DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on September 28, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
-
Black Bishop Launches Brutal Attack Against Democratic Party
Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi_KaZ53eDg#ws)
-
What a turd!
I wonder how much they paid this turkey.
-
Whatever the amount, he sure has far more credibility than yourself, as you hide from backing up your own claims (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/the-circle-is-unbroken/msg143934/#msg143934). Can't even try to use me as your kneejerk fallback, since it wasn't me who asked you to support one of your latest wreckless accusations, to begin with
-
Who gives a warm sh*t?
This preacher is a hack, probably a paid hack.
-
And given the level of credibility in your "accusations" (none), safe to say, he probably isn't
-
the man speaks the truth...
the truth hurts dont it XO?
-
He speaks no truth. He makes no sense.
He is full of crap.
-
And given your 99% record of being wrong and/or inability to support anything you claim, he's apparently just the opposite
-
A typical imbecilic sirs comment.
It is a waste of time to put stupid Black preachers here to impress me. I have heard all the stupid preachers, both Black and White, that I ever wish to. None has been convincing.
It is just "Christians" waving a flag of Stupid Nation and proclaiming "Look! here is a Black person in a suit that agrees with me!"
That was the entire Herman Cain campaign in a nutshell.
No one is squawking about what a great idea the 9-9-9 plan is now. The moment that Cain was shown to be a serial horndog seducing White women, it was clear to the Republican hierarchy that Cain was poison to an important core Redneck base of the GOP and he was dropped like the trousers of a dysentery victim.
-
Naaa, the only one throwing out imbecilic comments is the one calling people imbeciles because they dare not agree with him, misrepresenting what others have actually have said or intend, and can't be bothered to back up any wreckess accusation they make
So yea, given your consistency of being wrong nearly every time, apparently this Black person in a suit, is speaking some major truth to get such a rise out of you
-
.................. he was dropped like the trousers of a dysentery victim.
As metaphores go , that one is compelling more than most.
I still do like Herman and I think that reducing the complexity of the tax system is a good idea.
I wish it were availible .
I didn't even know that Hermans accusers were white, I guess if true I would be sorry to have a Republican version of Clinton.
But could I take the bad with the good and enjoy the simpler taxes ?
I suppose I don't need to decide now , its moot.
Yet still it gives a Liberal a chance to accuse Conservatives of racism, everything does it seems.
-
So true, so true
-
I do not think that Cain could be accused of racism for propositioning White women. It may be sinful, it may be impolitic, but it is not racial.
But it is certainly a fact that he would not get more votes for having done it from many, many White folks (not to mention more than a few Black women). It certainly caused him to plummet as a presidential prospect, and I had nary a thing to do with it. It is not my fault that White people in the South (and other places as well) would have voted against Cain for his transracial horndoggery. I am not a racist for pointing this out, contrary to the weird notions that seem to go a-snapping across sirs' defective synapses.
I agree that taxes are too complex for some people. On the other hand, Cain's 9-9-9 plan was not going to raise enough revenue if enacted, and would have had no change of making it through Congress.
-
The main problem with the 9-9-9 idea is that it would rob Congress of one of its major powers.
The cutting of deals for the sake of favorable tax loopholes is a congressional power that has enriched a lot of the congressmen and staff.
Taxes now are so complex that congress itself does not understand , but in the placememnt of loopholes is such power and ability to do favors that we should expect complexity to continue to grow.
Revenue be dammed , we had plenty of revenue back when there was no Income tax at all, there is more than one way to improve revenue including having a tax law simple enough to need less manp[ower to implement and enforce it.
-
Revenue be dammed , we had plenty of revenue back when there was no Income tax at all, there is more than one way to improve revenue including having a tax law simple enough to need less manpower to implement and enforce it. \
-============================================
You were not alive when there was no income tax. It was enacted in 1916 to finance WWI, which we were forced to fight so JP Morgan would not lose all the money he had loaned to the Brits. It was not our fight.
The first income tax only applied to a few very wealthy people.
Before 1916 people lived shorter lives and a lot of them starved.
My point is that Cain's 9-9-9 plan was unable to stand on its own merits. Once Cain was fingered as a serial horndog, his "genius" program expired immediately.
