Welfare should be ended completely

[owebo]

I disagree ...... Planned Parenthood turns a profit.....

 

[candycorn]

If by "us" you mean conservatives...all of these posters must, by definition, be liberals, Right Andylusion ?

Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy. Theowl32
Racist signs on HIllary's campaign office walls TheGreatGatsby
Black votes matter, not so much lives eagle7_31
Black Cop Shoots Black Man: ‘All White People Are F***ing Devils’?! easyt65
Butthurt Racist Gutiérrez...Seriously is that the racist douchebag's real name...eat Skittles Snouter
White Teens Walking Near 'Black Lives Matter' Protest In CA Viciously Attacked... easyt65

 

[candycorn]

If by "us" you mean conservatives...all of these posters must, by definition, be liberals, Right Andylusion ?

Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy. Theowl32
Racist signs on HIllary's campaign office walls TheGreatGatsby
Black votes matter, not so much lives eagle7_31
Black Cop Shoots Black Man: ‘All White People Are F***ing Devils’?! easyt65
Butthurt Racist Gutiérrez...Seriously is that the racist douchebag's real name...eat Skittles Snouter
White Teens Walking Near 'Black Lives Matter' Protest In CA Viciously Attacked... easyt65

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, but after the past 7 years, we know that they blame everything on the GOP. If it rained on Thursday, they'd blame the GOP.

Flint goes broke, and changes water supplies, causing a crisis, they would blame the GOP, even though the city is run by democrats.

No matter what happens, they'll blame the GOP.

So effectively you are saying "they'll screw something up, blame the GOP, and run on fixing their own failures".

And you'll defend Republicans no matter what, and then you just end up with partisan bullshit.

And you'll defend Democrats no matter what, and then you just end up with partisan bullshit.

(what goes around, comes around)

See, that's the thing. I won't. I'm not a partisan hack. I say what I think, I make my own arguments, I wouldn't vote Democrat or Republican, I favor a system of Proportional Representation to get rid of the power the two parties have and to make more ideas, more democracy, more choice, more sensible politics.

.... Yeah.....

Right. First off, you don't even know me, or my voting habits. That's why I smacked you in the face with your own quote.

I was highly critical of no child left behind, and common core, and amnesty for illegals. I was against the bailout of banks, regardless of Bush supporting it.

Your claim about me, was judgemental and ignorant. That's why I threw your judgemental and arrogant claims back in your face.

You claim you are not like that? I claim I am not like that either. Now what?

Setting that arrogance on your part aside.....

I don't know where you people get this idea about proportional voting. Do you people not follow politics around the world?

If you don't..... then how do you claim it will "get rid of the power the two parties have and to make more ideas, more democracy, more choice, more sensible politics"?

If you DO follow international politics, then you should know by now that proportional representation does absolutely none of what you claim.

If anything, it guarantees more power to the largest parties.

Do you know why it is that when Republicans are in power, they still consult with Democrats? Do you know why Democrats in power, still consult with Republicans? Do you know why the majority gives a flip rats butt what the minority parties think?

Because if the Republicans hold 51 seats, and Democrats hold 49, two Republicans voting against the party, could allow the Democrats to round up and throw the vote. So the Republicans listen to the Democrats.

Now imagine a situation that is extremely common and typical in Europe. Imagine that the Republicans have 51 seats, and the Democrats have 30 seats, and the Christian Coalition has 10, and the independents have 5, and some nutter party, the Green party or something, has 5.

Now if 2, or even 5, perhaps even 10 Republicans flip.... do you think the Democrats are going to be able to unify a bunch of smaller parties to over turn the vote?

No, of course not. This is why in Europe the ruling party virtually ignores the smaller parties, like that almost don't even exist. Because practically..... they don't. They have no power at all.

All they do is fracture the opposition vote. A fractured opposition vote, means the ruling party is even more powerful than they ever could be, with a unified opposition.

I do not see one good result from proportional voting. Not one. If anything, you actually cause more of the problem you claim to be against.

Where is the win here? The German CDU/CSU party is pretty much what I'm talking about. They do whatever the heck they want. They have 310 votes in a 630 vote system. Yet they do whatever the heck they want.

Why? Because even though they don't even have the majority of votes, the other 320 votes are fractured between a half dozen smaller parties. They can't unified to oppose them. The ruling party has free reign.

Worse than that, the CDU/CSU has formed a coalition with the SPD. The Socialists, have a coalition with the right-wingers. combined the two largest parties have 503 votes. The opposition is less than even a spec on their radar.

Do you see my point? How is it any better? The two largest parties in Germany, linked together, making the proportional system completely irrelevant. NOTHING IS ANY DIFFERENT.

... Now.... if you really really want a proportional system..... fine. Whatever. I'm not even really against it.

But in all honesty, if you think it's going to make things even remotely better than they are now.... you are crazy. It's exactly the same in Europe. It hasn't hasn't done any of the things you claim over there. There is no logical reason to think it would here.

No, I don't know you. However you were also making a comment that was, and I quote "judgemental and arrogant", so... what? If you come on here and make comments like "they blame everything on the GOP" then what am I going to do? Again, what comes around goes around. So I wouldn't feel so smart about trying to smack me down.

So, setting your arrogance to one side....

You don't know where "you people", what people would that be? Seriously, if you don't want people making comments like I made, perhaps you should consider your use of language a little better.

