The Speech Obama Should Be Giving.

[Rohirrim]

I consider this the last voice in the wilderness for America. After the SCOTUS legislated a new law, Citizens United, from the bench, selling out our campaigns, the voices of people like Bernie Sanders will dwindle and disappear, as will the middle class in this country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[mhgaffney]

Nice work, Ro. You beat me to it.

Bernie Sanders hits a homer out of the park...

[Taco John]

It's just an old man rambling. He doesn't mention the Federal Reserve and the debt based economic system (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#). It's amusing to me that he mentions the so-called "progressive" provisions that were put into existence "as early as 1916." He's talking about the founding of the war and welfare state that was implemented - it's the whole reason we are where we are today. You can't have a war and welfare state without a debt based economy. You can't have a debt based economy without a central planning agency. When you create a central planning agency that controls the money supply, you institutionalize a king in the form of an monetary agency. And all Bernie Sanders is doing is complaining about the injustice of the fact that the king and its courtisans have more money than the rest of us do. His speech is nothing but gravelling to the system to cut us off a bigger slice of the bread.

The problem is, where is that slice going once you put it back into the system? Who created that mess of budgets that need to be funded? Where do you think that money is really going to go once it's in the system? The courtisains of the kings court, of course! The US Federal Government is nothing but an exchange where the king's court divvies up the dollars between the welfare and warfare sections of the state, and plan the economy to benefit the most successful courtiers who know how to ride the waves of public opinion towards the money.

Taxing them isn't going to work. It won't redistribute the income in the way you hope it will. It will reduce jobs and worse, create dependancies. This is negative economic momentum.

The problem is systemic.

Here's a much better speech that is much more in tune with the source of the problem, and not merely grovelling for an extra loave of bread and lump of coal for the stove.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vLV4jn8BMU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vLV4jn8BMU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P8viiSFRiyQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P8viiSFRiyQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fTeACCuFyEs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fTeACCuFyEs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Rohirrim]

My thread has been hijacked. :oyvey:

TJ, the social stuff that Sanders is talking about that started "as early as 1916" is what created the middle class in America. Now it's being dismantled so we can shove all the wealth this country produces into the pockets of the top 1%. Feudalism. That's what's happening.

[Taco John]

Your thread hasn't been hijacked. You just don't understand the issue very well and the fact that there's a discussion here to be had that isn't based along class war fare lines. Pleading with the wealthy to ease up on us is silly. All they want to do is use the government to entrench their power further, and all the pleas for help and all the legislation that will follow will only work to serve that aim.

The social stuff is the welfare warfare state, and it's the source of the problem. Grovelling for a better percentage isn't the solution to all of our problems. It's just perpetuating the system and entrenching the elite. The welfare state isn't what created the middle class. That's absurd. The industrial revolution is what created the middle class. Manufacturing jobs and the like. Not to mention the warfare state. That's a lot of manufacturing jobs.

It's silly that you think government taxing and handouts are what created the middle class. Come on Ro. You're much to bright to have such absurdities cemented in your brain as certainties. Hailing what happened in 1916 (creation of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax System) and then complaining about the shrinking middle class is counter productive. You're hailing the thing that created the thing that you're railing against - which of course is exactly right where they want you: not knowing if you're coming or going.

[mhgaffney]

[QUOTE=Taco John;3029117]It's just an old man rambling. He doesn't mention the Federal Reserve and the debt based economic system (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#). It's amusing to me that he mentions the so-called "progressive" provisions that were put into existence "as early as 1916." He's talking about the founding of the war and welfare state that was implemented - it's the whole reason we are where we are today. You can't have a war and welfare state without a debt based economy. You can't have a debt based economy without a central planning agency. When you create a central planning agency that controls the money supply, you institutionalize a king in the form of an monetary agency. And all Bernie Sanders is doing is complaining about the injustice of the fact that the king and its courtisans have more money than the rest of us do. His speech is nothing but gravelling to the system to cut us off a bigger slice of the bread.

The problem is, where is that slice going once you put it back into the system? Who created that mess of budgets that need to be funded? Where do you think that money is really going to go once it's in the system? The courtisains of the kings court, of course! The US Federal Government is nothing but an exchange where the king's court divvies up the dollars between the welfare and warfare sections of the state, and plan the economy to benefit the most successful courtiers who know how to ride the waves of public opinion towards the money.

Taxing them isn't going to work. It won't redistribute the income in the way you hope it will. It will reduce jobs and worse, create dependancies. This is negative economic momentum.