-
What about the (9-9-9) plan fails ?
If I assert that it would result in increased employment and therefore increased revenue , with what fact could you contradict?
The present tax law has the cheif virtue of being a good tool for the Congress , especially good for rewarding the best lobbyists.
Complexity is a virtue , if your aim is to keep many or most from understanding .
-
If I assert that it would result in increased employment and therefore increased revenue , with what fact could you contradict?
=======================================
Assert yourself silly. No Congress would ever pass such a tax plan. It would have been dead in the water even if Cain had been elected. No expert I know of claimed that it would raise adequate revenue, anyway. If you remove the deductions for charities and home mortgages, you upset every church, every charity, every foundation, home builder and bank in the country. Romney would have the same problem should be be elected. You might be able to get one of these deductions passed with great effort. There is NO chance you would get both of them passed.
-
I agree that Congress is very unlikely to simplyfy taxes , but you did not say that revenue was the problem .
I don't think revenue is the problem at all, neither is everyone getting a fair share of the load, it is the controll of the nation and the graft that the complexity facilitates.
-
TheIf the country is in debt, then it must either pay the debt that it owes or pay interest on the debt that it owes. Current tax revenue falls far short of this, and since there is no way that expenditures can be cut enough to make up the difference, more tax revenue must be raised.
Romney and Ryan's plans would not be adequate to do this, and their plan to cut taxes and to p!ss away even more on the military cannot be adequate, they should not be elected based on a plan that everyone knows cannot be passed and would be inadequate if it could be passed.
The time has come to reject Grover Norquest en masse. He has done far too much harm to this country already. Perhaps an unfortunate bathtub accident...
-
What makes us sure that an increase in tax rates will produce an increase in tax recipts?
It is quite possible to depress the economy with the increased load and loose overall.
This is certain to be the result at some level of taxation, but there isn't a bright line to warn .
-
It has been demonstrated that LOWERING taxes does not produce more revenues, except on Planet sirs, at least.
What Ryan proposes will not work. Electing him and letting him try would be foolish.
-
History has demonstrated that higher taxation depresses job growth and economic growth. But myopic demoncrats who can only see taxes as the end all be all to reducing debt, covet that because of the power it gives the governing body that is pushing higher taxes....more Democrats
The fix is not reducing debt by the short term no thought fix of simply raising taxes, but determing what caused the massive debt INCREASE to begin with. Here's a hint...it wasn't that taxes were too low
Plane is spot on.....simply increasing taxes doesn't guarantee an increase in tax receipts. Maybe for a very short burst of time, then the repercussions of those tax increases begin to take hold, for a FAR LONGER duration. Hello Greece
-
The word from bizarro Planet, the World of sirs.
-
And the complete lack of any credibility to any claim, that lunatic world of xo
-
It has been demonstrated that LOWERING taxes does not produce more revenues, except on Planet sirs, at least.
What Ryan proposes will not work. Electing him and letting him try would be foolish.
When was this demonstrated?
I am unaware.
The principal is simple , it is better to get 5% of $100 than 25% of $20.
High taxes do indeed indisputably reduce the overall size of the economy, so at some point increasing taxes don't increase recipts , it is my opinion that we are near that point.
Demonstrating I am right would only require that we increase taxes and watch the resulting dip in the economy, unfortunately the economy is already dipped and this would be an expensive experiment.
-
It has been demonstrated that LOWERING taxes does not produce more revenues, except on Planet sirs, at least.
What Ryan proposes will not work. Electing him and letting him try would be foolish.
When was this demonstrated?
I am unaware.
The principal is simple , it is better to get 5% of $100 than 25% of $20.
BINGO!! Notice also how Xo seems to try to single me out, when a plethora of folks have said pretty much the same thing. Do you have your own planet Plane, or are you simply residing on mine?
-
It has been demonstrated that LOWERING taxes does not produce more revenues, except on Planet sirs, at least.
What Ryan proposes will not work. Electing him and letting him try would be foolish.
When was this demonstrated?
I am unaware.
The principal is simple , it is better to get 5% of $100 than 25% of $20.
BINGO!! Notice also how Xo seems to try to single me out, when a plethora of folks have said pretty much the same thing. Do you have your own planet Plane, or are you simply residing on mine?