Where do I get my ideas about proportional representation? Well, apart from having lived in countries where they have proportional representation, and having looked at many different political systems, I've seen how proportional representation leads to more democracy and better politicians.

So, you're telling me that PR doesn't lead to more parties?

Okay. Let's see.

The USA. Two parties. I believe there are only two parties in the US Congress AND all of the state legislatures in the country. I might be wrong, there might be one person who isn't independent or Rep or Dem, but I don't know about them.

I'll pick, at random, some countries from the Wikipedia list of countries which use PR and see how many parties they have in government.

Albania. 7 parties.
Belgium. 12 parties
Burkina Faso. 8 parties (well, would be if there hadn't have been a coup)
Denmark. 9 parties
Israel. 12 Parties
Namibia. 9 parties
Sri Lanka. 6 parties (well sort of more, but they are alliances, so I've put the alliances together as one party).

So, out of a random pick of 7 countries which use PR, 7 seats is the lowest. Yes there can be lower, Germany has 5 parties.

However that's more than 2 which the US has.

You talk about ignoring the smaller parties. In the US there aren't any parties to ignore. But in Germany in the last 20 years, 4 parties have been in power. That's twice as many as have been in power in the US for TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Also, in Germany smaller parties can rise up, like one has done recently. In the US this is impossible. People simply don't have the choice, in their view, to vote anyone but the main two. In Germany and other countries they do have the choice because one vote counts, as opposed to the US where half the votes are often meaningless.

There are actually far greater number of smaller parties than this.

Besides that, you post a dozen countries, none of which are models of anything I want to follow.

Albania? Belgium? Burkina Faso? Namibia? Sri Lanka?!?

Denmark, yeah it has 9 parties. ... You know how many of those parties have one single vote? which means, absolutely no political power whatsoever?

Once again, the key groups, all ban together into a coalition. The rest are ignored. Just like Germany, and every other proportional system I have ever looked at in Europe.

Yeah, they have a bunch of parties. Exact same politics. Exact same two major groups. Exact same everything. I see no difference, or at least no real improvement, over what we already have.

Ok, you want to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans. Would it really matter that much if Ted Cruise ran as a... I don't know... Social Liberal Party? No. It would still be Ted Cruise, with a different letter by his name. Would it really matter if Maxine Waters ran as a Social Democrat? No, it would still be the brainless moron with a different letter by her name.

Same people... different party. You think by changing the Elephant and Donkey icon, that magically the options will be better if you have a Lion or a Bear or something? No. no no no.

Yes, you talk about how German has had 4 different parties in power. That's true.

Guess what.... it's the same people under a different party. Take the SPD. Do you know what the origins of the SPD? If you go back all the way to East Germany run by the GDR. German Democratic Republic, the puppet government created by the USSR, after unification, they changed into another party, merged into another party, and ended up the SPD of today.

Same people.... same ideology... different name, different party. You want a bunch of people switching parties, so you can have the illusion of choice... fine. You actually already have that. Bernie Sanders was a communist, the and independent, then a Democrat, and now he's independent again.

Same person, same ideology, bunch of different banners. You want that here? You can have it I'm not opposed to it.

But if you think that it's actually going to change anything at all. Well... you are delusional. It's no different in Germany, or any other Euro-porporational system.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Christ you don't pay attention. No one said a deduction was subsidy. Why is it welfare? I already fucking explained it. Corporations get more deductions than the poor do. 2/3 of them have no federal tax liability. Their overall profits are higher than ever before while wages of lower level workers have remained way behind on inflation.

You're basically making this stupid argument that the government shouldn't be sustained by revenue. How the fuck can highways, homeland defense, police, fire, and public education be paid for if we don't collect revenue?

It's not welfare. A deduction is not welfare. If a deduction is welfare, then 100% of the population of this country is on welfare.

Of course Corporations get more deductions. They have higher taxes.

Use your brain stupid.... if I pay only $100 in taxes, and a company pays $16 Billion in taxes.... do you really think I should get more in deductions than than the company? Can you do basic math? What are you, a public school student? You need me to work the calculator for you?

lol. (that's actually a real event. Had a 11th grade student ask me how to do a math problem on his calculator.)

Of course corporations should get more deductions. They make more money, and pay more in tax.

Beyond that, I think the corporate tax rate should be 0%. You people cry and whine about companies investing over seas, and then demand more and more taxes on them here. Gee... why are they moving investments over seas? Can't imagine.

Idiots.

You're so dense dude. Like I said, 2/3 of corporations pay no federal taxes. The large amount of revenue they are able to produce is what's supposed to pay for our nation's expenses. Reducing that blows up the nation's deficit. Instead, more of the tax burden is on the poor and middle class. The middle class having corporarion's tax burdens only slows down the economy. Giving tax relief to corporations or top earners does not strengthen the economy. Why? Because they just keep the money they save rather than invest it. The key to economic growth is strengthening the consumption of the middle class.

What are you talking about? The top 10 most profitable companies in the US, only brought in $200 Billion in profits. If you taxed that at 100%, it wouldn't cover Medicaid. Let alone Medicare, or Social Security, or anything else. This years Federal Budget is $4 Trillion.

No amount of taxes on any company, at any tax rate, would bring in more than 1/10th of that.

