It's The Tax Cuts Stupid!!

[nat4900]

Please bear in mind that abject lack of responsibilities of LOWERING taxes while engaged in TWO costly wars and putting them on the nation's "credit card" for later administrations to be hounded on.

(and also expanding Medicare [dis]Advantage to please the drug companies)

 

[nat4900]

The House controls the purse strings dumbass.

True......and WHO has controlled the House for the last 6 years?

 

[Rustic]

Please bear in mind that abject lack of responsibilities of LOWERING taxes while engaged in TWO costly wars and putting them on the nation's "credit card" for later administrations to be hounded on.

(and also expanding Medicare [dis]Advantage to please the drug companies)

Pocket change as compared to socialist entitlement programs… Dip shit

 

[Onyx]

The destruction of the US of A has been happening since 2009.

Not really, no.

Discontent and periodic economic recessions have occurred for our entire history. We'll probably get into a war during the next administration, and all you buffoons will be back to your normal jingoistic patriotic selves.

 

[Rustic]

The destruction of the US of A has been happening since 2009.

Not really, no.

Discontent and periodic economic recessions have occurred for our entire history. We'll probably get into a war during the next administration, and all you buffoons will be back to your normal jingoistic patriotic selves.

Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt start of the process…

 

[Onyx]

Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt start of the process…

No, the US had several recessions from Reconstruction up until the Great Depression.

The only reason they were not common before Reconstruction is because our economy was largely agrarian, yet they did still happen. The United States of America was fucked up from start to finish.

 

[Rustic]

Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt start of the process…

No, the US had several recessions from Reconstruction up until the Great Depression.

The only reason they were not common before Reconstruction is because our economy was largely agrarian, yet they did still happen. The United States of America was fucked up from start to finish.

Up to Woodrow Wilson America will still somewhat in the survival mode... Woodrow Wilson had ulterior motives he was socialist to the core. Which made him a sack of shit.

There was only one president in the history of this country Saw that serving as president as a duty not as a job, and he did not want it. But he accepted to do it as a duty.

 

[AntonToo]

Fuck face, think of cut taxes as fairy dust - they were never the governments to begin with.We are an overly taxed society, there should not be an income tax, there should not be property tax, and certainly no death tax… Socialism has never worked long term in the history of the world. Fact

Thank you for giving voice to token fiscally retarded conservative. You are doing great.

The more you speak the more get convinced that conservatism is for intellectually underdeveloped..

 

[Scorpion]

The House controls the purse strings dumbass.

True......and WHO has controlled the House for the last 6 years?

Your giving credit to Obama for debt reduction.
Try to keep up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus, would you idiot look at who had control of fucking Congress and not the damn figurehead in the White House.

Jesus, would you idiot look at who had control of fucking Congress and not the damn figurehead in the White House.

Reagan was a figurehead?

Interesting.

 

[Windship]

Please bear in mind that abject lack of responsibilities of LOWERING taxes while engaged in TWO costly wars and putting them on the nation's "credit card" for later administrations to be hounded on.

(and also expanding Medicare [dis]Advantage to please the drug companies)

Pocket change as compared to socialist entitlement programs… Dip shit

You are either so friggin ignorant or a shill to say something like that,lol. Ill be right back...

 

[Windship]

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Time Magazine, Vol. 152 No. 19

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.
Before we look at the details, a heartfelt plea from the Save the CEO’s Charitable Trust:

There’s so much suffering in the world. It can all get pretty overwhelming sometimes. Consider, for a moment the sorrow in the eyes of a CEO who’s just found out that his end-of-year bonus is only going to be a paltry $2.3 million.

“It felt like a slap in the face. Imagine what it would feel like just before Christmas to find out that you’re going to be forced to scrape by on your standard $8.4 million compensation package alone. Imagine what is was like to have to look into my daughter’s face and tell her that I couldn’t afford to both buy her a dollar sign shaped island and hire someone to chew her food from now on, too. To put her in that situation of having to choose… She’s only a child for God’s sake.”