I think you and I are tecnical people , XO seems to be heavly invested otherwise.
This is not a flaw for any of us , it is bringing diffrent viewpoints to the table.
-
Those who have studied Ryan's plan have determined that expenditures and tax cuts will not be covered by revenue added.
-
In a vacuum, no. In reality, the tax cuts will once again, just like they did under Kennedy, just like they did under Reagan, and just like the did under Bush 2, would help provide some sound economic stability out of DC, that will give business the confidence to go ahead and start expanding once again --> MORE JOBS --> MORE TAX GENERATING RECEIPTS = MORE REVENUE
You have argued (accurately I might add...probably that 1% you do get right), that many businesses are sitting on a lot of cash. But the economic enviroment that this administration and the Democrats have placed on the economy, and the completely irresponsible way they've handled the finances of this country, gives them no reason or incentive to do anything other than sit.....and wait.....for a more viable and less risky time to invest in themselves
Of course the sticking point agains is LESS POWER & LESS CONTROL for DC. Who cares if it actually helps the country, helps start taking down the debt over the LONG RUN, and starts putting more people back to work. More taxes means more Government control....which ironically we've seen 1st hand the repercussions of that here in CA, and now spreading to most other states dominated by Liberal Politicians and their majority controlled Governments
-
Ryan's plan will not work and nothing you can say will cause it to work.
Increasing the size of the military is enlarging the government.
-
Sure it will work, it doesn't fail to work just because you would rather it didn't.
If you disbelieve gravity do you fly home?
President Bush shrank the military, President Clinton shrank the military, President Bush II shrank the military.
We will probly never again have the aircraft or ships in numbers like we did in the 80's.
The military men in uniform decrease by 30% and you don't notice?
-
Ryan's plan will not work and nothing you can say will cause it to work.
Dammit, because Xo and his 99% wrong says so....end of debate
Increasing the size of the military is enlarging the government.
The military is one of the PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. Not how many ounces in a big gulp, you're allowed to have. That's the ONLY part of Government that can constitutionally "enlarge"
-
Sure it will work, it doesn't fail to work just because you would rather it didn't.
If you disbelieve gravity do you fly home?
LOL.......touche' 8)
-
So a president could draft the entire population into the military, and he would still be doing his duty.
There is no touché.
-
So a president could draft the entire population into the military, and he would still be doing his duty.
Yea, like that'd ever pass congress, or be supported by the public, or Republicans for that matter :o The issue was "enlarging the government". The answer was what's constitutionally supported and what's not
There is no touché.
LOL....it was a brilliant touche', by Plane yet again. Your ignoring it doesn't make his point go away
-
ZZZZZZING! it went away, never to be seen again.
-
Says Mr uncredible. Ignore to your heart's content
-
So a president could draft the entire population into the military, and he would still be doing his duty.
There is no touché.
You are pitching them in from far left field there.
The military has been shrinking, shrinking, shrinking in real terms our military is a third smaller than it was in the late eightys, a lot of the military equipment we are useing is that old.
That is in purportion to population too, the military is shrinking.
Most of all the purportion of the government devoted to the military is shrinking , because most of the government is growing while the military shrinks.
Also , a lot of our military expenditure is on hospitals and retirements , needfull yes , teeth in our bite no.
So is a president doing his duty , if he withers the military?
Of course the shrink is not all Democratic and not all bad.
Remember Reagan and the "peace dividend" ?
Less need for resisting other superpower ment we could put a few wepons down , and we did .
I think we ought to know when to stop the shrink, any time now.
-
The military does not need as many people as it once did, because of better equipment. When it is too big, what we get is politicians mongering unnecessary wars. Grenada, Panama, and both Iraq wars could have been avoided with better diplomacy. 9-11 could have been avoided with better intelligence.
Wither the military, cut it, whatever word suits you. We waste too much on it now. Romney wants to spend more money than even the military says it wants.
The president is no9t doing any favors for the people of this country by growing the military.
-
So you favor growing the CIA?
-
No, of course not.
I would get rid of the morons that gave us bad intel about Iraq's WMD's, is any of them are left.
-
You want better intelligence, what would you do to achieve better intelligence?
