypocrites and the only thing you're consistent on is your inconsistency. So don't claim to be a libertarian, you ain't even close to the real deal.

Seeing people nude causes distress. How hard is that to understand? Transsexuals have used the bathrooms of their choosing for years. Long before republicans started to cry about it. They have not caused anyone any distress have they? At least no more than any non transsexual using the bathroom. You dumbasses trying to associate them with pedophiles doesn't change that. How are photographers being forced to do anything in regards to gay people?

What redefinition is going on with gay people exactly? Being gay has no mention at all in the constitution, especially in regards to marriage. The SC ruling simply expanded the right to people who should have already had it. Get over it.

Now you're just lying, there was a thread just the other day about a lib lawyer who resigned her position after her two daughters freaked out when trannies came in to the bathroom they were in. Ask Target how their open bathroom policies are working for them. Seeing a couple of dudes swapping spit distresses and repulses many people. Like I said, distress is considered a lame argument in your world but you keep insisting on using it. Why is that? You folks just tell us to deal with it, yet you refuse to take the exact same position on nudist, proving you're just a control freak on subjects you claim to care about but you take the same stance we do on others. You know what that's called?

Hypocrisy

Also what you regressives fail to understand is there was no need to expand anything, gays already had the SAME ACCESS to marriage as every other person of their gender, there was no discrimination. Rights in this country aren't supposed to be given just because someone decides to conduct themselves in a manner not generally approved of by the society at large.

Oh really? And how did the girls know they were trannies? What made them feel threatened? Maybe they're just as immature as you are?. Transsexuals have proven to be no more threatening than other people.

It's amazing to me how you are harping on nudism lol. It's so laughable. Is that the best argument you can come up with? People view PDA between straight and gay couples the same way. Kids are negatively affected by nudity, not PDA. I mean Christ it's not like PDA is even common among gay people. You're just making shit up as you go.

Again, nothing in the constitution made any mention of mixed gender marriage, therefore gays are free to marry anyone they choose. Get over it. Your kind is dying. No one will give a shit when your time has passed.

 

[OKTexas]

Well dumbass, you want to talk about libertarianism, you seem to forget that you freedom to be you, must include my freedom to be free from you if I disagree with your choices. So don't claim to be a libertarian and demand others accept your choices to the point you try to put them out of business if they chose not to associate with you. And FYI, we never discussed what constitutes mental illness, we only discussed if gays were mentally ill or not. And you still haven't answered my question, stop the dancing and answer the damned question, do you support the right of nudist to live as they chose the way you support gays? If not, why not?

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

Well once again you didn't address all my points but let's look at the ones you did for now.

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Why, they wouldn't be hurting anyone, why should anyone be distressed? They'd just be people going about their lives in a manner they chose. You have no concern for the women that are distressed about men going into their bathrooms, locker rooms or other private facilities, or the bakers, photographers and others distress about being forced to associate with gays at their events, due to the threats to their livelihood. So evidently, distress is a lame argument in your world, so why are you using it? Are you just bigoted against nudist?

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

But were not talking about public sex are we, or private sex for that matter? We are talking about gays demanding that we redefine our society to fit their lifestyle and we have no right, if we have a business, to refuse to associate with them. The same applies to the mythical trannies and their forcing their way into gender specific facilities. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you regressive sodomite enablers are nothing but hypocrites and the only thing you're consistent on is your inconsistency. So don't claim to be a libertarian, you ain't even close to the real deal.

Seeing people nude causes distress. How hard is that to understand? Transsexuals have used the bathrooms of their choosing for years. Long before republicans started to cry about it. They have not caused anyone any distress have they? At least no more than any non transsexual using the bathroom. You dumbasses trying to associate them with pedophiles doesn't change that. How are photographers being forced to do anything in regards to gay people?

What redefinition is going on with gay people exactly? Being gay has no mention at all in the constitution, especially in regards to marriage. The SC ruling simply expanded the right to people who should have already had it. Get over it.