It doesn’t have to be this way. Thanks to federal subsidies from taxpayers like you, CEO’s like G. Allen Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland was able to take home almost $14 million in executive compensation last year. But he’s one of the lucky ones. There are still corporations out there that actually have to provide goods and services to their consumers in order to survive. They need your help.

For just $93 billion a year the federal government is able to provide a better life for these CEO’s and their families. That’s less than the cost of 240 million cups of coffee a day. Won’t you help a needy corporation today?

The Traditional Welfare Queen
Definition: social welfare
n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to specific individuals.

When one thinks about government welfare, the first thing that comes to mind is the proverbial welfare queen sitting atop her majestic throne of government cheese issuing a royal decree to her clamoring throngs of illegitimate babies that they may shut the hell up while she tries to watch Judge Judy. However, many politically well-connected corporations are also parasitically draining their share of fiscal blood from your paycheck before you ever see it. It’s called corporate welfare. The intent here is to figure out which presents the greater burden to our federal budget, corporate or social welfare programs.

There are, of course, positive and negative aspects to this spending.The primary negative aspect is that you have to increase taxes to pay for it. Taxing individuals lowers their standard of living. It reduces people’s ability to afford necessities like medical care, education, and low mileage off-road vehicles.The common usage definition of social welfare includes welfare checks and food stamps. Welfare checks are supplied through a federal program called Temporary Aid for Needy Families. Combined federal and state TANF spending was about $26 billion in 2006. In 2009, the federal government will spend about $25 billion on rental aid for low-income households and about $8 billion on public housing projects. For some perspective, that’s about 3 percent of the total federal budget.

Note: I do not consider Medicaid to be included in the term “welfare” as it is used in common parlance. Typically, if one states that someone is “on welfare”, they mean that the person is receiving direct financial aid from the government. If we included Medicaid in our definition of social welfare, we would also have to consider any service that the government pays for to be “welfare”. For instance, public roadways to individuals’ homes would also be considered “welfare” under that expansive definition.

TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families)
Another negative aspect relates to the fact that social welfare programs reduce the incentive for recipients to become productive members of society. However, in 1996, Congress passed a bill enacting limited welfare reform, replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the new Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program. Now, with the recent changes in healthcare including Obamacare tax implications, some states are enacting strict criteria that a family must meet to be eligible for TANF. One key aspect of this reform required recipients to engage in job searches, on the job training, community service work, or other constructive behaviors as a condition for receiving aid. The bill was signed by a man named Bill Clinton, who is much better known for an act of fellatio which, of course, had far greater societal implications. Regardless, the success of this reform was pretty dramatic. Caseloads were cut nearly in half. Once individuals were required to work or undertake constructive activities as a condition of receiving aid they left welfare rapidly. Another surprising result was a drop in the child poverty rate. Employment of single mothers increased substantially and the child poverty rate fell sharply from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 16.3 percent in 2000.



Graph Source: http://census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html

The Corporate Welfare Queen
Now, let’s consider the other kind of welfare.

Definition: corporate welfare

n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses.

The Cato Institute estimated that, in 2002, $93 billion were devoted to corporate welfare. This is about 5 percent of the federal budget.

What is NOT considered corporate welfare?

1. Government Contracts – To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud, I suppose the primary service they provide could be considered to be repeatedly violating the American taxpayer.
2. Tax Breaks – Tax breaks targeted to benefit specific corporations could also be considered a form of welfare. Tax loopholes force other businesses and individual taxpayers without the same political clout to pick up the slack and sacrifice a greater share of their hard-earned money to decrease the financial burden on these corporations. However, to simplify matters, we’ve only included financial handouts to companies in our working definition of corporate welfare.

What IS considered corporate welfare?

• Subsidies – On the other hand, the $15 billion in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures.