I suppose you do not want the US to be attacked, what would you replace our intimidating military force with?
-
We need to dispose of reasons to attack us, of course.
No one attacks Canada, Sweden or Switzerland. It can't be that hard to do.
As for better intelligence, we need more people well trained in languages, first and foremost. People who can tell by an accent whether someone is from Tripoli or Tyre, Latakia or Aleppo. There are other things we also need that I will leave up to the experts.
We need experts that will not, as was done in Iraq, NOT agree with the administration's lies.
-
Even if we were so poverty stricken that we had no gold to steal, we could still be attacked by people who thought they could manage our land better.
That is what happened to the Cherokee, it is hard to point to anything they ever did wrong , except that they came in second in military power to the guys that wanted their space.
We can't afford to come in second to any power or allience that wants to boss us around , unless we can trust that power to be good to us.
So what power is that?
Those other ideas of yours tho I do like.
Having lots of Americans that speak foreign languages , instead of few , would be an improvement in my estimation also.
-
Even if we were so poverty stricken that we had no gold to steal, we could still be attacked by people who thought they could manage our land better.
========================================
Yeah right. Surely with over 200 nations on this planet you can cite some recent case of this.
We do not need the two biggest air forces in the world to defend against invasions. Note that Sweden and Switzerland have adequate defense forces. We do not need three hundred bases scattered all over the planet.
Several years ago, President Correa refused to renew the lease on the base at Manta. There have been no consequences, other than perhaps fewer barmaids in the local bars.
It is not like Ecuador is under any threat. At the Universidad de Loja in the city of the same name, the students painted four portraits of famous revolutionaries: El Che, Fidel, Karl Marx, each identified by name and another unnamed figure. Of about thirty people on the tour bus and several dozen students, no one could identify the mysterious figure. It was, of course, Frederich Engles. The closest guess was Charles Dickens.
I doubt that any US base would serve any educational purpose.
It was a really nice looking campus, by the way. Ecuadorans are not messy with their graffiti like Mexicans and Argentines. There are some really clever wall paintings.
-
Even if we were so poverty stricken that we had no gold to steal, we could still be attacked by people who thought they could manage our land better.
========================================
Yeah right. Surely with over 200 nations on this planet you can cite some recent case of this.
Spratley Islands.
Tibet
North Timor
Falkland Islands
Lots of other examples , we don't get involved directly with all of them.
In the near Future
Tiwan
-
We should not get involved in any of those.
The conflict was over South Timor, which was a Portuguese colony that declared itself independent and was overrun by the Indonesians. North Timor was part of Indonesia since the Dutch left.
I do not give a damn about the Spratly islands. It is pretty clear that the US has no claim to them, or any of the other places you mention.
The Chinese claim Taiwan, but Taiwan has a huge amount of investments in mainland China. China has not tried to conquer Taiwan, and there are no signs that this is likely anytime soon. In any event, it is not possible for the US to defend Taiwan if the PRC is really intent on taking Taiwan.
-
Do you think we will ususlly have a choice about being involved?'
Do you think that not to be involved will always be the better choice?
-
I know for a fact that none of the places you mentioned is worth the life of a single American soldier.
Obviously, we have made some really, really stupid choices. Getting involved in Vietnam. Interfering in Iran when we deposed the elected secular Mossadeagh and put the nasty little Shah on the throne. Allowing Brzinenski to wreak vengeance on the Soviets over Katyn Forest by allying this country with the hateful Saudis and creating the Taliban in Afghanistan. Listening to Kissineger and keeping the US Embassy open when the Ayatollah took over.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. All rightwing dummies.
-
I know for a fact that none of the places you mentioned is worth the life of a single American soldier.
But unlike yourself, Plane was backing up his position with actual examples that you had requested. You my opine about not liking them, but cudos to Plane for supporting his position, when requested. You should take notes sometime, when asked to back up some wreckless claim or yours, instead of the standard calling everyone you don't agree with, immature grade school names
-
I cannot imagine how the Falkland Islands could matter to the US if it was British or Argentine. The same is true of Tibet and the Spratleys. The Aussies dealt with East Timor rather well, it turns out.
