Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[Al Azar]

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

I pointed out that "pass through" doesn't mean no taxes, it means it's paid on a personal instead of a corporate form. BTW, we still have CPAs and they still complete tax forms, just the tax is paid through my personal form rather than my corporate form.

So you tell me what point you're making that isn't just butt hurt over your hatred of the rich and corporations which form the tax is actually paid on?

I see. You finally concede I was right and now you're criticizing me about something you know nothing about, something you "think" motivates me because I made a simple factual statement that you don't like.

Sheesh. Grow up.

Actually you conceded I was right. You said corporations don't pay taxes. When you turned out to be wrong, you changed it to that it's not called a corporate tax.

So I asked you what difference that made, what the tax is called, and you're running away

Fine. Support your charge. Quote where I said that corporations don't pay taxes. Everything I've posted is in black and white and already quoted many times, but you go ahead and start searching for something I never said.

And when you discover that I never said any such thing, figure out some new lie and dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

Quote me. Direct us all to what you think I said, by time and date. Show us all, once and for all, that you have no idea what you've actually read in this thread, only what you wish you'd read.

 

[PredFan]

Already done moron, can't read?

One of them was GDP. ..

Q4 2007 - 14,997 trillion

Q4 2007 - 14,577 trillion

-2.8% for the year


You're a fucking dumbass.

Hey dumbass, want to try again?

Why?

I've made my point... . you're an imbecile...

Because idiot, there's a typo there. You have two different stats for the same year. Want to try again dumbass?

2008......

You feel vindicated?

Lol, both stats during Bush's term. Do you have any clue as to what the discussion is about? Nevermind, your stupidity has worn me right out. I can't take any more of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. The problems bush left were bad but Obama hasn't fixed them he has magnified them. We've gone from stage one to stage three cancer these past eight years.

 

[Al Azar]

Yes. The problems bush left were bad but Obama hasn't fixed them he has magnified them. We've gone from stage one to stage three cancer these past eight years.

And one solution is to go back to smoking.

Smart.

 

[IcebergSlim]

One of them was GDP. ..

Q4 2007 - 14,997 trillion

Q4 2007 - 14,577 trillion

-2.8% for the year


You're a fucking dumbass.

Hey dumbass, want to try again?

Why?

I've made my point... . you're an imbecile...

Because idiot, there's a typo there. You have two different stats for the same year. Want to try again dumbass?

2008......

You feel vindicated?

Lol, both stats during Bush's term. Do you have any clue as to what the discussion is about? Nevermind, your stupidity has worn me right out. I can't take any more of it.

Do I need to provide the GDP number of the most recent 4 quarters so you can compare?

If so, then you clearly didn't know what they were when you originally claimed that they are now "wurs"....

Next time I tell you that you are an idiot, you say

" Thank you."

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yes. The problems bush left were bad but Obama hasn't fixed them he has magnified them. We've gone from stage one to stage three cancer these past eight years.

Specifically?

 

[IcebergSlim]

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

I pointed out that "pass through" doesn't mean no taxes, it means it's paid on a personal instead of a corporate form. BTW, we still have CPAs and they still complete tax forms, just the tax is paid through my personal form rather than my corporate form.

So you tell me what point you're making that isn't just butt hurt over your hatred of the rich and corporations which form the tax is actually paid on?

I see. You finally concede I was right and now you're criticizing me about something you know nothing about, something you "think" motivates me because I made a simple factual statement that you don't like.

Sheesh. Grow up.

Actually you conceded I was right. You said corporations don't pay taxes. When you turned out to be wrong, you changed it to that it's not called a corporate tax.

So I asked you what difference that made, what the tax is called, and you're running away

Fine. Support your charge. Quote where I said that corporations don't pay taxes. Everything I've posted is in black and white and already quoted many times, but you go ahead and start searching for something I never said.

And when you discover that I never said any such thing, figure out some new lie and dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

Quote me. Direct us all to what you think I said, by time and date. Show us all, once and for all, that you have no idea what you've actually read in this thread, only what you wish you'd read.

Quote me.

Good luck with that....

 

[Al Azar]

Yes. The problems bush left were bad but Obama hasn't fixed them he has magnified them. We've gone from stage one to stage three cancer these past eight years.

Specifically?

One thing I've learned in a short time here. Asking for an implausible claim to be supported leads directly down a rabbit hole.