Infographic Source: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1012/subsidize-this/flat.html



Whenever corporate welfare is presented to voters, it always sounds like a pretty reasonable, well-intended idea. Politicians say that they’re stimulating the economy or helping struggling industries or creating jobs or funding important research. But when you steal money from the paychecks of working people, you hurt the economy by reducing their ability to buy the things they want or need. This decrease in demand damages other industries and puts people out of work.

Most of the pigs at the government trough are among the biggest companies in America, including:

• The Big 3 automakers
• Boeing
• Archer Daniels Midland
• Enron

Farm Subsidies
However, the largest fraction of corporate welfare spending, about 40%, went through the Department of Agriculture, most of it in the form of farm subsidies. (Edwards, Corporate Welfare, 2003) Well, that sounds OK. Someone’s got to help struggling family farms stay afloat, right? But in reality, farm subsidies actually tilt the cotton field in favor of the largest industrial farming operations. When it comes to deciding how to dole out the money, the agricultural subsidy system utilizes a process that is essentially the opposite of that used in the social welfare system’s welfare system. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. The result is that the absolute largest 7% of corporate farming operations receive 45% of all subsidies. (Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, 2004) So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.



Graph Source: http://ers.usda.gov/data

Wal-Mart. Always high subsidies. Always.
The same is true in all other industries, too. The government gives tons of favors to the largest corporations, increasing the significant advantage they already have over smaller competing businesses. If, in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart has been tried and convicted for the murder of main street, mom-and-pop America, then the government could easily be found guilty as a willing accomplice. Wal-Mart receives hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidization by local governments throughout the country. These subsidies take the form of bribes by local politicians trying to convince Wal-Mart to come to their town with the dream of significant job creation. Of course, from that follows a larger tax base. For example, a distribution center in Macclenny, Florida received $9 million in government subsidies in the form of free land, government-funded recruitment and training of employees, targeted tax breaks, and housing subsidies for employees allowing them to be paid significantly lower wages. A study by Good Jobs First found that 244 Wal-Marts around the country had received over $1 billion in government favors.

The Big Picture
So now let’s look at the big picture. The final totals are $59 billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and $92 billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations. So, the government spends roughly 50% more on corporate welfare than it does on these particular public assistance programs.

Should we spend less on corporate welfare and/or social welfare programs? Or should we spend even more? It’s up to you. A bunch of people died horrible deaths to make sure this country remained a democracy, so if you feel strongly about this issue you owe it to them to call or write your congressman and senators and give them a piece of your mind.

Some More Sources:
2013 Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government (Washington: Government Publishing Office), various years; and data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science R&D Budget and Policy Program, various years.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data.

Source: Export-Import Bank, 2006 Annual Report (Washington: Export-Import Bank, 2007).

Source Data from Chris Edwards at Cato:

Corporate Welfare by Agency

Corporate Welfare by Agency 2

Corporate Welfare by Company

 

[Windship]

CLASS WAR
10 Taxpayer Handouts to the Super Rich That Will Make Your Blood Boil
Tom Cahill | October 28, 2015
The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

FacebookTwitter


The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

A small number of incredibly wealthy Americans are ridiculing Bernie Sanders’ base for wanting “free stuff” when the costliest programs are, by far, corporate welfare and entitlements for the top 1 percent. Fox News has been working hard to tear down Sanders’ proposals to provide Medicare for all, institute tuition-free public college, boost infrastructure spending, and expand Social Security.

“That’s not fiscally possible unless the federal government starts seizing private assets,” said Bill O’Reilly.

But O’Reilly is wrong. The money for Sanders’ platform can easily come from eliminating the costliest entitlement programs for the top 1 percent and multinational corporations. Here’s a breakdown of the most superfluous giveaways to the rich and how much they cost the rest of us:

1. TAX BREAKS FOR OBSCENE CEO BONUSES ($7 BILLION/YEAR)
Currently, the biggest corporations are exploiting a 20-year-old loophole that allows them to write off inflated compensation packages for CEOs, billing stock options, and performance-based bonuses to taxpayers. In 2010, the Economic Policy Institute found out that the biggest corporations cost Americans $7 billion by writing off inflated executive pay. Between 2007 and 2010, this loophole accounted for more than $30 billion in corporate welfare. According to The Guardian, fast food industry CEOs cost taxpayers $64 million through this loophole.