Taiwan is, as I d=said, i8ndefensible against a massive Chinese attack, and the Chinese know this, as do the Taiwanese.
-
That opined, doesn't refute my point now, does it
-
There is a point to make about not taking war lightly.
War is tragic.
War is hell.
War is expensive.
When the choice is between having a war and putting up with some annoyance, we should put up with a lot of annoyance in preference to going to war.
But is war less likely for the poorly armed ?
Plums get picked.
If the US is very strong , we give ourselves the choice of whether to fight or put up with whatever seems the alternative. We have been very strong so long we are accustomed to having this choice.
If we were not strong enough to make an enemy ponder , we would be given fights without any choice in the matter much more often.
As long as the USA is the strongest of all , we can debate and consider each fight we get into, choosing not to fight quite a lot .We can work up our moral standing and use our learned sages to help make the decision.
Sometime in the future perhaps the USA will be forth or tenth or less the strongest, then we can't discuss whether to fight or not with anyone except our attacker.
-
We have all the military we need to scare away any potential attacks by anyone. The military itself has not asked for the increase that the Mittwit proposes.
-
Are you aware of how much the military force availible has declined since the mid 80's?
Do you know how much it is going to crash in January if we do have the sequestration?
The sequestration is a way to get the gutless vote on a major slash in military spending, but it will be as well planned as a train wreck.
The Democrats will blame the Republicans and vice versa, I think that is the plan.
Each of the last three years , the AirForce has bought fewer aircraft than replacement would require.
How much is still enough , and will we find out the hard way?
-
Each of the last three years , the Air Force has bought fewer aircraft than replacement would require.
Not a bad idea. That is what happened with the cavalry when it became obvious that it was ever more obsolete. They just failed to replace the horses. Now we have a very limited cavalry, if at all. I suppose we have a few horses for shows and funerals.
We seem to have an overabundance of marching bands in our military. As a weapon, they are rather obsolete as well.
Many types of aircraft are obsolete. Even so, we have the biggest air force in the world, as well as the second biggest.
I have no idea what you mean by "sequestration".
-
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration)
Under sequestration, an amount of money equal to the difference between the cap set in the Budget Resolution and the amount actually appropriated is "sequestered" by the Treasury and not handed over to the agencies to which it was originally appropriated by Congress. In theory, every agency has the same percentage of its appropriation withheld in order to take back the excessive spending on an "across the board" basis. However, Congress has chosen to exempt certain very large programs from the sequestration process (for example, Social Security and certain parts of the Defense budget), and the number of exempted programs has tended to increase over time -- which means that sequestration would have to take back gigantic shares of the budgets of the remaining programs in order to achieve the total cutbacks required, virtually crippling the activities of the unexempted programs.
Mitt is against Sequestration.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81747.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81747.html)
Leon Panetta is against it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/panetta-irate-over-sequestration/2012/09/28/7afc59ba-0987-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/panetta-irate-over-sequestration/2012/09/28/7afc59ba-0987-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html)
Nobody loves sequestration.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/09/sequestration_both_parties_agree_it_ll_hurt_the_economy_so_they_should_agree_to_repeal_it_.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/09/sequestration_both_parties_agree_it_ll_hurt_the_economy_so_they_should_agree_to_repeal_it_.html)
Mitt Romney warns that looming defense cuts will cost American jobs. Speaker of the House John Boehner calls them a “serious threat” to the nation’s security and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calls them “crippling” and “destructive.” Oddly, both congressional leaders voted for the cuts. Even odder, the Obama administration agrees: Its Office of Management and Budget says the cuts will have a “devastating impact” on both military and non-military government programs. Look! Bipartisanship!
Except, perversely, the parties can’t seem to bring themselves to do anything about the “fiscal cliff” than use it as a political cudgel. Republicans want to halt the defense cuts, but only by replacing them with even steeper cuts to non-military spending that they know perfectly well Democrats won’t agree to. Democrats would like to roll back the cuts on both sides, but only if Republicans make unnecessary tax concessions that they clearly won’t make. Consequently, we’re heading toward some sharp spending cuts that nobody really wants, cuts that Congress voted into law precisely because nobody really wanted them. Worst of all they’re coming at a time when short-term government spending isn’t actually
The devil is in the details.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0915/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-budget-sequestration-except-the-consequences (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0915/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-budget-sequestration-except-the-consequences)
You can now go line by line in the federal budget and see just how deep the spending cuts slated for January will go thanks to a White House report released Friday on the impact of what’s known as “sequestration.”