And by the way, the higher you jack up those tax rates, the more companies move out of the country. Meaning you are going to get zero money. Burger King already left the US. They are in Canada now. Good job sparky. Yeah, Corporate tax is going to pay the nations expenses? You are crazy.

Not happening. If that's your plan, you have a failed plan. You need a new plan.

Tracking Tax Runaways: Bloomberg Inversions Database

Dozens of companies have left the US, just since 2012. The more the government tries to stop it, the more it happens.

Now back to your claim. You said 2/3rd of companies pay no tax.

This is entirely false on every single possible ground. First, corporations pay tons of other taxes. Employment taxes. Social Security tax. Medicare Tax. Unemployment taxes. Works comp taxes. Excise taxes. Fuel taxes. Environmental taxes.

Let's ignore all that.... Every single CEO, executive, board member, administration, all the way down to the lowest mail room clerk... pays taxes on their income.

Every single distribution of shares, dividends and stock options, pays taxes.

When you say, for example, that General Motors paid no Federal income tax. Mary T. Barra CEO of GM most certainly did pay Federal Income taxes. Yes she did.

So from absolutely no possible perspective, can you claim 2/3rd of companies paid zero Federal taxes. BS. You are wrong. PERIOD.

But let's focus in on exclusively corporate taxes. You claim that 2/3rds of corporations paid no Federal Corporate income tax.

This is false. Sorry, it's simply not true. Not even close to true. Most all companies pay corporate income tax.

However, I do know where you got that absolute trash statistic from. Bernie Sanders, circulated a paper claiming 2/3rds of companies paid zero income tax. What Bernie failed to make clear, was the time line. Between 2006.... and 2012, 2/3rds of companies paid zero tax.

Interesting cut off.... only 2006..... to 2012.... Gee.... Sparky.... can you come up with any possible reason why between just 2006 to 2012, that a ton of companies paid zero in tax?

What possible event could have happened between 2006 and 2012, that somehow could have affected tax revenues from corporations? What could it be! How can't you figure out why on Earth companies may have not paid tax during 2006 to 2012?

WE HAD A RECESSION! Of course profits fell like crap, and with them, tax revenue fell like crap. Resulting in many companies not paying tax.

Sorry, but the 2/3rds of companies don't pay tax is flat out a lie. Profitable companies are paying tons in taxes.

Ugh.... people.... Use your brain. Assuming it wasn't completely removed by a communist in Vermont.

Lol I love how you call my fact bullshit without actually trying to debunk it. Look it's right here:

Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008

Of course besides deductions, we really can't forget about the off shore tax havens now can we? How do you think that affects the deficit?

All liberterians and extreme conservatives care about is the few percent at the top that take most of the wealth. Everyone else can die as far as they are concern! It is a major fucking sickness.

I wouldn't put "all" Libertarians in your category at all. "Conservatives" I am having a hard time figuring them out. They seem to love voting for politicians like "W" or Trump that blow the deficit sky high, but they are supposed to be fiscally conservative.

 

[Andylusion]

If by "us" you mean conservatives...all of these posters must, by definition, be liberals, Right Andylusion ?

Preserving My Children’s Innocence Is Preserving White supremacy. Theowl32
Racist signs on HIllary's campaign office walls TheGreatGatsby
Black votes matter, not so much lives eagle7_31
Black Cop Shoots Black Man: ‘All White People Are F***ing Devils’?! easyt65
Butthurt Racist Gutiérrez...Seriously is that the racist douchebag's real name...eat Skittles Snouter
White Teens Walking Near 'Black Lives Matter' Protest In CA Viciously Attacked... easyt65

I have no idea what you are talking about, or in what context. I would suggest using the quote system to first establish context before making some random comment.

Beyond that, I have no idea who these people are that you are quoting, or why I would care. In fact, I don't even recognize them as posters on this forum. I'm not saying they are not posters, I just have never read a post by any of them notable enough for me to remember their names.

However, I have had similarly bizarre comments by left-wingers, that if I desired I could go around responding to your posts, and spamming a bunch of bonkers quotes and connect them to you.

Don't you think that would be equally irrelevant as what you are doing?

 

[WheelieAddict]

It's very clear Andylusion has no idea about anything.

 

[owebo]

It's not welfare. A deduction is not welfare. If a deduction is welfare, then 100% of the population of this country is on welfare.

Of course Corporations get more deductions. They have higher taxes.

Use your brain stupid.... if I pay only $100 in taxes, and a company pays $16 Billion in taxes.... do you really think I should get more in deductions than than the company? Can you do basic math? What are you, a public school student? You need me to work the calculator for you?

lol. (that's actually a real event. Had a 11th grade student ask me how to do a math problem on his calculator.)

Of course corporations should get more deductions. They make more money, and pay more in tax.

Beyond that, I think the corporate tax rate should be 0%. You people cry and whine about companies investing over seas, and then demand more and more taxes on them here. Gee... why are they moving investments over seas? Can't imagine.

Idiots.

You're so dense dude. Like I said, 2/3 of corporations pay no federal taxes. The large amount of revenue they are able to produce is what's supposed to pay for our nation's expenses. Reducing that blows up the nation's deficit. Instead, more of the tax burden is on the poor and middle class. The middle class having corporarion's tax burdens only slows down the economy. Giving tax relief to corporations or top earners does not strengthen the economy. Why? Because they just keep the money they save rather than invest it. The key to economic growth is strengthening the consumption of the middle class.

