I'm probably premature in making this post but is the main reason that the tea party is so strong in politics is that, well, they vote? As much criticism as this movement gets, they do something that few apparently do these years, that is, vote.
Yes I admire their passion and they will mature as a party find better candidates and perhaps co opt the Republican party. I am not saying their libertarian views will change but when they have a more established leadership they may be able to vet out the kooks like Rick Scott.
I don't mean to recurve the thread but did anyone see that now Rick "The Mothership" Scott is now trying to mandate quarterly drug testing for all state employees? With this guy's background, I wouldn't be suprised if he or his cronies owned drug testing companies. What a douche.
The essence of the tea party is the conception that their generation will not be as sucessfull as their parents generation. Fed by fear of the republican party, and the success of 2010 elections, they are on a high note. But the good days will be short lived, mainly in national politics, as the rest of the country lacks the strong backing they have here in Jax. The republicans are losing in legislation in congress as they dont control the senate and the white house.
Tea party supporters will lose momentum in 2012, and the activity will succumb to dissatisfaction with their candidates who, as a part of american politics, will"compromise" their issues, and sink into voter apathy.
Quote from: hillary supporter on March 22, 2011, 10:05:52 PM
The essence of the tea party is the conception that their generation will not be as sucessfull as their parents generation. Fed by fear of the republican party, and the success of 2010 elections, they are on a high note. But the good days will be short lived, mainly in national politics, as the rest of the country lacks the strong backing they have here in Jax. The republicans are losing in legislation in congress as they dont control the senate and the white house.
Tea party supporters will lose momentum in 2012, and the activity will succumb to dissatisfaction with their candidates who, as a part of american politics, will"compromise" their issues, and sink into voter apathy.
The entire republican and tea parties are based in fear mongering and made up history....i hope we can vote mr brown as our new mayor....if we sane people get behind him...he has a chance of taking this city back.
I know this is off the topic, but if United States ever got into a civil war again, Tea Party would be the main culprit of it.
-Josh
Funny how they didn't preach about government being too big when GW Bush and his congress were passing the Patriot Act.
Quote from: wsansewjs on March 23, 2011, 08:18:57 AM
I know this is off the topic, but if United States ever got into a civil war again, Tea Party would be the main culprit of it.
-Josh
By voting??
"The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:
• Limited federal government
• Individual freedoms
• Personal responsibility
• Free markets
• Returning political power to the states and the people
As a movement, The Tea Party is not a political party nor is looking to form a third political party any time soon. The Tea Party movement, is instead, about reforming all political parties and government so that the core principles of our Founding Fathers become, once again, the foundation upon which America stands."
Sounds like a REAL dangerous bunch. :)
Quote from: NotNow on March 23, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
"The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties.
All backgrounds? All political parties? Nope. It looks like a bunch of close minded, white Republicans to me.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 23, 2011, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 23, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
"The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties.
All backgrounds? All political parties? Nope. It looks like a bunch of close minded, white Republicans to me.
That's called prejudice.
"All backgrounds? All political parties? Nope. It looks like a bunch of close minded, white Republicans to me. "
I suppose we all have our own bias's to fight.
Quote from: Shwaz on March 23, 2011, 01:59:08 PM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 23, 2011, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 23, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
"The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties.
All backgrounds? All political parties? Nope. It looks like a bunch of close minded, white Republicans to me.
That's called prejudice.
Sorry. What I should have said is that it looks like a bunch of close minded, white Republicans (and Colonel Allen West) to me
Look at this Tea Party "diversity" event.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/tea_party.html#
Quote from: copperfiend on March 23, 2011, 08:21:39 AM
Funny how they didn't preach about government being too big when GW Bush and his congress were passing the Patriot Act.
I do believe the movement came about as a result of that. No one running for the GOP nomination in 2008 had a chance if they spoke against anything that the then-current Republican president did. Obviously it wasn't until after the nomination of a weak GOP candidate and the election of Barack Obama before more of the concerned parties became more outspoken and bold about their beliefs.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 23, 2011, 02:12:19 PM
Look at this Tea Party "diversity" event.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/tea_party.html#
One picture, taken in one part of a park, in three plus hours.
Clearly a valid discussion supporter. ::)
Quote from: danem on March 23, 2011, 02:21:51 PM
No one running for the GOP nomination in 2008 had a chance if they spoke against anything that the then-current Republican president did.
So in other words, Tea Partiers ARE just Republicans by another name.
Quote from: danem on March 23, 2011, 02:21:51 PM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 23, 2011, 08:21:39 AM
Funny how they didn't preach about government being too big when GW Bush and his congress were passing the Patriot Act.