What isn’t there, however, is how the Selective Service (down 9.4 percent, or $2 million), managers for federal emergency food and shelter funding (down 8.2 percent, or $10 million) or operations and maintenance at the Marine Corps (down 9.4 percent, or $854 million) will actually cope with the reductions.
How many fewer tents will the Federal Emergency Management Agency buy? How will the Marine Corps maintain its combat readiness? That’s all still unclear.
“There will be some unintended consequences sooner or later,” says Pete Davis of Davis Capital Investment Ideas. “They’ve taken 8.2 percent out of embassy security which doesn’t seem like such a great idea right now…. What are you going to do if you’re building a ship and you’re going to take 9.4 percent out of it? It’s not like you can just buy 90 percent of a ship.”
Sequestration was the result of last summer’s debt ceiling deal, which cut $1 trillion in government spending over the next decade outright and then put responsibility for finding another $1.2 trillion on Congress.
Because Congress failed to agree on the mixture of lower spending and higher taxes to hit that figure, a mechanism in the debt ceiling-raising legislation causes automatic spending decreases to hit the $1.2 trillion figure: about $109 billion in lower government spending every year for the next decade.
Overall, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget outlined the $109 billion in spending cuts for 2013 as follows:
• Hits to defense programs of either 9.4 percent or 10 percent, depending on how they receive their appropriations from Congress ($55 billion).
• Payments to Medicare providers will be reduced by 2 percent ($11 billion).
• Cuts to non-defense spending (like elementary and secondary education or rehabilitation services and disability research) will be cut at either 8.2 percent or 7.6 percent (totaling $43 billion).
Before getting into the nitty-gritty of which budget lines see what reductions, the document does not carry the down-the-middle, dispassionate tone presented by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, say, or the Joint Committee on Taxation.
-
The Republicans need to stop being REpublican'ts. This is what happens when ignorant teabaggers are elected.
-
The Republicans need to stop being REpublican'ts. This is what happens when ignorant teabaggers are elected.
And yet, its the Democan'ts led by Senator Reid, not having passed a budget for ...how many years now?, and not even allowing the Senate to vote on bill after bill after bill, that the so-called Republicant's have passed. Apparently Reid and the Senate Dems are closet teabaggers. Good disguise
-
The Republicans need to stop being REpublican'ts. This is what happens when ignorant teabaggers are elected.
Either you don't get it , or I don't understand you, or both.
-
All government in a democracy depends on compromise. The ignorant baggers refuse to compromise on anything. They do not belong in any government.
-
With compromise defined by the luntatic left and liberal Democrats as "you do it our way, but perhaps not as fast as we'd like it done"
-
All government in a democracy depends on compromise. The ignorant baggers refuse to compromise on anything. They do not belong in any government.
That is a good question , what tea party platform demand would you be happy to see half way met?
-
What demands do you have in mind?
"Get your government hands off my Social Security?"
-
The ignorant baggers refuse to compromise on anything.
Oh baloney!
I will gladly compromise on tons of stuff!
I will compromise for example I will accept a 50% cut in corporate taxes over a 100% cut.
I will compromise for example I will accept a 50% cut in the number of weeks unemployment checks are given over a 75% cut.
I will compromise for example I will accept a 50% cut in gasoline tax over a 75% cut.
I will compromise for example I will accept a 50% cut in fed funds for abortion over a 100% cut.
I will compromise for example and accept a 50% cut in PBS funding over a 100% cut.
I will compromise for example and accept a 50% cut in Amtrak over a 100% cut.
the list goes on and on and on and on and on on items we will gladly compromise on!
-
No teabaggers have offered to do any such thing.
Abolishing all corporate taxes seems foolish. Corporations get tons of help from all sorts of government agencies. No reason why they should not pay for the services they receive.
-
No teabaggers have offered to do any such thing.