The problem is systemic.[QUOTE]


Unbelievable nonsense. This is your ideology talking.

So, Taco, where are all the jobs from Exxon's $25 billion in profits? A company that paid no taxes last year -- after making record profits --

Answer: Nonexistent. The big corporations are not interested in creating jobs in the US. They are investing abroad -- even as they pour hundreds of millions into lobbying in Washington and US electoral politics -- to buy candidates here who will reward them with MORE tax breaks.

You claim to be a libertarian -- but in truth you are nothing but another lame apologist for predatory Capitalism -- and the corruption that goes with it.

[Taco John]

Whatever. Tax schemes aren't going to make a lick of difference. You're spitting into a hurricane and complaining that your face is wet as far as I'm concerned.

[Taco John]

Listen... We share the same common enemy. The key difference is you guys want to keep the monster at bay by taking food off its plate, and I want to drive a steak through its heart.

[mhgaffney]

The hurricane is human caused. This is not some random act of Nature.

[Taco John]

The hurricane is human caused. This is not some random act of Nature.

Yeah, and that cause is the welfare warfare state and the Federal Reserve that was implemented to finance it with a debt based economy. This so-called "middle class" is in debt up to its eyeballs. Easy credit catching up to us is what is sucking the middle class down the chutes.

Hayek warned us about this, so why is anybody suprised that it's happening?

[JJJ]

So, Taco, where are all the jobs from Exxon's $25 billion in profits? A company that paid no taxes last year -- after making record profits --
.

Exxon employs of 100k people worldwide and 79k in the US, nearly all very well paid. That is 80k people paying a lot of income taxes.

Exxon paid over 47% income taxes last year worldwide. Over $15B in taxes paid in 2009 out of $35B in profit.

Foreign earned income tax credits are applied to their US tax bill and they do employ offshore tax shelters.

Exxon though is paying taxes where most of the work and most of the environmental impact of its work is felt.

Exxon is not alone. Two-thirds of US corporations paid no taxes in 2009. Completely legal. Don't blame Exxon, blame congress. Don't like it, change the law.

If you were to lower the US corporate tax rates (2nd highest in the world without loopholes) you will eliminate in large part the need for tax shelters and for congressmen to make loopholes for their local headquartered companies and you would see US corporate tax revenues increase demonstrably.

The low taxes they pay in the US though gives them plenty of incentive to keep their HQ and all those high paying jobs in the US.

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/How-Exxon-paid-zero-tazes-in-2009.php

[Bronco Yoda]

Whatever. Tax schemes aren't going to make a lick of difference. You're spitting into a hurricane and complaining that your face is wet as far as I'm concerned.

Really?

What planet do you live on?

School districts acroos the nation are cutting programs, teachers and now school days are being cut back. The transportation infrastructure is crumbling beneath us. On and on and on!

But more taxes from the rich won't help that?

There's nothing wrong with capitalism if kept in check with proper regulations. Social programs are a noble thing and needed for a society if done responsibly.

Why can't we have both? A strong capitalistic society to create wealth for all and security for those that need it.

We could have it all. But instead... we've allowed 1% to have it all.

And TJ... you obviously approve of this.

Wake up. You're never going to be one of these Billionares. You're just one of us like it or not.

[Bronco Yoda]

I consider this the last voice in the wilderness for America. After the SCOTUS legislated a new law, Citizens United, from the bench, selling out our campaigns, the voices of people like Bernie Sanders will dwindle and disappear, as will the middle class in this country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


Nice Ro!

If only enough would listen.

[Bronco Yoda]

Listen... We share the same common enemy. The key difference is you guys want to keep the monster at bay by taking food off its plate, and I want to drive a steak through its heart.

No. Your way will just release the monster completely.

[JJJ]

I consider this the last voice in the wilderness for America. After the SCOTUS legislated a new law, Citizens United, from the bench, selling out our campaigns, the voices of people like Bernie Sanders will dwindle and disappear, as will the middle class in this country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5OtB298fHY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Pretty much a babbling old man.

I bet the good billionaires he mentioned are the one he knows that contribute to his campaign. Of course, not all the CEOs are bad. Way to cover your ass Bernie. Ha!

Wall Street lobbyist in Congress? How about all those hired directly into the Obama administration? Rants like this have no credible basis when put up against the facts.

He calls them tax cuts for the rich. It is actually a tax increase on the rich that is being considered. And it not only is opposed by the Republicans but by many of his esteemed Democratic friends. You still have majorities in both parties for another month kiddies.