Now you're just lying, there was a thread just the other day about a lib lawyer who resigned her position after her two daughters freaked out when trannies came in to the bathroom they were in. Ask Target how their open bathroom policies are working for them. Seeing a couple of dudes swapping spit distresses and repulses many people. Like I said, distress is considered a lame argument in your world but you keep insisting on using it. Why is that? You folks just tell us to deal with it, yet you refuse to take the exact same position on nudist, proving you're just a control freak on subjects you claim to care about but you take the same stance we do on others. You know what that's called?

Hypocrisy

Also what you regressives fail to understand is there was no need to expand anything, gays already had the SAME ACCESS to marriage as every other person of their gender, there was no discrimination. Rights in this country aren't supposed to be given just because someone decides to conduct themselves in a manner not generally approved of by the society at large.

Oh really? And how did the girls know they were trannies? What made them feel threatened? Maybe they're just as immature as you are?. Transsexuals have proven to be no more threatening than other people.

It's amazing to me how you are harping on nudism lol. It's so laughable. Is that the best argument you can come up with? People view PDA between straight and gay couples the same way. Kids are negatively affected by nudity, not PDA. I mean Christ it's not like PDA is even common among gay people. You're just making shit up as you go.

Again, nothing in the constitution made any mention of mixed gender marriage, therefore gays are free to marry anyone they choose. Get over it. Your kind is dying. No one will give a shit when your time has passed.

Go check out the thread if you want to know how they recognized the men. And please explain exactly how children are negatively impacted by seeing another human body, you do know there are family oriented nudist resorts, right. I don't think kids of nudist families are any different, other than they don't have the puritan hang ups you seem to selectively embrace. So feel free to explain to the rest of us how nudity negatively impacts kids and unnatural relationships don't. I can't wait to hear this one.

 

[Billy000]

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

Well once again you didn't address all my points but let's look at the ones you did for now.

Nudists can obviously be nudists if they want to be. The problem is the distress of the public around them isn't it? Because it affects others, there must be limitations to where they can be nude.

Why, they wouldn't be hurting anyone, why should anyone be distressed? They'd just be people going about their lives in a manner they chose. You have no concern for the women that are distressed about men going into their bathrooms, locker rooms or other private facilities, or the bakers, photographers and others distress about being forced to associate with gays at their events, due to the threats to their livelihood. So evidently, distress is a lame argument in your world, so why are you using it? Are you just bigoted against nudist?

Comparing it to gay people is so dumb. Like straight couples, sex and nudity of gay couples is not permitted in public. Sex behind closed doors between consenting adults should have no exceptions, don't you think? How about you act like an adult and leave behind this junior high mentality about gay people?

But were not talking about public sex are we, or private sex for that matter? We are talking about gays demanding that we redefine our society to fit their lifestyle and we have no right, if we have a business, to refuse to associate with them. The same applies to the mythical trannies and their forcing their way into gender specific facilities. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you regressive sodomite enablers are nothing but hypocrites and the only thing you're consistent on is your inconsistency. So don't claim to be a libertarian, you ain't even close to the real deal.

Seeing people nude causes distress. How hard is that to understand? Transsexuals have used the bathrooms of their choosing for years. Long before republicans started to cry about it. They have not caused anyone any distress have they? At least no more than any non transsexual using the bathroom. You dumbasses trying to associate them with pedophiles doesn't change that. How are photographers being forced to do anything in regards to gay people?

What redefinition is going on with gay people exactly? Being gay has no mention at all in the constitution, especially in regards to marriage. The SC ruling simply expanded the right to people who should have already had it. Get over it.

Now you're just lying, there was a thread just the other day about a lib lawyer who resigned her position after her two daughters freaked out when trannies came in to the bathroom they were in. Ask Target how their open bathroom policies are working for them. Seeing a couple of dudes swapping spit distresses and repulses many people. Like I said, distress is considered a lame argument in your world but you keep insisting on using it. Why is that? You folks just tell us to deal with it, yet you refuse to take the exact same position on nudist, proving you're just a control freak on subjects you claim to care about but you take the same stance we do on others. You know what that's called?