What are you talking about? The top 10 most profitable companies in the US, only brought in $200 Billion in profits. If you taxed that at 100%, it wouldn't cover Medicaid. Let alone Medicare, or Social Security, or anything else. This years Federal Budget is $4 Trillion.

No amount of taxes on any company, at any tax rate, would bring in more than 1/10th of that.

And by the way, the higher you jack up those tax rates, the more companies move out of the country. Meaning you are going to get zero money. Burger King already left the US. They are in Canada now. Good job sparky. Yeah, Corporate tax is going to pay the nations expenses? You are crazy.

Not happening. If that's your plan, you have a failed plan. You need a new plan.

Tracking Tax Runaways: Bloomberg Inversions Database

Dozens of companies have left the US, just since 2012. The more the government tries to stop it, the more it happens.

Now back to your claim. You said 2/3rd of companies pay no tax.

This is entirely false on every single possible ground. First, corporations pay tons of other taxes. Employment taxes. Social Security tax. Medicare Tax. Unemployment taxes. Works comp taxes. Excise taxes. Fuel taxes. Environmental taxes.

Let's ignore all that.... Every single CEO, executive, board member, administration, all the way down to the lowest mail room clerk... pays taxes on their income.

Every single distribution of shares, dividends and stock options, pays taxes.

When you say, for example, that General Motors paid no Federal income tax. Mary T. Barra CEO of GM most certainly did pay Federal Income taxes. Yes she did.

So from absolutely no possible perspective, can you claim 2/3rd of companies paid zero Federal taxes. BS. You are wrong. PERIOD.

But let's focus in on exclusively corporate taxes. You claim that 2/3rds of corporations paid no Federal Corporate income tax.

This is false. Sorry, it's simply not true. Not even close to true. Most all companies pay corporate income tax.

However, I do know where you got that absolute trash statistic from. Bernie Sanders, circulated a paper claiming 2/3rds of companies paid zero income tax. What Bernie failed to make clear, was the time line. Between 2006.... and 2012, 2/3rds of companies paid zero tax.

Interesting cut off.... only 2006..... to 2012.... Gee.... Sparky.... can you come up with any possible reason why between just 2006 to 2012, that a ton of companies paid zero in tax?

What possible event could have happened between 2006 and 2012, that somehow could have affected tax revenues from corporations? What could it be! How can't you figure out why on Earth companies may have not paid tax during 2006 to 2012?

WE HAD A RECESSION! Of course profits fell like crap, and with them, tax revenue fell like crap. Resulting in many companies not paying tax.

Sorry, but the 2/3rds of companies don't pay tax is flat out a lie. Profitable companies are paying tons in taxes.

Ugh.... people.... Use your brain. Assuming it wasn't completely removed by a communist in Vermont.

Lol I love how you call my fact bullshit without actually trying to debunk it. Look it's right here:

Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008

Of course besides deductions, we really can't forget about the off shore tax havens now can we? How do you think that affects the deficit?

All liberterians and extreme conservatives care about is the few percent at the top that take most of the wealth. Everyone else can die as far as they are concern! It is a major fucking sickness.

I wouldn't put "all" Libertarians in your category at all. "Conservatives" I am having a hard time figuring them out. They seem to love voting for politicians like "W" or Trump that blow the deficit sky high, but they are supposed to be fiscally conservative.

You are too far left to ever hope to understand conservatives....

 

[Andylusion]

It's not welfare. A deduction is not welfare. If a deduction is welfare, then 100% of the population of this country is on welfare.

Of course Corporations get more deductions. They have higher taxes.

Use your brain stupid.... if I pay only $100 in taxes, and a company pays $16 Billion in taxes.... do you really think I should get more in deductions than than the company? Can you do basic math? What are you, a public school student? You need me to work the calculator for you?

lol. (that's actually a real event. Had a 11th grade student ask me how to do a math problem on his calculator.)

Of course corporations should get more deductions. They make more money, and pay more in tax.

Beyond that, I think the corporate tax rate should be 0%. You people cry and whine about companies investing over seas, and then demand more and more taxes on them here. Gee... why are they moving investments over seas? Can't imagine.

Idiots.

You're so dense dude. Like I said, 2/3 of corporations pay no federal taxes. The large amount of revenue they are able to produce is what's supposed to pay for our nation's expenses. Reducing that blows up the nation's deficit. Instead, more of the tax burden is on the poor and middle class. The middle class having corporarion's tax burdens only slows down the economy. Giving tax relief to corporations or top earners does not strengthen the economy. Why? Because they just keep the money they save rather than invest it. The key to economic growth is strengthening the consumption of the middle class.

What are you talking about? The top 10 most profitable companies in the US, only brought in $200 Billion in profits. If you taxed that at 100%, it wouldn't cover Medicaid. Let alone Medicare, or Social Security, or anything else. This years Federal Budget is $4 Trillion.

No amount of taxes on any company, at any tax rate, would bring in more than 1/10th of that.

And by the way, the higher you jack up those tax rates, the more companies move out of the country. Meaning you are going to get zero money. Burger King already left the US. They are in Canada now. Good job sparky. Yeah, Corporate tax is going to pay the nations expenses? You are crazy.

Not happening. If that's your plan, you have a failed plan. You need a new plan.

Tracking Tax Runaways: Bloomberg Inversions Database

Dozens of companies have left the US, just since 2012. The more the government tries to stop it, the more it happens.

