|
Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Today's Posts | Search | Bookmark & Share |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#351
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. DEO VINDICE |
#352
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#353
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Nevertheless, since based on experience one might reasonably assume you will pretend not to see the point and accuse me of not answering your question now asked multiple times, I will state that I don't think corporate taxes are high enough in this country. Now, you can take that up as a way of avoiding the subject I first raised ... it is my gift to you, because you are always so deserving. (Yes, that's sarcasm.) |
#354
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#355
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A 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. |
#356
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's certainly conceivable that if state and local taxes are added to the federal tax rate, a FEW corporations may pay in the neighborhood of 40%. But this is far from universally true-- if for no other reason that some state (and many municipalities) don't have corporate taxes at all. Further, even if every state did have corporate tax to levy, still, the vast majority of corporations would pay nowhere near 40%. Those who know anything about business know that the effective tax rate (aka. the actual rate that a corporation ends up paying after factoring in deductions, credits, etc.) is 19%. Obviously, the distribution of deductions and credits is not even by business or industry-- under the current tax code, some corporations end up paying close to the federal "minimum" rate, others pay hardly any tax at all. What does all this mean? That our tax code is definitely convoluted. But it also means that it's disingenuous to lay out a blanket percentage of tax rate as if it's fact that applies equally to all. |
#357
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body Last edited by TracyCoxx; 07-18-2012 at 10:00 PM. |
#358
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#359
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. DEO VINDICE |
#360
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#361
|
||||
|
||||
You might be surprised.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. DEO VINDICE |
#362
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What was that for?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#363
|
||||
|
||||
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?
|
#364
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. 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. |
#365
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#366
|
||||
|
||||
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."
Quote:
|
#367
|
|||
|
|||
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!
Last edited by St. Araqiel; 07-22-2012 at 01:01 AM. |
#368
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#369
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#370
|
||||
|
||||
If corporations are people, it's time we start treating them like people. When laws are broken by corporations (or the agents of the corporation), I don't want to see this "settlement" bullshit that the FDA, SEC, FCC, etc. will engage in. I want the corporations taken to court, tried, and if convicted, I want their corporate charters revoked (or the stockholders can be wiped out and the corporate assets liquidated to the highest bidder).
I see this as a double standard. In terms of speech, corporations are viewed as "collections" of people...This collection of people is entitled to spend money and speak for the whole (regardless of whether the individual shareholders agree). But when this same collection of people breaks the law (even if it's individuals within the corporate entity), suddenly the "collective" mindset breaks down. The corporation isn't held accountable; instead, the individual agents acting on its behalf are held accountable (and only sometimes at that). It's nothing original, but I love the statement: I'll start believing that corporations are people when Texas executes one. |
#371
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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)? 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?
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. DEO VINDICE |
#372
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The argument that the United States is socialist is simply ridiculous. Every capitalist country in the world has some elements of the economy that have "socialistic" characteristics, but to say this is a socialist country is beyond asinine. I'm embarrassed even to be engaging in a discussion about something so patently idiotic, and you -- having proven yourself in post after post to have a level of seriousness and intelligence beyond such an idiocy -- ought to be embarrassed, too. Quote:
|
#373
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You must remember, as I've stated before, I am a very firm advocate of State's Rights. The ever-expanding Federal government makes me chafe (well that and starch in my thong). I abhore the burdensome "top down" model - I know that some may not see it as such - that is currently so pervasive throught DC. People and buisness would be better served with less centralized controll over their lives. I'm not saying there should be a total free-for-all where there's anarchy in the streets and the buisness or corporations are simply steamrolling anyone they want to. The Federal government needs to be rolled back to it's originally intended size. (BTW, in case you forgot my questions?) Quote:
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. DEO VINDICE |
#374
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I am not trying to avoid your questions. I thought I answered the first and second ones several times, even if not directly. My answer is that I do not know where in the Constitution the federal government is empowered to run health care. I am not a Constitutional scholar. More important, though, is that the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make that determination. And it empowers the Court, through its rulings, to address the wording of legislation in whatever way the Court ITSELF deems to be Constitutional. You continue to disagree with the Constitutional authority given to the Court to do so, and then when challenged on that point you simply ignore it. By calling it the unSupreme Court, you disrespect the very system you claim to support. I would also argue that the Affordable Care Act does now empower the government to RUN health care, by any definition of RUN. As for your third and fourth question: I don't know what will be next, since I don't accept the terms of your description of what the Court ruled. As for your question about hybrid cars, I will answer by turning the question around. When will the Court rule that it is unconstitutional for the government to give my tax dollars to subsidize oil companies and use its power to keep gasoline prices artificially low so as to encourage the continued use of unsustainable fuels and the automobiles that burn those fuels? |
#375
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In my opinion the big shift from a capitalist based system toward a socialist one came with the rise of the unions and during the Great Depression. Granted, at the time, unions were necessary and there are even some places where they could do some good. I'm not saying to wipe out all unions, just the national and international affiliations. The Great Depression had several causes, and some viewed it as "the failure of capitalism". It was at that point that the Federal government began to introduce some national social programs. Also it saw Congress surrender monitary controll to the Federal Reserve Bank. Quote:
You seem to have a very broad definition of the Third Article. Honestly, judical review is not listed as one of the unSupreme Court (If you are offended by this, then I'm sorry. But why didn't I ever see your distain towards some of the more left leaning members who use the same term to disparage Bush and conservatives?) powers. I can see where that has been interprited as part of their powers, however it is not listed in the Constitution. They most certainly do not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite legislation. For argument's sake, if the unelected nine were to rule that all Americans must purchase only 2% milk, what would you do? Quote:
I believe that most subsidizes can be done away with. My question is why do we continue to purchase oil from the Saudis when there are plenty of other sources? It would be a good idea to provide meaningful investments into researching alternative fuels.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. DEO VINDICE |
#376
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
We do accept the system. The system is that the supreme court makes rulings based on the constitution. I do not see that they have in this case.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#377
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
To your post, tslust ... Words matter, and despite your much appreciated answer to the question I posed you still use the term socialism to describe something that isn’t even remotely socialist. You described the term “socialist” as abstract in an earlier post. Do I understand correctly that, in the concrete, you reserve the right to describe as socialist an entire country regardless of how much “socialism” (i.e., national government “intervention” in economic affairs might exist)? If so, than is every capitalist country in the world actually a socialist country? Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism? These are serious questions, even if the cartoon below is tongue-in-cheek. Quote:
To the point regarding “constitutionality,” though, I guess I'll try one last time to make my point, which at this stage of the discussion I must admit I think is being deliberately ignored. My point (and you will either respond or not): the Supreme Court is, in essence, given the power to determine its own powers. Yes, you can quote the Constitution, but our system is set up in a way that thwarts the literal interpretation of the Constitution in that the Court itself can rule that it has powers. My point all along has been that this is how it works, and you either support the system or you don’t. The Court has ruled many times in ways that seem to go against what the Constitution, taking its words literally, might mean. Most scholars of the U.S. Constitution use the word “beauty” to describe how the Founding Fathers made it so “wise” men and women would use their judgment. Do they get it wrong? Sure, often. They ruled that Blacks were less than whole persons, for instance. Look, I don’t like the Affordable Care Act. I have quoted Lawrence O’Donnell, in agreement, calling it the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act. But you know, tslust, that anything not strictly stated in the Constitution is open to Court interpretation. You can say you disagree when the Court does this and agree when the Court does that, in fulfilling its interpretative mandate, but if you support the system than you have to agree that sometimes you’ll agree and sometimes you’ll disagree with the Court’s decision. The Court’s interpretative mandate to DECIDE is constitutional. Again, that has been my point all along. As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate. By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court? That is the implication of how your 2% milk question is initially posed. Quote:
Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?! |
#378
|
||||
|
||||
Your wittiness is rivaled only by your sophistry.
Quote:
Again, my point is made in the response to tslust above. Apparently, you now speak for tslust. I would think tslust, who actually takes this stuff seriously, would not want to give that kind of carte blanche to someone who doesn't, but the Web is a place of infinite surprise. |
#379
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#380
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Your post in the other thread will be answered when I'm done writing this post. I don't remember seeing it, which is probably why I didn't answer. Unlike some people, I masturbate to pictures online, not just things I myself have written, so I might have been busy. (Yes, go whine to the site owner that I insulted you. I have decided to do you a solid by giving you as many direct opportunities to whine to the site owner as possible, so you don't have to spend time writing compelling arguments about how something that wasn't really an insult actually is.) Quote:
A time-honored trick: throw that which you are accused of back at the accuser, rather than deal with the substance. The differences will be clear to anyone who has the time to look at the full, complete record of your posts and mine, in toto, but I doubt anyone will do so. It's not worth the trouble. Quote:
Now, I'm going to the other thread to deal with that post that you are implying I deliberately ignored ... despite that you have no proof. I could point out all the things, again, that you've never actually answered, but I have other things to do after logging off. For instance, I'm going to search for a manual that explains how to be the best possible troll, because you're slipping. I'll send you the link. |
#381
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Hundreds? Seriously? More important, though, I defy you to find a single post of mine where I reserve the right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum. Find one. I dare you. I, on the other hand, can find many posts of yours where you have complained that I intervened in, or interrupted, or had the nerve to participate in, an open thread -- open meaning anyone can participate. So, in the tradition of TracyCoxx, I want an apology for attributing to me something that I have never done. ... Not really -- I don't want an apology. Because an apology from you would be meaningless. An apology from someone who serially makes up stuff like what I quote above is meaningless. |
#382
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
I have no problem with the selection process of Judical nominees. However I would like to see them made more accountable to the people. It's interesting to note that in Article Three, Section I, it says: "...The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,..." Does that mean the Constitution gives us a way to get rid of judges that we see as bad? IMHO If enough people sign a petition (like about 40%) saying that Ruberts is a bad justice and is not doing his job; then the question of whether he should be retained or not as a justice would be put on the ballot of the next National election. If 51% vote him out, then he has to go. It is in the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science..." That being said, there's too much waste and too much money being poured down holes with nothing to show for it. That's why I said meaningful investments.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. DEO VINDICE |
#383
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|