Hypocrisy

Also what you regressives fail to understand is there was no need to expand anything, gays already had the SAME ACCESS to marriage as every other person of their gender, there was no discrimination. Rights in this country aren't supposed to be given just because someone decides to conduct themselves in a manner not generally approved of by the society at large.

Oh really? And how did the girls know they were trannies? What made them feel threatened? Maybe they're just as immature as you are?. Transsexuals have proven to be no more threatening than other people.

It's amazing to me how you are harping on nudism lol. It's so laughable. Is that the best argument you can come up with? People view PDA between straight and gay couples the same way. Kids are negatively affected by nudity, not PDA. I mean Christ it's not like PDA is even common among gay people. You're just making shit up as you go.

Again, nothing in the constitution made any mention of mixed gender marriage, therefore gays are free to marry anyone they choose. Get over it. Your kind is dying. No one will give a shit when your time has passed.

Go check out the thread if you want to know how they recognized the men. And please explain exactly how children are negatively impacted by seeing another human body, you do know there are family oriented nudist resorts, right. I don't think kids of nudist families are any different, other than they don't have the puritan hang ups you seem to selectively embrace. So feel free to explain to the rest of us how nudity negatively impacts kids and unnatural relationships don't. I can't wait to hear this one.

Kids already oriented with nudity probably can handle it at resorts. If not, maybe they shouldn't be allowed. It negatively affects kids around puberty when the hormones are raging.

 

[OKTexas]

Well once again you didn't address all my points but let's look at the ones you did for now.

Why, they wouldn't be hurting anyone, why should anyone be distressed? They'd just be people going about their lives in a manner they chose. You have no concern for the women that are distressed about men going into their bathrooms, locker rooms or other private facilities, or the bakers, photographers and others distress about being forced to associate with gays at their events, due to the threats to their livelihood. So evidently, distress is a lame argument in your world, so why are you using it? Are you just bigoted against nudist?

But were not talking about public sex are we, or private sex for that matter? We are talking about gays demanding that we redefine our society to fit their lifestyle and we have no right, if we have a business, to refuse to associate with them. The same applies to the mythical trannies and their forcing their way into gender specific facilities. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you regressive sodomite enablers are nothing but hypocrites and the only thing you're consistent on is your inconsistency. So don't claim to be a libertarian, you ain't even close to the real deal.

Seeing people nude causes distress. How hard is that to understand? Transsexuals have used the bathrooms of their choosing for years. Long before republicans started to cry about it. They have not caused anyone any distress have they? At least no more than any non transsexual using the bathroom. You dumbasses trying to associate them with pedophiles doesn't change that. How are photographers being forced to do anything in regards to gay people?

What redefinition is going on with gay people exactly? Being gay has no mention at all in the constitution, especially in regards to marriage. The SC ruling simply expanded the right to people who should have already had it. Get over it.

Now you're just lying, there was a thread just the other day about a lib lawyer who resigned her position after her two daughters freaked out when trannies came in to the bathroom they were in. Ask Target how their open bathroom policies are working for them. Seeing a couple of dudes swapping spit distresses and repulses many people. Like I said, distress is considered a lame argument in your world but you keep insisting on using it. Why is that? You folks just tell us to deal with it, yet you refuse to take the exact same position on nudist, proving you're just a control freak on subjects you claim to care about but you take the same stance we do on others. You know what that's called?

Hypocrisy

Also what you regressives fail to understand is there was no need to expand anything, gays already had the SAME ACCESS to marriage as every other person of their gender, there was no discrimination. Rights in this country aren't supposed to be given just because someone decides to conduct themselves in a manner not generally approved of by the society at large.

Oh really? And how did the girls know they were trannies? What made them feel threatened? Maybe they're just as immature as you are?. Transsexuals have proven to be no more threatening than other people.