I do believe the movement came about as a result of that. No one running for the GOP nomination in 2008 had a chance if they spoke against anything that the then-current Republican president did. Obviously it wasn't until after the nomination of a weak GOP candidate and the election of Barack Obama before more of the concerned parties became more outspoken and bold about their beliefs.
Of course they could have. But it would have made McCain out to be a hypocrite because he was part of the Bush rubberstamp Congress that flush the budget surplus down the toilet.
Instead they chose to focus on things like Obama's sometimes preacher Jeremiah Wright and a professor from Chicago that Obama knew that was a radical back in the 70's.
Quote from: finehoe on March 23, 2011, 03:24:29 PM
Quote from: danem on March 23, 2011, 02:21:51 PM
No one running for the GOP nomination in 2008 had a chance if they spoke against anything that the then-current Republican president did.
So in other words, Tea Partiers ARE just Republicans by another name.
Of course they are.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 23, 2011, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 23, 2011, 03:24:29 PM
Quote from: danem on March 23, 2011, 02:21:51 PM
No one running for the GOP nomination in 2008 had a chance if they spoke against anything that the then-current Republican president did.
So in other words, Tea Partiers ARE just Republicans by another name.
Of course they are.
This is absolutely correct. Consider it an attempt at Republican Party Reboot.
Quote from: Doctor_K on March 23, 2011, 02:25:30 PM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 23, 2011, 02:12:19 PM
Look at this Tea Party "diversity" event.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/tea_party.html#
One picture, taken in one part of a park, in three plus hours.
Clearly a valid discussion supporter. ::)
She was "the one" there.
Quote from: danem on March 23, 2011, 04:04:21 PM
This is absolutely correct. Consider it an attempt at Republican Party Reboot.
Quote from: NotNow on March 23, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties.
So which is it?
Freedomworks, run by former Republican house majority leader and current lobbyist Dick Armey, helps run the Tea Party Patriots. Freedomworks is funded largely by the billionaire Koch family. Some "grass roots" organization.
QuoteDick Armey
Republican? He should be able to 'penetrate' all party lines!!!
[couldn't help it]
QuoteFreedomworks is funded largely by the billionaire Koch family.
::) :D
I see we have a new "boogeyman"...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 23, 2011, 04:38:17 PM
I see we have a new "boogeyman"...
George Soros got tired of always being the puppetmaster.
:D No doubt... we all gotta have a puppetmaster... because no one really thinks for themselves... ::)
It's hardly new. Koch Industries is a huge conglomerate. They funnel money to political campaigns that can help their interests. They have donated millions of dollars to groups that deny global warming and help support the fossil fuel industry. They see an opportunity to exploit the tea party and they were very successful with it.
QuoteThey funnel money to political campaigns that can help their interests.
WTF??!! I find it hard to believe this can happen! Those damnable right wingers... :o
Of course, when Soros funds Moveon, who ran ads like "General Betrayus," that's okay with the Left. When the unions bussed thousands to Madison - when they actually had to pay people to show up to protest - the Left doesn't dare criticize.
Really? What's so dumb about it?
Here's the thing:
The Tea Party, like any group of people, are an assembly of individuals. NN correctly reported the most common ideology among the ranks.
Are there knuckle dragging racists calling themselves Tea Partiers? I haven't met any, but if I had to make an accurate guess or die, I'd say yes.
What I find unsettling is lumping so many people into a group held in disdain only serves to further divide the voting population.
I'm betting the average Tea party member is more intelligent than most seem to here believe, although no one has all the right answers.
Are they a astroturf concoction? How the hell should I know? I can find "information" to support just about any argument on the WWnet.
If you really consider yourselves the best and the brightest, (let's be honest... you do) you owe it to the rest of us to be patient and tolerant, while informing us (the knuckledraggers) of truths and helping us get our poor skinned knuckles off the ground. *enter the famous how soon is now line here*
We'll all feel better afterward. :)
Disclaimer: not directed at any individual, rather the general consensus.
They blew me away protesting the Clay County teachers. Tell me the rational for that one.
What's that have to do with anything? I keep up with politics and read the news - the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Nation. They're all outraged by the Koch Brothers involvement, yet not a peep from them on protests lead by Left leaning individuals or organizations.
Most people don't even realize that Koch Brothers aren't what you'd call straight up conservatives. They support gay marriage and opposed the Iraq War.
I can't believe I'm going to do this, but; Fox News. (the battle cry is against anything government. I have fallen prey to this line of thinking myself.)