[Taco John]

You can't have the social stability that you guys are pleading for in a debt based economy. Eventually the debt catches up to you and the central agency's only option is to inflate our way out while bailing out the banks at the top to keep the system afloat. The only solution you have to offer is to cut our own throats by doing three economy crushing things: 1) Printing more money, 2) artificially lowering interest rates, and the economic soul crushing trifecta 3) raising taxes.

This begging and pleading to raise taxes is sickening because it's completely blind of the cause and effect. People think raising taxes simply means more stuff for us. What it really means is less jobs for us, and more jobs being relocated overseas.



We could have it all. But instead... we've allowed 1% to have it all.

I want no part of a society that believes what you just wrote. I believe in a free society where property rights mean something, and that people don't believe that they can take your property out of the sense that "we can have it all, or we can allow you to keep what you've earned, it's our decision to vote on your goods." This is anarchistic, mob rule mentality.


Wake up. You're never going to be one of these Billionares. You're just one of us like it or not.

I don't understand your statement. I have no illusions that I'm ever going to be a billionaire. I'm looking out for the interests of me and my family, and ultimately humanity at large. I don't want to see us cut our own throats with short-sighted legislation based on emotion-based class warfare.

[Taco John]

No. Your way will just release the monster completely.

That's right after we've run him through with a sword.

[Rohirrim]

Really?

What planet do you live on?

School districts acroos the nation are cutting programs, teachers and now school days are being cut back. The transportation infrastructure is crumbling beneath us. On and on and on!

But more taxes from the rich won't help that?

There's nothing wrong with capitalism if kept in check with proper regulations. Social programs are a noble thing and needed for a society if done responsibly.

Why can't we have both? A strong capitalistic society to create wealth for all and security for those that need it.

We could have it all. But instead... we've allowed 1% to have it all.

And TJ... you obviously approve of this.

Wake up. You're never going to be one of these Billionares. You're just one of us like it or not.

I can't say it better than this. :thumbsup:

[elsid13]

Senator Kerry is having amazing passionate articulate interview on Meet the Press focused this economic issues. If he had been this passionate on the campaign trail he would have been president.

[Bronco Yoda]

You can't have the social stability that you guys are pleading for in a debt based economy. Eventually the debt catches up to you and the central agency's only option is to inflate our way out while bailing out the banks at the top to keep the system afloat. The only solution you have to offer is to cut our own throats by doing three economy crushing things: 1) Printing more money, 2) artificially lowering interest rates, and the economic soul crushing trifecta 3) raising taxes.

This begging and pleading to raise taxes is sickening because it's completely blind of the cause and effect. People think raising taxes simply means more stuff for us. What it really means is less jobs for us, and more jobs being relocated overseas.


I want no part of a society that believes what you just wrote. I believe in a free society where property rights mean something, and that people don't believe that they can take your property out of the sense that "we can have it all, or we can allow you to keep what you've earned, it's our decision to vote on your goods." This is anarchistic, mob rule mentality.

I don't understand your statement. I have no illusions that I'm ever going to be a billionaire. I'm looking out for the interests of me and my family, and ultimately humanity at large. I don't want to see us cut our own throats with short-sighted legislation based on emotion-based class warfare.

I'm all for replacing the Fed. If your boy can pull that one off, more power to him. I will sing his praises!

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about setting the tax rates back somewhere closer to the pre Reagean era. You know, when we were still building bridges and taking care of roads and such. You as a lib should appreciate going back in time ;D.

I'm not saying taxes will cure all. It won't. But it's a damn good start. And not all that complicated to do.

We are taxed in SOOOOOO many ways. Just last week I broke an axle and rim on a massive pot hole. Had the city taken care of it like they should (but funds are so low right now) I wouldn't be shelling out a grand to fix it. But I feel all so warm and fuzzy right now that the ultra rich and corp's have extra money to sock away.

Not sure where you're going with the property rights issue. I own property and housing in California, New mexico & colorado. I doubt you care more than I do about this issue.

I disagree with you on the jobs opinion as well. 'Uncertainty' ... more than taxes or even regulations affect job creation. You can plan and hire around anything (higher taxes, tarrifs, regulations, etc...) IF you know what you're planning for. That's the key here. Any business owner will tell you this. I know because I've been one. Have you?

It's like the old saying 'you teach people how to treat you'. Gov's, companies, vendors, etc. are no different.