Filtering these out avoids unnecessary frustration. There's no upside.

 

[Al Azar]

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

I pointed out that "pass through" doesn't mean no taxes, it means it's paid on a personal instead of a corporate form. BTW, we still have CPAs and they still complete tax forms, just the tax is paid through my personal form rather than my corporate form.

So you tell me what point you're making that isn't just butt hurt over your hatred of the rich and corporations which form the tax is actually paid on?

I see. You finally concede I was right and now you're criticizing me about something you know nothing about, something you "think" motivates me because I made a simple factual statement that you don't like.

Sheesh. Grow up.

Actually you conceded I was right. You said corporations don't pay taxes. When you turned out to be wrong, you changed it to that it's not called a corporate tax.

So I asked you what difference that made, what the tax is called, and you're running away

Fine. Support your charge. Quote where I said that corporations don't pay taxes. Everything I've posted is in black and white and already quoted many times, but you go ahead and start searching for something I never said.

And when you discover that I never said any such thing, figure out some new lie and dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

Quote me. Direct us all to what you think I said, by time and date. Show us all, once and for all, that you have no idea what you've actually read in this thread, only what you wish you'd read.

Quote me.

Good luck with that....

I see. Thanx. I regret having wasted my time.

 

[kaz]

Apparently you've earned it and I can see why.
The burden is still yours.

I don't Google what is in the news every day for people just because you don't like it because it doesn't help Democrats. People are dropping out of the work force and labor participation is low. Here's what you do. Open a tab and Google. Again, I keep a tab open all the time for that reason. I've never asked a question like you did without searching myself first, ever.

But that's why I'm a self supporting libertarian and you're a greedy collectivist

Then link from your open tab dope. You make dumb assertions and never cite a source when called on it. That means you have no credibility.

Bull. There is no reason I have to link to basic news. That's just stupid

That's how it works dope. It's up to you to prove your own points lest they and you be ridiculed.

That just ain't how Kazzie rolls, brah!

Agreed. I do my own research always first, then only ask if I can't validate someone's claim or what I find is contradictory. So really, you're not aware that people have been leaving the labor force? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

So you ask a simplistic question and I point out it's more complicated than that, you want me to do the work to define the variables that make up your point. Pass, do your own work

That's right. It's so simplistic but you are unable to give a brief summary. I believe you're dodging and really have no idea or no good answer.

I said your question was simplistic, can't you even read? Government schools, huh?

I see now. You get yourself cornered and rather than just drop it or find a solid answer, you hem and haw and argue. In other words, "Kazzing". It's a very apt description.

OK, so here's how my ignore list works. My birthday is in April. Every April I review my ignore list and decide who to give another shot. So there is no way to come off before April. And there is no guarantee you will in April. If you don't, you get reconsidered the next April and so on. Given how quickly you decided to go with the pre-pubescent playground chant, I'm guessing you won't be coming off any time soon. Life is to good to waste it on pubies who never grow up.

Have a good one. Hope you have a good elementary school teacher this year

You're ruthless!

It's informational, not intended to be. Congratulations, you have ... uncovered ... the obvious ... For liberals, not an easy feat

 

[kaz]

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?

Saying that someone who wants a job and has given up is the same as a stay at home mom is just butt stupid. Play whatever games you want. The one who wants a job is an opportunity to grow the economy rather than their drawing resources without contributing anything to it.

I don't even get what you think you're trying to establish.

BTW, I was offered a job today I hadn't applied for. They called me. If I were the discouraged worker, I'd have taken it. If I was the mom, I wouldn't have. Tell me it's the same again ...

BTW, I turned it down. It wasn't what I wanted to do

 

[kaz]

You need to read the nested quotes. The claim that liberals keep making that corporations don't pay taxes is a lie. So your leftist brother turned it to they don't all pay one tax specifically called a "corporate tax." All my corps were S corps, sure, I didn't pay a "corporate" tax. But I paid massive taxes through the income taxes. To tell me I wasn't taxed is just to be a liar and frankly a complete dick

No one said that corporations weren't taxed. No one said the shareholders weren't taxed. There was a single statement, by me, that pointed out that pass-through corporations don't pay corporate income tax, which is absolutely true, and that threw you completely and obsessively off the rails for some reason.