Perhaps my introduction to politics was from the wrong source, but my interest was sparked. I search out truth, rather than seeking to reaffirm my beliefs. If I can try, others can and will.
I consider my world view a work in progress.
Maybe there is no hope.
A good example Jeffrey. I would agree that was a poor decision on the part of the local tea party. I do, however, agree with the national goals of less Federal power and empowerment of the states. As well as strict "Constitutional government".
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 08:56:27 PM
What's that have to do with anything? I keep up with politics and read the news - the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Nation. They're all outraged by the Koch Brothers involvement, yet not a peep from them on protests lead by Left leaning individuals or organizations.
Most people don't even realize that Koch Brothers aren't what you'd call straight up conservatives. They support gay marriage and opposed the Iraq War.
I am a straight up conservative and I support gay marriage and I oppose the war in Iraq.
maybe I need to get up with the Koch bros.
We could form a boy band.
Quote from: stephendare on March 23, 2011, 08:38:48 PM
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
Really? What's so dumb about it?
Name 10 people that you personally know who are on 'the left'.
How is this relevant to anything, my leftist friend?
Quote from: stephendare on March 23, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 23, 2011, 08:59:31 PM
A good example Jeffrey. I would agree that was a poor decision on the part of the local tea party. I do, however, agree with the national goals of less Federal power and empowerment of the states. As well as strict "Constitutional government".
except the parts you don't agree with, right?
No, the Constitution I agree with, it is the numbnuts who want to twist it for thier own ideology that I don't agree with. :)
Did I say I didn't know any actual leftists, Stephen, or did you make that assumption?
I work in the ad business in Atlanta and New York. I'm surrounded by Leftists. I've argued with plenty of them about the Tea Party. They too, think it's an astroturf organization and racist. Of course, they've never actually been to a Tea Party rally.
Like you, they're good at making assumptions that are false.
Quote from: buckethead on March 23, 2011, 08:59:51 PM
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 08:56:27 PM
What's that have to do with anything? I keep up with politics and read the news - the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Nation. They're all outraged by the Koch Brothers involvement, yet not a peep from them on protests lead by Left leaning individuals or organizations.
Most people don't even realize that Koch Brothers aren't what you'd call straight up conservatives. They support gay marriage and opposed the Iraq War.
I am a straight up conservative and I support gay marriage and I oppose the war in Iraq.
maybe I need to get up with the Koch bros.
We could form a boy band.
Yes but could you stomach them being the biggest polluters of our grand river. (They own Georgia Pacific.)
"A closed mind is a good thing to lose. "
Anonymous
Quote from: stephendare on March 23, 2011, 09:10:12 PM
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Did I say I didn't know any actual leftists, Stephen, or did you make that assumption?
I work in the ad business in Atlanta and New York. I'm surrounded by Leftists. I've argued with plenty of them about the Tea Party. They too, think it's an astroturf organization and racist. Of course, they've never actually been to a Tea Party rally.
Like you, they're good at making assumptions that are false.
really? What assumptions are you referring to?
Lets start there, since your whole post is about assumptions.
I have a better idea. Why don't you get the point?
The point I made is that both sides have financial backers that get involved in demonstrations and movements. Yet the Democrats seem to act like it's a Republican monopoly.
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 09:15:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 23, 2011, 09:10:12 PM
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Did I say I didn't know any actual leftists, Stephen, or did you make that assumption?
I work in the ad business in Atlanta and New York. I'm surrounded by Leftists. I've argued with plenty of them about the Tea Party. They too, think it's an astroturf organization and racist. Of course, they've never actually been to a Tea Party rally.
Like you, they're good at making assumptions that are false.
really? What assumptions are you referring to?
Lets start there, since your whole post is about assumptions.
I have a better idea. Why don't you get the point?
*looks at post count*
Ah, you're new here. That explains your question. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on March 23, 2011, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 23, 2011, 09:03:23 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 23, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 23, 2011, 08:59:31 PM
A good example Jeffrey. I would agree that was a poor decision on the part of the local tea party. I do, however, agree with the national goals of less Federal power and empowerment of the states. As well as strict "Constitutional government".
except the parts you don't agree with, right?
No, the Constitution I agree with, it is the numbnuts who want to twist it for thier own ideology that I don't agree with. :)
Hmm. this doesnt match up with your posting history.
So do you believe that felons can rightfully posess firearms as a matter of constitutional law?
Yes, the second ammendment makes no bones about the right to keep and bear arms. I feel the same way about the right to vote. There is no provision for "removing" a persons God given rights. And in NotNow's America, those convicted of forcible felonies would need a walker to get to the gun store or voting booth. Of course, current US law does not comply with this.