Now back to your claim. You said 2/3rd of companies pay no tax.

This is entirely false on every single possible ground. First, corporations pay tons of other taxes. Employment taxes. Social Security tax. Medicare Tax. Unemployment taxes. Works comp taxes. Excise taxes. Fuel taxes. Environmental taxes.

Let's ignore all that.... Every single CEO, executive, board member, administration, all the way down to the lowest mail room clerk... pays taxes on their income.

Every single distribution of shares, dividends and stock options, pays taxes.

When you say, for example, that General Motors paid no Federal income tax. Mary T. Barra CEO of GM most certainly did pay Federal Income taxes. Yes she did.

So from absolutely no possible perspective, can you claim 2/3rd of companies paid zero Federal taxes. BS. You are wrong. PERIOD.

But let's focus in on exclusively corporate taxes. You claim that 2/3rds of corporations paid no Federal Corporate income tax.

This is false. Sorry, it's simply not true. Not even close to true. Most all companies pay corporate income tax.

However, I do know where you got that absolute trash statistic from. Bernie Sanders, circulated a paper claiming 2/3rds of companies paid zero income tax. What Bernie failed to make clear, was the time line. Between 2006.... and 2012, 2/3rds of companies paid zero tax.

Interesting cut off.... only 2006..... to 2012.... Gee.... Sparky.... can you come up with any possible reason why between just 2006 to 2012, that a ton of companies paid zero in tax?

What possible event could have happened between 2006 and 2012, that somehow could have affected tax revenues from corporations? What could it be! How can't you figure out why on Earth companies may have not paid tax during 2006 to 2012?

WE HAD A RECESSION! Of course profits fell like crap, and with them, tax revenue fell like crap. Resulting in many companies not paying tax.

Sorry, but the 2/3rds of companies don't pay tax is flat out a lie. Profitable companies are paying tons in taxes.

Ugh.... people.... Use your brain. Assuming it wasn't completely removed by a communist in Vermont.

Lol I love how you call my fact bullshit without actually trying to debunk it. Look it's right here:

Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008

Of course besides deductions, we really can't forget about the off shore tax havens now can we? How do you think that affects the deficit?

All liberterians and extreme conservatives care about is the few percent at the top that take most of the wealth. Everyone else can die as far as they are concern! It is a major fucking sickness.

I wouldn't put "all" Libertarians in your category at all. "Conservatives" I am having a hard time figuring them out. They seem to love voting for politicians like "W" or Trump that blow the deficit sky high, but they are supposed to be fiscally conservative.

First, the biggest deficits in US history, didn't happen under Bush, and obviously not Trump.

Second, I don't see this claim about Conservatives and Trump.

2016 Presidential Candidates

If you look at the conservative score card, Trump fares worse than Gary Johnson.

The problem is, Gary Johnson doesn't have a prayer. So we have to choose between Trump and Hillary. Well obviously, even with how much Trump doesn't align with Conservative views, it's still better than Hillary.

 

[Andylusion]

It's very clear Andylusion has no idea about anything.

Coming from someone I just had to report 5 separate posts, for spamming a link, with absolutely no comments at all.

 

[owebo]

You're so dense dude. Like I said, 2/3 of corporations pay no federal taxes. The large amount of revenue they are able to produce is what's supposed to pay for our nation's expenses. Reducing that blows up the nation's deficit. Instead, more of the tax burden is on the poor and middle class. The middle class having corporarion's tax burdens only slows down the economy. Giving tax relief to corporations or top earners does not strengthen the economy. Why? Because they just keep the money they save rather than invest it. The key to economic growth is strengthening the consumption of the middle class.

What are you talking about? The top 10 most profitable companies in the US, only brought in $200 Billion in profits. If you taxed that at 100%, it wouldn't cover Medicaid. Let alone Medicare, or Social Security, or anything else. This years Federal Budget is $4 Trillion.

No amount of taxes on any company, at any tax rate, would bring in more than 1/10th of that.

And by the way, the higher you jack up those tax rates, the more companies move out of the country. Meaning you are going to get zero money. Burger King already left the US. They are in Canada now. Good job sparky. Yeah, Corporate tax is going to pay the nations expenses? You are crazy.

Not happening. If that's your plan, you have a failed plan. You need a new plan.

Tracking Tax Runaways: Bloomberg Inversions Database

Dozens of companies have left the US, just since 2012. The more the government tries to stop it, the more it happens.

Now back to your claim. You said 2/3rd of companies pay no tax.

This is entirely false on every single possible ground. First, corporations pay tons of other taxes. Employment taxes. Social Security tax. Medicare Tax. Unemployment taxes. Works comp taxes. Excise taxes. Fuel taxes. Environmental taxes.

Let's ignore all that.... Every single CEO, executive, board member, administration, all the way down to the lowest mail room clerk... pays taxes on their income.

Every single distribution of shares, dividends and stock options, pays taxes.

When you say, for example, that General Motors paid no Federal income tax. Mary T. Barra CEO of GM most certainly did pay Federal Income taxes. Yes she did.

So from absolutely no possible perspective, can you claim 2/3rd of companies paid zero Federal taxes. BS. You are wrong. PERIOD.

But let's focus in on exclusively corporate taxes. You claim that 2/3rds of corporations paid no Federal Corporate income tax.