It's amazing to me how you are harping on nudism lol. It's so laughable. Is that the best argument you can come up with? People view PDA between straight and gay couples the same way. Kids are negatively affected by nudity, not PDA. I mean Christ it's not like PDA is even common among gay people. You're just making shit up as you go.

Again, nothing in the constitution made any mention of mixed gender marriage, therefore gays are free to marry anyone they choose. Get over it. Your kind is dying. No one will give a shit when your time has passed.

Go check out the thread if you want to know how they recognized the men. And please explain exactly how children are negatively impacted by seeing another human body, you do know there are family oriented nudist resorts, right. I don't think kids of nudist families are any different, other than they don't have the puritan hang ups you seem to selectively embrace. So feel free to explain to the rest of us how nudity negatively impacts kids and unnatural relationships don't. I can't wait to hear this one.

Kids already oriented with nudity probably can handle it at resorts. If not, maybe they shouldn't be allowed. It negatively affects kids around puberty when the hormones are raging.

BLAH blah blah, every argument you're using against nudity would be valid against kids being forcibly exposed to unnatural relationships, you just refuse to admit it. Now go away and be your typical loser hypocrite self.

 

[The Rabbi]

How America's middle class fell behind its Canadian neighbours

If you’re a proud member of America’s middle class, you may have been startled to learn last week that your after-tax income now makes you worse off than your Canadian neighbors to the north. They can now claim the title of the richest middle class on the planet.

Let’s take a look at the bombshell that the New York Times dropped in our midstlast week. It’s based on data from the Luxembourg Income Study Database, and focuses squarely on median income.

That means that instead of being distorted by the impact of millionaires and billionaires becoming still richer and the wealth gap becoming still wider, using this data gives analysts a sense of the experience of the average household in any given country. It also means an economist can compare overall economic growth of a country to the experience of individual households in that country – and by those standards, the United States just doesn’t come off that well.

Because while our economy has been growing more rapidly than those of other nations, a smaller percentage of those households is sharing in that prosperity, the data suggests. (Income inequality is at its highest level since 1928.)

Income, take home pay, better for the middle class Canandian than for the middle class American. looks like Billy was right on this.

If you’re a proud member of America’s middle class, you may have been startled to learn last week that your after-tax income now makes you worse off than your Canadian neighbors to the north.


Median per capita income in the U.S. has barely budged since 2000, while Canadians have seen their median income jump 20 percent.

Holy crap! There may be a less useful stat than "median per capita income", but I'll be damned if I can think of it.

Median means you line up all the numbers from lowest to highest and the number in the middle is the median.
How you turn that into a per capita number is some kind of liberal head-up-assery for sure.
Did they take the median household income and divide it by the average household size?

Wow, moronic for sure.
.

Little things like facts, reality and statistics are irrelevant for Billy Major Fail, worst poster on USMB. He gets a factoid to show whatever and runs with it.
And somehow the idea that Obama, who has been president for nearly 8years is actually responsible for the shitty economy never enters his mind.

Little things like facts, reality and statistics are irrelevant for Billy Major Fail, worst poster on USMB.

What does that say about you when you feel compelled to point that out in three to five posts a page?

Obviously Billy is on to something as you all feel the need to jump on him with extreme vitriol.

Good job Billy. Make their heads spin and spit nonsense at you. That's when you know you've nailed it.

So the fact that everyone jumped in to show how wrong he was, how fallacious his post, how stupid his assertions, how they lacked any suppport or evidence indicates that he was correct?

The overwhelming lip service without corroboration tipped your hand.

We can add "lip service" to the long list of things you don't know about.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh really? And how did the girls know they were trannies? What made them feel threatened? Maybe they're just as immature as you are?. Transsexuals have proven to be no more threatening than other people.

It's amazing to me how you are harping on nudism lol. It's so laughable. Is that the best argument you can come up with? People view PDA between straight and gay couples the same way. Kids are negatively affected by nudity, not PDA. I mean Christ it's not like PDA is even common among gay people. You're just making shit up as you go.