You either teach people to walk all over you... or you don't. Guess what what we taught big corp's and the wealthy elite what they can do to us... any guesses?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exxon employs of 100k people worldwide and 79k in the US, nearly all very well paid. That is 80k people paying a lot of income taxes.

Exxon paid over 47% income taxes last year worldwide. Over $15B in taxes paid in 2009 out of $35B in profit.

Foreign earned income tax credits are applied to their US tax bill and they do employ offshore tax shelters.

Exxon though is paying taxes where most of the work and most of the environmental impact of its work is felt.

Exxon is not alone. Two-thirds of US corporations paid no taxes in 2009. Completely legal. Don't blame Exxon, blame congress. Don't like it, change the law.

If you were to lower the US corporate tax rates (2nd highest in the world without loopholes) you will eliminate in large part the need for tax shelters and for congressmen to make loopholes for their local headquartered companies and you would see US corporate tax revenues increase demonstrably.

The low taxes they pay in the US though gives them plenty of incentive to keep their HQ and all those high paying jobs in the US.

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/How-Exxon-paid-zero-tazes-in-2009.php

Ha ha ha! ROFL!

Where do you get this nonsense?

Do you just make this sh*t up?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is Barack Obama Stupid?

by Cenk Uygur (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/29)

New CBS News poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024494-503544.html) out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.

53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.

So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.

If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/dem-memo-on-tax-cuts-part_n_791851.html) if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!

Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?

But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.

Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306995.html?hpid=topnews) spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?

That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/republican-compromise) Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.

Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.

The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.

All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.

And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.

Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.

[Obushma]

I'm all for replacing the Fed. If your boy can pull that one off, more power to him. I will sing his praises!

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about setting the tax rates back somewhere closer to the pre Reagean era. You know, when we were still building bridges and taking care of roads and such. You as a lib should appreciate going back in time ;D.

I'm not saying taxes will cure all. It won't. But it's a damn good start. And not all that complicated to do.



You want to put some antiseptic on a flesh eating virus, TJ wants to amputate. I'd be willing to bet you're a boomer.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The speech Obama should be giving:

"I retire."

[JJJ]

Ha ha ha! ROFL!

Where do you get this nonsense?

Do you just make this sh*t up?

You could have clicked the link I gave.

Or this one....http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual

Or this one......http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=XOM

Your stupidity is really only exceeded by your laziness.

[JJJ]

Is Barack Obama Stupid?

by Cenk Uygur (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/29)

New CBS News poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024494-503544.html) out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.

53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.

So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.

If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/dem-memo-on-tax-cuts-part_n_791851.html) if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!

Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?

But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.

Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306995.html?hpid=topnews) spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?

That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/republican-compromise) Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.

Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.

The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.

All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.

And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.

Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.

You should eliminate the 45% who don't pay any taxes. They really shouldn't have a say in the matter one way or another.

It is not a tax cut by the way. When the taxes have been at this level for going on 8 years now I don't think you can really call it a tax cut.

Ask the question in the form of the tax increase that it really is and you likely get totally different responses.

[Bronco Yoda]

.

[Bronco Yoda]

You want to put some antiseptic on a flesh eating virus, TJ wants to amputate. I'd be willing to bet you're a boomer.

Guess you suck at betting. Don't go to Vegas.

BTW, What EXACTLY are you trying to amputate. The middle class?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You could have clicked the link I gave.

Or this one....http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual

Or this one......http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=XOM

Your stupidity is really only exceeded by your laziness.

:oyvey:

Good God, you're an idiot.

You conveniently leave out the part about how Exxon breaks even with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Here are some facts for the non-RNC spambots:

GE, Exxon Paid No U.S. Income Taxes in '09
GE Capital Lost Money, Exxon's Tax Dollars Went Overseas

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You should eliminate the 45% who don't pay any taxes.

There you go making sh_t up again. tsk tsk

It is not a tax cut by the way.

ROFL!

That's right up there with the right-wing myth that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Why don't you explain how you propose to pay for these cuts?

[JJJ]

:oyvey:

Good God, you're an idiot.

You conveniently leave out the part about how Exxon breaks even with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Here are some facts for the non-RNC spambots:

GE, Exxon Paid No U.S. Income Taxes in '09
GE Capital Lost Money, Exxon's Tax Dollars Went Overseas

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167

No **** sherlock. They are an international company. Do you think they have wells and refineries "permanently invested" overseas? Of course they do.

Where do you think they will need cash in the future, in their international well sites and other investments or at home in Texas?