Where's the compromise being proposed to them for them to even consider any such thing. Your claims of teabagers being some kind of uncompromising unpatriotic lot rings hollow with every piece of legislation having passed the House, and gathering dust on DemoWONT Senator Reid's desk, who won't even allow the Senate to vote on them. IF they're so bad, they'd be voted down, so what's the hold up??
Abolishing all corporate taxes seems foolish.
Who's proposing that??
-
Abolishing all corporate taxes seems foolish. Corporations get tons of help from all sorts of government agencies. No reason why they should not pay for the services they receive.
Non-sense!
All corporate tax should be abolished.
Corporate tax is a hidden shameful tax on working people, soccer Moms, the poor, ect....
A corporation simply passes any corporate tax on to the consumer.
So really the corporation doesn't pay a dime, the corporation's customers pays it.
If Walmart for example pays 50 million in corporate tax
You think Walmart is like "OMG what are we gonna do?"
Ha Ha....yeah sure
Walmart simply raises the price of baby diapers, soccer balls, aspirin, ect... to cover the tax.
Corporate tax becomes a simple "cost of doing business" and is passed on to the consumer.
-
Abolishing all corporate taxes seems foolish.
Who's proposing that??
You're right SIRS....no candidate is proposing it.....but they should!
Maybe a libertarian would propose it......yeah I bet Ron Paul would.
-
wait a minute....a Republican did propose it!
Gary Johnson: Let's Abolish the Corporate Income Tax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYq0rT-JYWg#ws)
-
another Republican proposing abolishing corporate tax
Rep. Gohmert Wants To Abolish The Tax On Corporations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEWW2yS51W8#)
-
What demands do you have in mind?
"Get your government hands off my Social Security?"
Yes good example.
What is half of that?
-
No teabaggers have offered to do any such thing.
Abolishing all corporate taxes seems foolish. Corporations get tons of help from all sorts of government agencies. No reason why they should not pay for the services they receive.
If you are selling a product or service the tax you pay to produce is just part of your production cost, it is really paid by your customers when they buy the product or use the service.
There is no disadvantage to the business at all unless they have competition that is exempt from the tax.
So...
The disadvantage of having one of the worlds highest corporate tax rates shows up when the competition is foreign and can produce the product or service without paying US tax.
There are pencils made in the states and phone banks manned here too, but they have direct competition from pencils made in Brazil and phone banks manned in India.
A high corporate tax is one of the big culprits in the flow of jobs overseas.
Oh yes, exporters don't like it either.
-
Well C, we're both right. No Candidate is running on the platform of abolishing all corporate taxes, but there are those politicians who do support the idea.
I'm no fan of folks being double or even triple taxed, via the same income. Companies do pay taxes, on top of the payroll taxes they pay, on top of the income taxes that the individuals within and running the company pay. I realize liberals haven't met a tax they didn't embrace, but I do accept a small level of corporate taxation. But the asanine notion that they don't already pay for services they recieve with the above taxes referenced siomply demonstrates a certain level of ignorance
-
You really like the word asinine, yet you cannot spell it.
If you mastered this, it would mark this as an exceptional day for you.
-
You really don't want to go there, as it relates to mispellings, with the plethora of examples you shower us with. Besides being yet another dodge to the issues actually being debated & discussed, it's pretty immature to boot
-
Since it seems to be your very favorite word, you really, really ought to learn how to spell it.
-
Well, since your favorite past time is dodging questions and hurling insults, in this, a debate forum, good to see how well you're practicing the tactic
-
That hits the tote board as a sucessfull change of subject.
-
It is a public service, the way I see it.
No discussion with sirs ever goes anywhere.
-
Hard to progress any discussion, when only 1 side is debating while the other is dodging, deflecting, and hurling 3rd grade insults.
-
Here is the FACT, sirs: no one can debate anything with you. No ever has debated anything with you. You make up your own spurious facts and totally ignore all truth about everything.
Every discussion ends with everyone else just walking away from your stupidity.
-
Here is the FACT, sirs: no one can debate anything with you. No ever has debated anything with you.
No, that would be yet another opinion, refuted by FACTS to the contrary. Ask anyone here who isn't a coolaide drinking Obama synchophant. Care to try agan and debate the issue, vs nurturing your standard immature knee jerk response, like the one above??