That $7 billion could singlehandedly fund the annual budget for the National Science Foundation — which, as I recently reported for US Uncut, funds 11,000 scientific research projects each year and has funded 26 Nobel laureates in the last 5 years.

2. TAX CUTS FOR LUXURY CORPORATE JETS ($300 MILLION/YEAR)
Currently, corporations can claim a huge tax deduction every year by writing off purchases of corporate jets, lavish cars, and chauffeurs as “security” for their top executives. A Bloomberg analysis from 2011 showed that these tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans cost the rest of us $300 million each year. While that may not sound like much, that’s approximately 50 percent of the annual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren that protects Americans from the financial sector’s most predatory schemes.

3. BIG OIL SUBSIDIES ($37.5 BILLION/YEAR)
According to Oil Change International (OCI), the U.S. government spends anywhere between $10 billion and $52 billion per year on corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry — one of the wealthiest industries in the world. OCI estimated that total combined subsidies to big oil approached $37.5 billion in 2014, which includes $21 billion on production and exploration subsidies.

These subsidies alone cost more than what we currently spend on providing rental assistance for low-income families. In 2013, the department of Housing and Urban Development allocated a total of $34.3 billion toward tenant-based rental assistance ($19 billion), project-based rental assistance ($8.7 billion), and general public housing programs ($6.6 billion). These programs helped 4.5 million families — half of whom are elderly — keep a roof over their head.

4. PHARMACEUTICAL SUBSIDIES ($270 BILLION/YEAR)
As US Uncut has previously reported, the pharmaceutical industry costs taxpayers roughly $270 billion a year when accounting for the cost we pay for life-saving drugs whose patents have been bought up by Big Pharma. This is over $1,914 per household in corporate welfare. This is partly due to the Medicare Part D bill that George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. But the biggest drug companies also make a pretty penny (a combined $711 billion in profits between 2003 and 2012) by buying patents for drugs that were largely developed with taxpayer-funded research, then jacking up the price by absurd amounts after cornering the market.


Combined profits of top pharma companies. Data courtesy of healthcareforamericanow.org.

This $270 billion annual subsidy could be virtually eliminated by passing Bernie Sanders’ bill to establish a government fund that buys up drug patents as soon as they become available for purchase. Then, the government would sell drugs at-cost to save money for those who need them. The money saved could pay for the annual $270 billion in insurance costs from Obamacare that would help more Americans get access to healthcare.

5. CAPITAL GAINS TAX BREAKS ($51 BILLION/YEAR)
When anyone makes money from selling off investments, the IRS classifies that as capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate (20 percent as of 2012) than real, actual work (35 percent). Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don’t affect the incomes of most retirees. The Century Foundation found that the total amount of lost revenue by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages cost $256 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, or $51 billion a year over the last 5 years. According to the Tax Policy Center, if investment income was taxed at the same rate as wages, 75 percent of that new revenue would come from the richest 0.3 percent of Americans; 92 percent of that revenue would come from those making $200,000 or more per year. The chart below shows what percentage of income each tax bracket makes from capital gains — not surprisingly, the wealthiest Americans get most of the benefit from capital gains.


Chart courtesy of The Century Foundation.

If we taxed wealth like work, the extra $51 billion per year in savings could fund two-thirds of the annual budget for food stamps.

6. CORPORATE TAX SUBSIDIES FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ($80.4 BILLION/YEAR)
In 2012, the New York Times did an analysis of every existing tax break in each of the 50 states and learned that 1,874 programs cost taxpayers $80.4 billion every year for corporate welfare in their state. Compare that cost with the cost of providing tuition-free public college to every student, which The Atlantic estimated would be a mere $62.6 billion. As the chart below shows, this is actually way cheaper than what we currently spend on federal student aid.