The facts are they paid 47% of the pre-tax income in taxes. $15B.

They didn't pay any income taxes in the US. but they did pay lots of payroll taxes and their employees paid a lot of taxes also.

They could pull up shop tomorrow and set up their HQ permanently in a tax haven as many companies already have. Everything you want to do just makes that choice so much easier for them. You like Obama are experts at driving business away to other countries.

[Taco John]

Guess you suck at betting. Don't go to Vegas.

BTW, What EXACTLY are you trying to amputate. The middle class?

The head of the dragon.

[JJJ]

There you go making sh_t up again. tsk tsk



ROFL!

That's right up there with the right-wing myth that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Why don't you explain how you propose to pay for these cuts?

How many times do I have to show you that fact? Are you dense, seriously?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1#y-nav-sec

There is this little thingie called the internet where you can easily get facts such as this. Yahoo has a very liberal slant by the way.

Regarding how to balance the budget. I will put something together for you shortly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They didn't pay any income taxes in the US.

Thanks for finally acknowledging this fact.

The rest of your "save the billionaires" spin is too ludicrous to even warrant a serious response.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yahoo has a very liberal slant by the way.


ROFL!

That's hilarious!

[Obushma]

Guess you suck at betting. Don't go to Vegas.


I am terrible in Vegas, that's why I stick to poker.

BTW, What EXACTLY are you trying to amputate. The middle class?

You said it right here...

I'm all for replacing the Fed. If your boy can pull that one off, more power to him. I will sing his praises!

So I guess the real question is, why do you want to put a band-aid on a bullet wound?

[JJJ]

Thanks for finally acknowledging this fact.

The rest of your "save the billionaires" spin is too ludicrous to even warrant a serious response.

The fact they didn't pay any in the US in 2009 had long been established.

I said they paid 47% in taxes worldwide. Absolute fact. You cried BS. You were wrong. So can you please at least acknowledge this fact? From a consolidated worldwide view XOM pays their fair share in taxes.

The billionaires I can care less about. Saving the companies and keeping the headquarters and high paying jobs in country is what I care about. To do that you have a competitive tax and business environment. Otherwise you lose. Just that simple.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The fact they didn't pay any in the US in 2009 had long been established.

I said they paid 47% in taxes worldwide. Absolute fact. You cried BS. You were wrong. So can you please at least acknowledge this fact? From a consolidated worldwide view XOM pays their fair share in taxes.

The billionaires I can care less about. Saving the companies and keeping the headquarters and high paying jobs in country is what I care about. To do that you have a competitive tax and business environment. Otherwise you lose. Just that simple.

You're speaking a foreign language to him.

He thinks that yahoo news is unbiased. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He thinks that yahoo news is unbiased. Ha!

No - Yahoo News has a definite right-wing bias.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I said they paid 47% in taxes worldwide. Absolute fact. You cried BS. You were wrong.

But I wasn't wrong - you just did your usual cherry picking again.

[JJJ]

But I wasn't wrong - you just did your usual cherry picking again.

Good lord. You do need some help.

I showed you their income statement. How is that cherry picking?

Cherry picking is by your definition any fact that completely blows your position out of the water.

You are wrong and everyone here can plainly see that. You just are not man enough to admit it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I showed you their income statement. How is that cherry picking?

I already told you:

You conveniently leave out the part about how Exxon breaks even with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.



You are wrong and everyone here can plainly see that.

Bandwagon appeal.

[JJJ]

I already told you:

Bandwagon appeal.

They pay 47% despite having those tax havens. The 47% is net-of all those tax-avoiding tricks.

And all international companies have much of their foreign-earned cash parked in the country it was earned for two reasons, one to reinvest it in that country, and two it is often subject to tax if repatriated, either by the host country or the country it is being repatriated to.

Legal avoidance of tax for a businessman is equivalent to the the hippocratic oath for a doctor. It is his duty for his shareholders.

Business concepts are just too much for you my friend. Stick to musical instruments.

[epicSocialism4tw]

No - Yahoo News has a definite right-wing bias.

Dude, you cant just lie over and over again and expect that people believe your lie just because you repeat it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dude, you cant just lie over and over again and expect that people believe your lie just because you repeat it.

Hilarious!

AngryProjectionQueen strikes again.

http://www.bartcop.com/boners-iceberg.jpg

Oh well - at least your BF admitted that Exxon avoids paying any income tax in the U.S.

I guess that's a start toward getting his facts straight.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/more-everything.jpg