This is false. Sorry, it's simply not true. Not even close to true. Most all companies pay corporate income tax.

However, I do know where you got that absolute trash statistic from. Bernie Sanders, circulated a paper claiming 2/3rds of companies paid zero income tax. What Bernie failed to make clear, was the time line. Between 2006.... and 2012, 2/3rds of companies paid zero tax.

Interesting cut off.... only 2006..... to 2012.... Gee.... Sparky.... can you come up with any possible reason why between just 2006 to 2012, that a ton of companies paid zero in tax?

What possible event could have happened between 2006 and 2012, that somehow could have affected tax revenues from corporations? What could it be! How can't you figure out why on Earth companies may have not paid tax during 2006 to 2012?

WE HAD A RECESSION! Of course profits fell like crap, and with them, tax revenue fell like crap. Resulting in many companies not paying tax.

Sorry, but the 2/3rds of companies don't pay tax is flat out a lie. Profitable companies are paying tons in taxes.

Ugh.... people.... Use your brain. Assuming it wasn't completely removed by a communist in Vermont.

Lol I love how you call my fact bullshit without actually trying to debunk it. Look it's right here:

Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008

Of course besides deductions, we really can't forget about the off shore tax havens now can we? How do you think that affects the deficit?

All liberterians and extreme conservatives care about is the few percent at the top that take most of the wealth. Everyone else can die as far as they are concern! It is a major fucking sickness.

I wouldn't put "all" Libertarians in your category at all. "Conservatives" I am having a hard time figuring them out. They seem to love voting for politicians like "W" or Trump that blow the deficit sky high, but they are supposed to be fiscally conservative.

First, the biggest deficits in US history, didn't happen under Bush, and obviously not Trump.

Second, I don't see this claim about Conservatives and Trump.

2016 Presidential Candidates

If you look at the conservative score card, Trump fares worse than Gary Johnson.

The problem is, Gary Johnson doesn't have a prayer. So we have to choose between Trump and Hillary. Well obviously, even with how much Trump doesn't align with Conservative views, it's still better than Hillary.

When did Trump hold public office?

 

[WheelieAddict]

You're so dense dude. Like I said, 2/3 of corporations pay no federal taxes. The large amount of revenue they are able to produce is what's supposed to pay for our nation's expenses. Reducing that blows up the nation's deficit. Instead, more of the tax burden is on the poor and middle class. The middle class having corporarion's tax burdens only slows down the economy. Giving tax relief to corporations or top earners does not strengthen the economy. Why? Because they just keep the money they save rather than invest it. The key to economic growth is strengthening the consumption of the middle class.

What are you talking about? The top 10 most profitable companies in the US, only brought in $200 Billion in profits. If you taxed that at 100%, it wouldn't cover Medicaid. Let alone Medicare, or Social Security, or anything else. This years Federal Budget is $4 Trillion.

No amount of taxes on any company, at any tax rate, would bring in more than 1/10th of that.

And by the way, the higher you jack up those tax rates, the more companies move out of the country. Meaning you are going to get zero money. Burger King already left the US. They are in Canada now. Good job sparky. Yeah, Corporate tax is going to pay the nations expenses? You are crazy.

Not happening. If that's your plan, you have a failed plan. You need a new plan.

Tracking Tax Runaways: Bloomberg Inversions Database

Dozens of companies have left the US, just since 2012. The more the government tries to stop it, the more it happens.

Now back to your claim. You said 2/3rd of companies pay no tax.

This is entirely false on every single possible ground. First, corporations pay tons of other taxes. Employment taxes. Social Security tax. Medicare Tax. Unemployment taxes. Works comp taxes. Excise taxes. Fuel taxes. Environmental taxes.

Let's ignore all that.... Every single CEO, executive, board member, administration, all the way down to the lowest mail room clerk... pays taxes on their income.

Every single distribution of shares, dividends and stock options, pays taxes.

When you say, for example, that General Motors paid no Federal income tax. Mary T. Barra CEO of GM most certainly did pay Federal Income taxes. Yes she did.

So from absolutely no possible perspective, can you claim 2/3rd of companies paid zero Federal taxes. BS. You are wrong. PERIOD.

But let's focus in on exclusively corporate taxes. You claim that 2/3rds of corporations paid no Federal Corporate income tax.

This is false. Sorry, it's simply not true. Not even close to true. Most all companies pay corporate income tax.

However, I do know where you got that absolute trash statistic from. Bernie Sanders, circulated a paper claiming 2/3rds of companies paid zero income tax. What Bernie failed to make clear, was the time line. Between 2006.... and 2012, 2/3rds of companies paid zero tax.

Interesting cut off.... only 2006..... to 2012.... Gee.... Sparky.... can you come up with any possible reason why between just 2006 to 2012, that a ton of companies paid zero in tax?

What possible event could have happened between 2006 and 2012, that somehow could have affected tax revenues from corporations? What could it be! How can't you figure out why on Earth companies may have not paid tax during 2006 to 2012?

WE HAD A RECESSION! Of course profits fell like crap, and with them, tax revenue fell like crap. Resulting in many companies not paying tax.

Sorry, but the 2/3rds of companies don't pay tax is flat out a lie. Profitable companies are paying tons in taxes.

Ugh.... people.... Use your brain. Assuming it wasn't completely removed by a communist in Vermont.