And you believe that the central government should dictate our medical rights, and charge us for doing it. And that same central government can tax us for any reason whatsoever. I've been reading your posts as well. :)
I'll go along on your silly ride for this one question, StephenDare!, because no one else here wants to read four pages of us going back and forth.
CURRENT US LAW makes it a felony for a convicted felon to possess a firearm (a stolen firearm in the case that Dare! insists on bringing up ad nauseum). A law enforcement officer is REQUIRED to enforce the law, not to mention defend himself and others when threatened.
So when we return to the Constitutional government that our Founding Fathers so amazingly gave us, then we can discuss what the law is THEN.
But, I'm afraid that we are shifting towards a central government more to your liking than mine.
Some of my leftist friends who had lesser manners would call your post "dumb". But that would be a rude and arrogant thing to do. :)
I am sorry that the principle is so difficult for you. I am not in the comfy position of disregarding the law.
I live in the real world StephenDare!. I have made myself quite clear. If you can't make up your mind, or understand current law in regard to police use of force or revocation of felon's civil rights, it is not my responsibility.
mikew made a valid point. Play your game with him as long as he will allow it if you wish, but you are boring me (and the other readers here). Please refocus on the subject of the thread.
No, Stephen. We are not playing rope-a-dope here. Leave your personal attacks out of this. Just reply to my original point.
Why should Dick Armey or the Koch Brothers be demonized for their involvement in the Tea Party, when the Left utilizes billionaires like George Soros to fund their own movements?
Don't get hung up on semantics here. Don't worry about how many Leftists I know, or what I do for a living. Just answer the question.
Go back to my last post. I asked a single-sentence question. You wrote me a novel, and still didn't answer it.
I give you permission to disregard my "pious little constitutional statements". After all, I disregard much of what you post. :)
That's funny, I'm sorry that you can't seem to grasp the system of laws we live under. Have a good night.
::)
Thank goodness that's over
Nice picture of Stephen looking at election results in the TU today.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 23, 2011, 09:06:47 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 23, 2011, 08:59:51 PM
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 08:56:27 PM
What's that have to do with anything? I keep up with politics and read the news - the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Nation. They're all outraged by the Koch Brothers involvement, yet not a peep from them on protests lead by Left leaning individuals or organizations.
Most people don't even realize that Koch Brothers aren't what you'd call straight up conservatives. They support gay marriage and opposed the Iraq War.
I am a straight up conservative and I support gay marriage and I oppose the war in Iraq.
maybe I need to get up with the Koch bros.
We could form a boy band.
Yes but could you stomach them being the biggest polluters of our grand river. (They own Georgia Pacific.)
And they have enough "conservative" Florida politicians in their back pocket that they will be allowed to dump more waste into our river.
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
Why should Dick Armey or the Koch Brothers be demonized for their involvement in the Tea Party, when the Left utilizes billionaires like George Soros to fund their own movements?
It helps prove the tea part is a joke and is a faux grassroots movement. Armey and the Koch Brothers are exploiting people for their own economic gain.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 24, 2011, 08:29:16 AM
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
Why should Dick Armey or the Koch Brothers be demonized for their involvement in the Tea Party, when the Left utilizes billionaires like George Soros to fund their own movements?
It helps prove the tea part is a joke and is a faux grassroots movement. Armey and the Koch Brothers are exploiting people for their own economic gain.
Well, at least you, unlike the poster I was addressing, answered the question.
The Tea Party has held over 1,000 demonstrations and attracted millions of participants. And most Americans agree with them on its two principal planks: 1. Spending is out of control. 2. The Healthcare bill is a monstrosity.
Those two issues were put the forefront of the 2010 elections and helped Republicans take the House, for its biggest gain in seventy years. The Republicans also won 800 new seats on a statewide level. Can you think of a current Leftist movement that has as much legitimacy with the American people?
I agree with your 1. agree 2. disagree with your characterization that most Americans think the bill is a monstrosity but perhaps most have something they would change about it.
The tea party seem to want no progress for everyone. I dont get it. Their tactics only hurt quality of life & remove options.
Quote from: Coolyfett on March 24, 2011, 11:53:17 AM
The tea party seem to want no progress for everyone. I dont get it. Their tactics only hurt quality of life & remove options.
The options, you mention, Coolyfett, are expensive, and we can't afford them. Do you know what happens when a country goes into so much debt that it can pay it back? Among other things, the services you want are cut back and eliminated. It's those who urge fiscal prudence who are actually trying to save those programs.