Current cost of existing federal college aid. (courtesy of The Atlantic)

7. HANDOUTS TO BIG AG ($18 BILLION/YEAR)
Crop insurance — a program originally intended to help farmers recover from the dust bowls of the 1930s — has become a slush fund for wealthy corporate farmers who have become experts at manipulating the system for their own means. As Bloomberg reported, the median income of commercial farm households (in which farming makes up more than 50 percent of a household’s income) was $84,649 in 2011 — 70 percent more than the average American household. Farmers have learned to exploit the program by growing crops on land they know will be unproductive, then making money from insurance claims rather than crops. In 2011, 26 farmers each got an annual subsidy of $1 million, including one tomato farmer in Florida who got a $1.9 million subsidy.

This $18 billion in corporate welfare is more than NASA’s annual budget, which has hovered around the $17 billion mark since 2009.

8. WELFARE FOR WALL STREET ($83 BILLION/YEAR)
The biggest banks have grown even bigger than they were just before the 2008 financial meltdown. And due to their size, these banks are perceived as “too big to fail,” as their demise would spell doom for the US financial sector as a whole. So as these big banks grow bigger, the Federal Reserve allows them to borrow at lower interest rates than other big banks — essentially subsidizing the continued growth of the big banks. In 2013, Bloomberg estimated the ten biggest TBTF banks suck up $83 billion per year in corporate welfare.

If we were to force the big banks to borrow at the same interest rates as every other bank at a rate of $83 billion per year, that would be enough to double the current federal budgets for highway spending ($48.6 billion), Head Start ($10.1 billion), the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.89 billion), nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children ($6.2 billion), the National Parks Service ($3 billion), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ($2.39 billion), with $5 billion left over.

9. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK SUBSIDIES ($112 BILLION)
This week, the House of Representatives voted to revive the Export-Import (Ex-Im) bank, which has been maligned as a slush fund for large, multinational corporations. In its most recent year, the Ex-Im bank had a $112 billion portfolio, of which $90 billion went to multinationals. If that wasn’t bad enough, a huge portion of that money went to just 10 wealthy corporations.



According to the New York Times, the federal government spends roughly $105 billion on public K-12 schools. If we allow the Ex-Im bank to fade away, the money formerly set aside for corporate subsidies could instead double that investment in public education.

10. FEDERAL CONTRACTS FOR THE TOP 200 BIGGEST COMPANIES ($880 BILLION/YEAR)
The biggest 200 corporations have an excessively unfair advantage over their competitors due to their influence in Washington. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the top 200 companies spent a combined $5.8 billion on lobbying Congress between 2007 and 2012. And in those same years, those companies received $4.4 trillion in federal contracts. That $4.4 trillion is $100 billion more than what the U.S. government spent on providing a basic income to the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients. This chart shows how much the top ten corporations spent on lobbying and how much they got in return:



The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.

 

[Windship]

Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare
By Sonya Sandage -

Nov 23, 2013

• 148
• 9
• 127
• 0
• 3
• 9

Often at BenSwann.com we have headlines about the abuse of social welfare programs. Make no mistake, there is much abuse of social welfare programs. But the form of welfare the receives much less discussion… corporate welfare.

According to a new report, the federal government spent $59 Billion on social welfare programs in 2006. While that number is high, it is nearly half of the taxpayer dollars given to assist corporations. That number, a staggering $92 Billion.

Huge, and likely profitable corporations, were able to get tax breaks for themselves, as well as some receive direct spending from the Federal Government.

According to the report, Think by Numbers, the definition of corporate welfare isn’t even lucrative no-bid contracts for defense contractors, but just the massive subsidies offered by the Feds to industries such as coal, wind, ethanol and oil.

For instance “…the $15 billion in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures.”


Infographic Source: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1012/subsidize-this/flat.html
If you would like to read the entire article, click here:
http://thinkbynumbers.org/governmen...fare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/

 

[Windship]

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?