Lol I love how you call my fact bullshit without actually trying to debunk it. Look it's right here:

Majority of corporations avoid federal income taxes - study - Aug. 12, 2008

Of course besides deductions, we really can't forget about the off shore tax havens now can we? How do you think that affects the deficit?

All liberterians and extreme conservatives care about is the few percent at the top that take most of the wealth. Everyone else can die as far as they are concern! It is a major fucking sickness.

I wouldn't put "all" Libertarians in your category at all. "Conservatives" I am having a hard time figuring them out. They seem to love voting for politicians like "W" or Trump that blow the deficit sky high, but they are supposed to be fiscally conservative.

You are too far left to ever hope to understand conservatives....

You are likely right, they spend money like water on what they see as ok and don't count it it seems. I truly don't understand it.

 

[Onyx]

It depends on your criteria of success.

Government welfare serves to keep society dependent on the ruling class. It has nothing to do with compassion or uplifting people out of poverty. In this regard, liberal welfare programs are incredibly successful.

Conservative welfare programs mostly consist of EITC and plays on it. They are a slightly more responsible variant of a fiscally irresponsible policy.

 

[WheelieAddict]

It's very clear Andylusion has no idea about anything.

Coming from someone I just had to report 5 separate posts, for spamming a link, with absolutely no comments at all.

Typical pussy conservative. You see that's another thing I don't understand about them, they talk all tough, big patriots and shit, then they whine to the teacher at the first opportunity.

 

[Andylusion]

Some people are born naturally smart but most are born stupid. What should the smart people do with stupid people, esoterically speaking?

Well I consider myself to be one of the stupid people. I'm not quite dumb enough to be a happy idiot.... but clearly I'm not smart enough to be successful in life.

I work a menial job, earning about $11/hour, which I have done for... oh 20 years now.

So based on that, I consider myself to be a member of the 'stupid people' group you are asking about.

My answer.... Nothing. I have never thought it was anyones job to fix my life, or help me out. On some occasion, I have asked for help, and people have been kind enough to help now and then. Like drive me to work, while my car is fixed, or lend me a few hundred dollars to fix a broken engine. But beyond that, I have never expected someone who makes more, is somehow obligated to fix my problems.

Now if you want to, on your own choices, decide to help others.... great. I think that's a good thing. But it's not your 'duty' that you are required to fix other people's lives. And certainly not the job of government to force you at the end of a gun, to help others.

 

[Onyx]

I work a menial job, earning about $11/hour, which I have done for... oh 20 years now.

So based on that, I consider myself to be a member of the 'stupid people' group you are asking about.

Very self degrading. You should take pride in being a member of the hard working class.

Unless your labor is not being valued properly, in which case you should be pissed for getting exploited.

 

[Andylusion]

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting with post 19, I am reporting each and every single post of yours, that you copy and paste the same thing over and over. You can not just spam the forums, without any comment at all, as a substitution for discussion.

Report all you want you little bitch. How about finally addressing the fact that social security is a successful "welfare program".

One, when a little b!tch squeals that other people are little b!tches... you laugh.
Sad little boy. Just follow the rules.

If you had simply said why you were posting the link, I would have answered.

Answer: It isn't. Social Security is the most poverty creating program in this country. Moreover, it's going broke. By 2019, the spending will exceed revenue. The problem is, the "assets" of the trust fund.... are merely IOUs from the Federal government. Tell me sparky, how many billions does the Federal government have, to cover the IOUs to Social Security?

Zero!

So how secure is the Social Security trust fund? It isn't.

If you don't want to believe that, then why did Obama cry that unless we increased the debt limit, Social Security wouldn't be paid out?

If the Trust fund is fully funded, then it shouldn't matter if the government borrows more money, or not. Why would it matter?

Because Social Security is broke. That's why. There is no money in Social Security, and when the program runs out of money, the government won't be able to cover it.

That's why the retirement age keeps going up, and the payouts keep going down.

You really think that $1,300 a month is a great retirement? Then why do you have the fight for 15 movement?

So you have nothing. Social security isn't broke and it is the most successful "welfare" program ever in the history of the US.

You see, back in the olden days when your bullshit was how it was done old people that didn't save enough on their own, or were unfortunate to lose some money, or were ripped off by "investments", or picked the wrong investment....etc. Well they should have been smarter so they can suffer you say.

Luckily smarter heads prevailed and established a fund so none of our senior citizens have to live out the end of their lives starving to death. Of course you would like that to go away and if they starve it's just their fault right.

Social security is widely popular and supported because it is the best kind of "wellfare". The only people who want to do away with it without something to replace it are the biggest assholes or idiots amongst us.

So you have lies. Social Security most certainly is going broke. Only a fool would even attempt to deny it, when the trustees of the fund, are saying it.

Moreover, I wager that unlike you, I have actually delivered meals on wheels, to Social Security pensioners. They are practically starving to death. That's the whole reason I was delivering them food. I've met these people, living in an apartment smaller than a college students dorm, sitting in the dark, to keep the electric bill low, subsisting on your government pension.

You claim to save them from suffering, but they are in fact suffering. They suffering under social security. After you stole from them 15% of their income for life, they are suffering in poverty until they die.

Don't even attempt to tell me, I am the one pushing a policy that could cause suffering, while your policy IS CAUSING SUFFERING... right now.