Again, nothing in the constitution made any mention of mixed gender marriage, therefore gays are free to marry anyone they choose. Get over it. Your kind is dying. No one will give a shit when your time has passed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions anything about marriage gay or straight. It was never a constitutional issue until the flakes pushed it to the Supreme Court.

Why did the girls in the bathroom feel threatened? Because it's a normal reaction when women have a man in their bathroom or shower. I don't care if he has a work shirt and construction hat or a dress and a purse. He's still a Fn guy for crying out loud. You people believe this BS that if a guy thinks he's a woman, he actually is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the GOP that makes the laws that make outsourcing so profitable and refuses to change them, dupe. Leave little Rhodie alone lol...

The GOP can't make outsourcing profitable. It's either profitable on it's own or it's not. Outsourcing was the reaction by companies that were paying too much in American labor and benefits mostly led by the unions in this country. The GOP had nothing to do with that.

 

[Billy000]

Seeing people nude causes distress. How hard is that to understand? Transsexuals have used the bathrooms of their choosing for years. Long before republicans started to cry about it. They have not caused anyone any distress have they? At least no more than any non transsexual using the bathroom. You dumbasses trying to associate them with pedophiles doesn't change that. How are photographers being forced to do anything in regards to gay people?

What redefinition is going on with gay people exactly? Being gay has no mention at all in the constitution, especially in regards to marriage. The SC ruling simply expanded the right to people who should have already had it. Get over it.

Now you're just lying, there was a thread just the other day about a lib lawyer who resigned her position after her two daughters freaked out when trannies came in to the bathroom they were in. Ask Target how their open bathroom policies are working for them. Seeing a couple of dudes swapping spit distresses and repulses many people. Like I said, distress is considered a lame argument in your world but you keep insisting on using it. Why is that? You folks just tell us to deal with it, yet you refuse to take the exact same position on nudist, proving you're just a control freak on subjects you claim to care about but you take the same stance we do on others. You know what that's called?

Hypocrisy

Also what you regressives fail to understand is there was no need to expand anything, gays already had the SAME ACCESS to marriage as every other person of their gender, there was no discrimination. Rights in this country aren't supposed to be given just because someone decides to conduct themselves in a manner not generally approved of by the society at large.

Oh really? And how did the girls know they were trannies? What made them feel threatened? Maybe they're just as immature as you are?. Transsexuals have proven to be no more threatening than other people.

It's amazing to me how you are harping on nudism lol. It's so laughable. Is that the best argument you can come up with? People view PDA between straight and gay couples the same way. Kids are negatively affected by nudity, not PDA. I mean Christ it's not like PDA is even common among gay people. You're just making shit up as you go.

Again, nothing in the constitution made any mention of mixed gender marriage, therefore gays are free to marry anyone they choose. Get over it. Your kind is dying. No one will give a shit when your time has passed.

Go check out the thread if you want to know how they recognized the men. And please explain exactly how children are negatively impacted by seeing another human body, you do know there are family oriented nudist resorts, right. I don't think kids of nudist families are any different, other than they don't have the puritan hang ups you seem to selectively embrace. So feel free to explain to the rest of us how nudity negatively impacts kids and unnatural relationships don't. I can't wait to hear this one.

Kids already oriented with nudity probably can handle it at resorts. If not, maybe they shouldn't be allowed. It negatively affects kids around puberty when the hormones are raging.

BLAH blah blah, every argument you're using against nudity would be valid against kids being forcibly exposed to unnatural relationships, you just refuse to admit it. Now go away and be your typical loser hypocrite self.

Oh really? So what exactly happens to kids who are explosed to "unnatural" relationships? See women don't like to see men naked. Kids can't handle people being naked. Being exposed to a relationship of any gender mix does not do shit to kids unless sex or nudity is involved.

 

[francoHFW]

It's the GOP that makes the laws that make outsourcing so profitable and refuses to change them, dupe. Leave little Rhodie alone lol...