Tax Analysts

The leading global publisher of tax news, analysis and commentary

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

David Brunori, Contributor
I recently read the February 24 Good Jobs First report, “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” by Philip Mattera, a respected thought leader in our business. It says that three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.

Recommended by Forbes





Apple And Wal-Mart: Perfect Together In A World of Bad Tax Policy


The Atlanta Braves And Insane Corporate Welfare


States Should Just Say No To Boeing

MOST POPULAR

Photos: The Richest Person In Every State

+68,639 VIEWS

The Interviewer Warned Me Not To Take The Job



Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole. Where is the outrage? Back when I was young, people went into a frenzy at the thought of some unemployed person using food stamps to buy liquor or cigarettes. Ronald Reagan famously campaigned against welfare queens. The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks.

According to Good Jobs First, there are 514 economic development programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. More than 245,000 awards have been granted under those programs. I ask again, where is the outrage? The system is antithetical to the idea of free markets. A quarter of a million times, state governments decided what is best for producers and consumers. That should make us cringe. First, the government is inefficient at providing public goods, and it is terrible at manipulating the markets for private goods. But more importantly, those 514 economic development programs are almost all the result of insidious cronyism. Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned.

And while I’m looking for outrage, where are the liberals? The 965 companies in the report received over $110 billion of public money. Berkshire Hathaway, a company with $485 billion in assets and $20 billion in profits, received over $1 billion of that money. Its chair, Warren Buffett, is worth about $58 billion. Buffett, by the way, is still a darling of the left. He has some nerve to call for higher taxes. The billion dollars his companies took would pay for a lot of teachers, healthcare, and other public goods.


I don’t blame the corporations. They act rationally. If someone gives you $1 billion, you take it. The blame lies with us. The sheer size of the corporate welfare system should spark outrage whether we are conservatives, liberals, or libertarians. And that outrage should be reflected in how we vote. In the meantime, kudos to Good Jobs First for continuing to highlight this problem.

 

[Rustic]

Fuck face, think of cut taxes as fairy dust - they were never the governments to begin with.We are an overly taxed society, there should not be an income tax, there should not be property tax, and certainly no death tax… Socialism has never worked long term in the history of the world. Fact

Thank you for giving voice to token fiscally retarded conservative. You are doing great.

The more you speak the more get convinced that conservatism is for intellectually underdeveloped..

We are in a overtaxed society, proven by the nations debt. The federal government is paying debt with more debt and that debt with printed paper…
Think of the federal government is like a high school kid, it's best not to give them a credit card… LOL

 

[Windship]

Ur a dope and a traitor. You say ":America is a "shit eating Democracy". Wul fuck you.

 

[Rustic]

Please bear in mind that abject lack of responsibilities of LOWERING taxes while engaged in TWO costly wars and putting them on the nation's "credit card" for later administrations to be hounded on.

(and also expanding Medicare [dis]Advantage to please the drug companies)

Pocket change as compared to socialist entitlement programs… Dip shit

You are either so friggin ignorant or a shill to say something like that,lol. Ill be right back...

Bush like Obama was/is a career politician... socialist entitlement programs dominate the nation spending and debt… Fact

 

[Windship]

Fuck face, think of cut taxes as fairy dust - they were never the governments to begin with.We are an overly taxed society, there should not be an income tax, there should not be property tax, and certainly no death tax… Socialism has never worked long term in the history of the world. Fact

Thank you for giving voice to token fiscally retarded conservative. You are doing great.

The more you speak the more get convinced that conservatism is for intellectually underdeveloped..

We are in overtax society, proven by the nations debt. The federal government is paying debt with more debt and that debt with printed paper…
Think of the federal government is like a high school kid, it's best not to give them a credit card… LOL

Show me where your over taxed. Show me where corporations are over taxed.

 

[Windship]

Fairy dust that you all consume with great wreak less abandon.