GOP'ish candidates

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.

I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aAKluP7yIwJY

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aAKluP7yIwJY

Then we could start over and build an economy based on meeting human needs, not enriching a handful of individuals at the expense of people and the environment. Think it can't be done? We have the resources to do so; it just requires a mindset change. And before they leave, we could take back whatever they've stolen.

You're welcome to scatter along with the corporations, TracyCoxx.

[tslust]

The whole issue about raising corperate taxes or taxing the rich, is BS. The government needs to CUT SPENDING. As of early 2009 (the ecconomic situation has further deteriorated) if we had a total freeze on government spending and had a 100% Feeral tax, it would still take ten years to pay off the debt.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

The whole issue about raising corperate taxes or taxing the rich, is BS. The government needs to CUT SPENDING. As of early 2009 (the ecconomic situation has further deteriorated) if we had a total freeze on government spending and had a 100% Feeral tax, it would still take ten years to pay off the debt.

I'm all for cutting government spending. But I bet we won't agree on the cuts to make.

Let's get real about this deficit. The U.S. federal budget deficit today doesn't even come close to the percentage of the economy it was in, say, 1943, when it accounted for

30.3%. The Congressional Budget Office's most dire projection is that it will be 5.8% in fiscal 2014. This deficit business is a made-up catastrophe. Yes, it's large, but by no means insurmountable. When Reagan was president in 1983, the deficit was 6% of the economy, and by 1998 it had been turned into a surplus.

The call for drastic cuts are simply part of the strategy to shrink government, not the deficit. If deficit reduction was serious, the screamers of doom would be calling for cuts in the parts of the budget that are significant, and not stupid-ass stuff like the National Endowment for the Arts. But Romney, for instance, wants to increase the budget for the Pentagon -- the base budget for which has increased by nearly doubled in the last decade.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm all for cutting government spending. But I bet we won't agree on the cuts to make.

You might be surprised.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

You might be surprised.

I'd be interested in details. But with all due respect, tslust, it's difficult to take seriously in a political discussion anyone who identifies her or his location as "United Socialist States of America." And it's not because that's just silly, Tea Party-esque drivel, but because if you don't even really know what socialism is, or if you're going to pretend that the United States is socialist, how can we discuss politics?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Then we could start over and build an economy based on meeting human needs, not enriching a handful of individuals at the expense of people and the environment. Think it can't be done? We have the resources to do so; it just requires a mindset change. And before they leave, we could take back whatever they've stolen.

whatever that is... and they'll leave with all their patents. I know plenty of humans whose needs are met. If you're talking about meeting the needs of illegal aliens, I'm not interested. They're taking away resources from citizens of this country who need the resources while you've got the government actively trying to put people on food stamps who don't need them.

Originally Posted by smc

You're welcome to scatter along with the corporations, TracyCoxx.

What was that for?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

whatever that is... and they'll leave with all their patents. I know plenty of humans whose needs are met. If you're talking about meeting the needs of illegal aliens, I'm not interested. They're taking away resources from citizens of this country who need the resources while you've got the government actively trying to put people on food stamps who don't need them.

I didn't say a word about undocumented workers, but your attempt to change the subject (I know, you'll argue that I used the word "human" and so anything is game) is transparent.

But I have to hand it to you, TracyCoxx, you're relentless. I admire your willingness to go to the mat every single time with your provocative behavior. Sometimes I think the Internet was created for anonymous people like you who never have to face their audiences. As I've posted many times before, I believe with everything I'm made of that you would be used to mop the floor in a real debate. I refer readers to other posts for an explanation of why, lest I use the description that sends you off whining to the site owner.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What was that for?

Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s. Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s.

Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

Originally Posted by smc

Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.

What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy. Why am I worried about the economy? For the sake of corporations? No. For the average American. I know, why use simple logic when you can fire off a sarcastic one liner?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you. When the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Affordable Care Act, you decided that despite that the Court is the supreme governing body that is tasked with determining Constitutionality, and did it's job, the fact that you disagree means you get to choose what is constitutional. As I wrote then about you as a "friend" of the Constitution, "The sworn enemies of the United States would have better luck bringing down the nation by encouraging more of these types of friends than through conventional warfare."

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy. Why am I worried about the economy? For the sake of corporations? No. For the average American. I know, why use simple logic when you can fire off a sarcastic one liner?

And I suggest that a different type of economy would be better for the average American. But why acknowledge that you knew I meant that, since I've been pretty explicit, when you can fire off another one of your provocative bullshit posts.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you. When the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Affordable Care Act, you decided that despite that the Court is the supreme governing body that is tasked with determining Constitutionality, and did it's job, the fact that you disagree means you get to choose what is constitutional.

My criticisms of the court ruling were based entirely on what was in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by smc

And I suggest that a different type of economy would be better for the average American. But why acknowledge that you knew I meant that, since I've been pretty explicit, when you can fire off another one of your provocative bullshit posts.

You're saying that is what you meant when you said

Originally Posted by smc

Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s. Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.

This doesn't suggest a different type of economy. This suggests that I leave the US.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

I'd be interested in details. But with all due respect, tslust, it's difficult to take seriously in a political discussion anyone who identifies her or his location as "United Socialist States of America." And it's not because that's just silly, Tea Party-esque drivel, but because if you don't even really know what socialism is, or if you're going to pretend that the United States is socialist, how can we discuss politics?

socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

"Government ownership and administrationship" hmm, does that sound familiar (banks, mortgage firms, automobile companies, wall street, the medical industry, need I go on)?

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you.

The unSupreme Court's decision on obamacare(if it's such a gerat system then why are they [government workers] and unions exempt?) was not Constitutional. That's not simply my opinion, that's what the document says. I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy.

What difference would it make, considering all the jobs they've moved overseas? If they leave entirely, then we can close all the loopholes and start over. If they're going to give all their job opportunities to foreigners and avoid paying all their taxes while everyone else gets punished for doing the same, then they're not welcome here. "Corporations are people, too?" Well, by that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with letting a Fortune 500 CEO run for and serve in public office while retaining his corporate job!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by St. Araqiel

What difference would it make, considering all the jobs they've moved overseas? If they leave entirely, then we can close all the loopholes and start over.

You don't have to wait until corporations leave to close a loophole.

Originally Posted by St. Araqiel

If they're going to give all their job opportunities to foreigners and avoid paying all their taxes while everyone else gets punished for doing the same, then they're not welcome here. "Corporations are people, too?" Well, by that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with letting a Fortune 500 CEO run for and serve in public office while retaining his corporate job!

Yeah, except for conflict of interest. You say things without any thought to consequences.