What's the matter with you? Some facts may be hard to accept when they don't support your political posturing, but that doesn't make them untrue and doesn't entitle you to recharacterize them into something else that is also true, but not pertinent to the original statement.

Get a grip. I'm surprised you're not used to being schooled by now, considering the tactics you use when pouting about how unfair and inconvenient the facts sometimes are.

I pointed out that "pass through" doesn't mean no taxes, it means it's paid on a personal instead of a corporate form. BTW, we still have CPAs and they still complete tax forms, just the tax is paid through my personal form rather than my corporate form.

So you tell me what point you're making that isn't just butt hurt over your hatred of the rich and corporations which form the tax is actually paid on?

I see. You finally concede I was right and now you're criticizing me about something you know nothing about, something you "think" motivates me because I made a simple factual statement that you don't like.

Sheesh. Grow up.

Actually you conceded I was right. You said corporations don't pay taxes. When you turned out to be wrong, you changed it to that it's not called a corporate tax.

So I asked you what difference that made, what the tax is called, and you're running away

Fine. Support your charge. Quote where I said that corporations don't pay taxes. Everything I've posted is in black and white and already quoted many times, but you go ahead and start searching for something I never said.

And when you discover that I never said any such thing, figure out some new lie and dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

Quote me. Direct us all to what you think I said, by time and date. Show us all, once and for all, that you have no idea what you've actually read in this thread, only what you wish you'd read.

Dancing again. My question is simple.

What is the relevance of whether taxes paid by corporations are specifically called "corporate" taxes or not? I pointed out whether we pay the one called a corporate tax or not, we pay bookoodles of taxes. You said whatever, it's not called a "corporate" tax.

What is your point?

 

[gipper]

Your post proves the government can dupe you, and you don't even know it.

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

True enough.

Are you saying that millions of Americans who are not working, are a bunch of lazy MFers?

 

[Faun]

Stop kazzing. The labor force participation rate has nothing to do with full employment.

Your post proves the government can dupe you, and you don't even know it.

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

You're such a raging kazzer. You the fuck are you to decide for others why they're not looking for work?

 

[Faun]

In the last 55 years there have been 7 recessions. The 6 worst recessions were caused by Republicans. One minor one caused by Carter. Democrats have beaten Republicans hands down on job creation!

It's even worse than that. In the entire history of our country, there's never been a Republican president who hasn't had a resession while he served.

 

[Faun]

Not in any practical way. Neither is competing for work, and neither is available for work. What someone wants or says they want doesn't change likelihood of getting a job.

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

And if they want a job but can't work for whatever reason, according to your nonsense, that reason can only be that they're frustrated.

Even worse for your idiocy... you think they all gave up looking. It's beyond your limited comprehension that many never started looking in the first place.

Like students who've never had a job and want to work but don't have the time, so they don't bother looking?

 

[Al Azar]

"neither is available for work"

Wrong, that's the exact difference. One wants a job and is just not looking out of frustration, the mother isn't available for work. That's the whole point, Holmes

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

And if they want a job but can't work for whatever reason, according to your nonsense, that reason can only be that they're frustrated.

Even worse for your idiocy... you think they all gave up looking. It's beyond your limited comprehension that many never started looking in the first place.

Like students who've never had a job and want to work but don't have the time, so they don't bother looking?

Students are a prime example. They're of working age, they're included in the labor participation calculation, they're not working and they don't want to.

Not being employed does not mean unemployed.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I don't Google what is in the news every day for people just because you don't like it because it doesn't help Democrats. People are dropping out of the work force and labor participation is low. Here's what you do. Open a tab and Google. Again, I keep a tab open all the time for that reason. I've never asked a question like you did without searching myself first, ever.

But that's why I'm a self supporting libertarian and you're a greedy collectivist

Then link from your open tab dope. You make dumb assertions and never cite a source when called on it. That means you have no credibility.

Bull. There is no reason I have to link to basic news. That's just stupid

That's how it works dope. It's up to you to prove your own points lest they and you be ridiculed.

That just ain't how Kazzie rolls, brah!

Agreed. I do my own research always first, then only ask if I can't validate someone's claim or what I find is contradictory. So really, you're not aware that people have been leaving the labor force? Seriously?

I do my own research always first

With respect to labor markets, on what do you rely for your research?

 

[easyt65]

I still just want to see him leave the country, period.