Funny thing is, if you don't save up for retirement, someday you'll be the lonely, old person sitting in the dark, of a 400 sq foot studio apartment, waiting for meals on wheels to delivery your luke-warm food, and looking for a Social Security check, while some other know-nothing socialist is on this forum is spewing about how great you have it.

I have never consider myself to be that bright of a person... but I can see the difference between my parents who saved and invested their whole lives, and now have a million dollars net worth, and the people at the retirement home who saved nothing, and counted on government for their retirement. I don't need a college degree to see the difference. Do you?

 

[Andylusion]

I work a menial job, earning about $11/hour, which I have done for... oh 20 years now.

So based on that, I consider myself to be a member of the 'stupid people' group you are asking about.

Very self degrading. You should take pride in being a member of the hard working class.

Unless your labor is not being valued properly, in which case you should be pissed for getting exploited.

Yeah, I don't really understand that claim either. I've had jobs where the pay was to low. I didn't bother getting pissed, and throwing around words like "exploited". I did something entirely different, and amazingly easy.... I got a different job that paid more.

Why should I be pissed, if I choose to work a job, that doesn't pay enough? This isn't communist Russia. I don't have to go where the Kremlin says. If I choose to stay there, and I feel as though "my labor is not valued properly", the only one I should be 'pissed' at.... would be me.

There is nothing more stupid to me, than a person who has freedom to do whatever they want.... choosing to stay at a job where they feel "exploited". If you feel "exploited" and yet refuse to leave.... that makes YOU the idiot. How dumb is that?

"I am being used and abused by my employer! So I'm going to keep going back every single day so I can complain about it, and not do anything to fix the situation I am choosing to put myself into!"

 

[WheelieAddict]

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting with post 19, I am reporting each and every single post of yours, that you copy and paste the same thing over and over. You can not just spam the forums, without any comment at all, as a substitution for discussion.

Report all you want you little bitch. How about finally addressing the fact that social security is a successful "welfare program".

One, when a little b!tch squeals that other people are little b!tches... you laugh.
Sad little boy. Just follow the rules.

If you had simply said why you were posting the link, I would have answered.

Answer: It isn't. Social Security is the most poverty creating program in this country. Moreover, it's going broke. By 2019, the spending will exceed revenue. The problem is, the "assets" of the trust fund.... are merely IOUs from the Federal government. Tell me sparky, how many billions does the Federal government have, to cover the IOUs to Social Security?

Zero!

So how secure is the Social Security trust fund? It isn't.

If you don't want to believe that, then why did Obama cry that unless we increased the debt limit, Social Security wouldn't be paid out?

If the Trust fund is fully funded, then it shouldn't matter if the government borrows more money, or not. Why would it matter?

Because Social Security is broke. That's why. There is no money in Social Security, and when the program runs out of money, the government won't be able to cover it.

That's why the retirement age keeps going up, and the payouts keep going down.

You really think that $1,300 a month is a great retirement? Then why do you have the fight for 15 movement?

So you have nothing. Social security isn't broke and it is the most successful "welfare" program ever in the history of the US.

You see, back in the olden days when your bullshit was how it was done old people that didn't save enough on their own, or were unfortunate to lose some money, or were ripped off by "investments", or picked the wrong investment....etc. Well they should have been smarter so they can suffer you say.

Luckily smarter heads prevailed and established a fund so none of our senior citizens have to live out the end of their lives starving to death. Of course you would like that to go away and if they starve it's just their fault right.

Social security is widely popular and supported because it is the best kind of "wellfare". The only people who want to do away with it without something to replace it are the biggest assholes or idiots amongst us.

So you have lies. Social Security most certainly is going broke. Only a fool would even attempt to deny it, when the trustees of the fund, are saying it.

Moreover, I wager that unlike you, I have actually delivered meals on wheels, to Social Security pensioners. They are practically starving to death. That's the whole reason I was delivering them food. I've met these people, living in an apartment smaller than a college students dorm, sitting in the dark, to keep the electric bill low, subsisting on your government pension.

You claim to save them from suffering, but they are in fact suffering. They suffering under social security. After you stole from them 15% of their income for life, they are suffering in poverty until they die.

Don't even attempt to tell me, I am the one pushing a policy that could cause suffering, while your policy IS CAUSING SUFFERING... right now.

Funny thing is, if you don't save up for retirement, someday you'll be the lonely, old person sitting in the dark, of a 400 sq foot studio apartment, waiting for meals on wheels to delivery your luke-warm food, and looking for a Social Security check, while some other know-nothing socialist is on this forum is spewing about how great you have it.

I have never consider myself to be that bright of a person... but I can see the difference between my parents who saved and invested their whole lives, and now have a million dollars net worth, and the people at the retirement home who saved nothing, and counted on government for their retirement. I don't need a college degree to see the difference. Do you?

First off, you don't know me and don't get to rate my generosity to others. Second if you think social security is making people poorer you are just unbelievably stupid, more than I even fathomed. Congrats?

 

[Onyx]

The biggest scheme was convincing liberals that state social services were not exploitative.

I actually believe in public services, but only when they are funded voluntarily and they do not operate as charities.

The biggest failure of welfare in history has been Africa. There have been many social workers that have later explained how all their efforts were wasted, because you cannot just give people free things and expect that to be sustainable change on its own.



I heard about this guy several years ago, and he really changed my perception on how destructive and unproductive charity is.