The GOP can't make outsourcing profitable. It's either profitable on it's own or it's not. Outsourcing was the reaction by companies that were paying too much in American labor and benefits mostly led by the unions in this country. The GOP had nothing to do with that.

It's the GOP that makes the laws that make outsourcing so profitable and refuses to change them, dupe. Leave little Rhodie alone lol...

The GOP can't make outsourcing profitable. It's either profitable on it's own or it's not. Outsourcing was the reaction by companies that were paying too much in American labor and benefits mostly led by the unions in this country. The GOP had nothing to do with that.

In a pig's eye, dupe.
Republicans Responsible for Shipping American Jobs Overseas and ...
republicansexposed.org/republicans-responsible-for-jobs-lost-and-outsourcing/
May 17, 2016 - Because each time after Republicans have voted against legislation ... to include any proposal to stop outsourcing and save American jobs, ...
Senate Republicans Vote Against American Jobs By Blocking Bill To ...
www.politicususa.com/.../senate-republicans-vote-american-jobs-blocking-bill-outsou...
Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill today that would potentially bring ... Vote AgainstAmerican Jobs By Blocking Bill To End Outsourcing Tax Breaks ... Because each time afterRepublicans have voted against legislation good ...
Did Republicans oppose closing corporate tax loopholes for ...
www.politifact.com/.../republicans-closing-corporate-tax-loopholes/
PolitiFact.com
Sep 7, 2011 - Republicans support tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas, says ... "Thelaw, right now, permits companies that close down American factories and ... along party lines, with Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against it. ... with fighting for tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's the GOP that makes the laws that make outsourcing so profitable and refuses to change them, dupe. Leave little Rhodie alone lol...

The GOP can't make outsourcing profitable. It's either profitable on it's own or it's not. Outsourcing was the reaction by companies that were paying too much in American labor and benefits mostly led by the unions in this country. The GOP had nothing to do with that.

It's the GOP that makes the laws that make outsourcing so profitable and refuses to change them, dupe. Leave little Rhodie alone lol...

The GOP can't make outsourcing profitable. It's either profitable on it's own or it's not. Outsourcing was the reaction by companies that were paying too much in American labor and benefits mostly led by the unions in this country. The GOP had nothing to do with that.

In a pig's eye, dupe.
Republicans Responsible for Shipping American Jobs Overseas and ...
republicansexposed.org/republicans-responsible-for-jobs-lost-and-outsourcing/
May 17, 2016 - Because each time after Republicans have voted against legislation ... to include any proposal to stop outsourcing and save American jobs, ...
Senate Republicans Vote Against American Jobs By Blocking Bill To ...
www.politicususa.com/.../senate-republicans-vote-american-jobs-blocking-bill-outsou...
Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill today that would potentially bring ... Vote AgainstAmerican Jobs By Blocking Bill To End Outsourcing Tax Breaks ... Because each time afterRepublicans have voted against legislation good ...
Did Republicans oppose closing corporate tax loopholes for ...
www.politifact.com/.../republicans-closing-corporate-tax-loopholes/
PolitiFact.com
Sep 7, 2011 - Republicans support tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas, says ... "Thelaw, right now, permits companies that close down American factories and ... along party lines, with Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against it. ... with fighting for tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.

Blocking Bill To End Outsourcing Tax Breaks

There are no "Outsourcing Tax Breaks".

You want companies to stop moving operations away, cut corporate taxes.
But you don't, because you're a stupid liberal tool, but then I repeat myself.

 

[ptbw forever]

1) Canada having a higher minimum wage

2) Canada having a higher tax rate on the wealthy

3) Canada having Widespread unions

4) Canada having strong bank regulations

5) Canada having free healthcare

Canada still has a central bank that creates credit out of thin air and taxes the masses. Canada doesn't have a military industrial complex monster to feed either....so your comparison is like apples to oranges.

Yeah they've avoided a ridiculous and overbloated defense budget haven't they?

You mean the one we are footing the bill for?

 

[ptbw forever]

1) Canada having a higher minimum wage

2) Canada having a higher tax rate on the wealthy

3) Canada having Widespread unions

4) Canada having strong bank regulations

5) Canada having free healthcare

What is a "better middle class"? What does that even mean?
I sense another spectacular Billy Fail Thread coming.

Do you not understand what an economic class is? Of course you don't. How silly of me.

OK so you have no answer. Pure, straight ignorance.
Do they have higher average incomes? Higher average household wealth? Longer life spans? Higher rates of consumption? Higher personal satisfaction?
Nothing. You've got nothing. You haven't quantified what you wrote, much less backed it up by any evidence.
You fail because you are Billy Triple Zero.

So you're just going to pretend their middle class didn't surpass ours? They have higher incomes you dumbass. Of course apparently you are too stupid to realize life spans isn't a measure of middle class.

Just like the middle class is failing in Europe because of left wing idiocy, Canada will turn into a dump from the very same left wing idiocy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the GOP that makes the laws that make outsourcing so profitable and refuses to change them, dupe. Leave little Rhodie alone lol...

The GOP can't make outsourcing profitable. It's either profitable on it's own or it's not. Outsourcing was the reaction by companies that were paying too much in American labor and benefits mostly led by the unions in this country. The GOP had nothing to do with that.

It's the GOP that makes the laws that make outsourcing so profitable and refuses to change them, dupe. Leave little Rhodie alone lol...

The GOP can't make outsourcing profitable. It's either profitable on it's own or it's not. Outsourcing was the reaction by companies that were paying too much in American labor and benefits mostly led by the unions in this country. The GOP had nothing to do with that.

In a pig's eye, dupe.
Republicans Responsible for Shipping American Jobs Overseas and ...
republicansexposed.org/republicans-responsible-for-jobs-lost-and-outsourcing/
May 17, 2016 - Because each time after Republicans have voted against legislation ... to include any proposal to stop outsourcing and save American jobs, ...
Senate Republicans Vote Against American Jobs By Blocking Bill To ...
www.politicususa.com/.../senate-republicans-vote-american-jobs-blocking-bill-outsou...
Jul 30, 2014 - Senate Republicans blocked a bill today that would potentially bring ... Vote AgainstAmerican Jobs By Blocking Bill To End Outsourcing Tax Breaks ... Because each time afterRepublicans have voted against legislation good ...
Did Republicans oppose closing corporate tax loopholes for ...
www.politifact.com/.../republicans-closing-corporate-tax-loopholes/
PolitiFact.com
Sep 7, 2011 - Republicans support tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas, says ... "Thelaw, right now, permits companies that close down American factories and ... along party lines, with Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against it. ... with fighting for tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.

Here, why not try a real source: Factcheck.org:

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

Or in short, Democrats are FOS.

FULL QUESTION

President Obama said on the campaign trail that there is a tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. That was in response to Mitt Romney’s statement that there is not a tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. Who is right??

FULL ANSWER

Do companies get a tax break for shipping U.S. jobs overseas? Several readers asked us that question after it came up during the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

Obama claimed that “companies that are shipping jobs overseas” get tax breaks, saying that they “can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas.” But Mitt Romney said that he had “no idea” what the president was talking about, adding that “the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.” And both men are right, in a way.

There is no specific tax break for the sole purpose of relocating a U.S. job to another country, as Romney said. But the tax code does allow companies to deduct business expenses when calculating their tax liability. And those expenses can include the costs of moving a job to another state or even to another country, according to tax experts with whom we spoke. The White House confirmed in an email that that is what Obama was referring to in the debate.

“Firms can generally deduct business expenses,” said Kimberly Clausing, the Thormund A. Miller and Walter Mintz Professor of Economics at Reed College. “Thus, of course, if firms incurred expenses in moving abroad, they would be able to deduct those expenses.”

“My interpretation is that the President’s statement was accurate,” she said in an email to FactCheck.org

Talking Tax Breaks for Offshoring

In other words, Democrats are FOS again. There are no special tax breaks for moving jobs overseas.