Right now Social Security and Medicare take up more than half the budget. That number is going to swell even higher as the Baby Boomers - the largest generation in history - retire and draw benefits. We've got to find a way to preserve those programs - and more spending is NOT the answer.
Quote from: mikeytm on March 24, 2011, 11:57:20 AM
Quote from: Coolyfett on March 24, 2011, 11:53:17 AM
The tea party seem to want no progress for everyone. I dont get it. Their tactics only hurt quality of life & remove options.
The options, you mention, Coolyfett, are expensive, and we can't afford them. Do you know what happens when a country goes into so much debt that it can pay it back? Among other things, the services you want are cut back and eliminated. It's those who urge fiscal prudence who are actually trying to save those programs.
Right now Social Security and Medicare take up more than half the budget. That number is going to swell even higher as the Baby Boomers - the largest generation in history - retire and draw benefits. We've got to find a way to preserve those programs - and more spending is NOT the answer.
Both claims are far to vague to be considered valid points.
Social Security is not on the budget. Social Security also owns about 2.5 tril in U.S. bonds from when Regan decided to use those funds and make Social Security a debt holder not a debtor. Social security is just fine reports of it's problems are not exaggerated they are fictitious.
The other fiction is that it is an entitlement program. The beneficiaries pay into the system like an insurance program.
Quote from: mikeytm on March 24, 2011, 11:02:50 AM
The Tea Party has held over 1,000 demonstrations and attracted millions of participants. And most Americans agree with them on its two principal planks: 1. Spending is out of control. 2. The Healthcare bill is a monstrosity.
You're second statement is completely untrue. I would like to see where "most Americans agree that the healthcare bill is a monstrosity". Alot of the tea party opposition to health care legislation is funded by the insurance companies.
So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 24, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: mikeytm on March 24, 2011, 11:02:50 AM
The Tea Party has held over 1,000 demonstrations and attracted millions of participants. And most Americans agree with them on its two principal planks: 1. Spending is out of control. 2. The Healthcare bill is a monstrosity.
You're second statement is completely untrue. I would like to see where "most Americans agree that the healthcare bill is a monstrosity". Alot of the tea party opposition to health care legislation is funded by the insurance companies.
So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.
Really? Not according to the latest CNN poll
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday, on the one year anniversary of the signing of the law, 37 percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That's basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.
And not according to the last election in November, either.
And I guess the pro-healthcare folks don't have lobbyists, right? You do know that many key sectors that signed on to healthcare - like unions - got exemptions.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 24, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: mikeytm on March 24, 2011, 11:02:50 AM
The Tea Party has held over 1,000 demonstrations and attracted millions of participants. And most Americans agree with them on its two principal planks: 1. Spending is out of control. 2. The Healthcare bill is a monstrosity.
You're second statement is completely untrue. I would like to see where "most Americans agree that the healthcare bill is a monstrosity". Alot of the tea party opposition to health care legislation is funded by the insurance companies.
So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.
[/b]
Your source for these claims?
Quote from: stephendare on March 24, 2011, 02:08:31 PM
lol. apparently 'mikey' isnt used to having to defend his more nonsensical claims unless he can anticipate the questions being asked.
It certainly does seem that you are using two names on the thread, Just trying to verify that this is indeed you.
Because, Stephen, when you're presented with facts, your modus operandi seems to be to ignore the argument and belittle the poster.
There are thoughtful, considerate, liberals who stick to the issues. I may not agree with them, but I enjoy a good debate. You are not one of those liberals.
Quote from: NotNow on March 24, 2011, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 24, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.
[/b]
Your source for these claims?
The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
Insurance companies urging employees to attend tea party rallies
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/major-health-insurance-company-urges-employees-to-attend-tea-parties.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/united-health-group-astroturf-letter.php?page=1
Quote from: copperfiend on March 24, 2011, 02:26:40 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 24, 2011, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 24, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.
[/b]
Your source for these claims?
The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
Insurance companies urging employees to attend tea party rallies
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/major-health-insurance-company-urges-employees-to-attend-tea-parties.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/united-health-group-astroturf-letter.php?page=1
Thanks. I did not see where the Tea Party is being funded by oil, gas, and insurance companies. I saw a New Yorker piece on the Koch brothers and their political beliefs. There was some speculation there that they had funded "tea party training" whatever that means. The TPM article was just a rant against United Health Care putting advice in their newsletter to attend town hall meetings during congressional recess in 2009. Hardly evil and really just something that all organizations do. I didn't see any reference to the Tea Party. Am I missing something?
I think the characterization of "monstrosity" is false. There are many with much lesser misgivings about the plan including that it does not go far enough.
Now here is me me being a little condescending. I believe because we finally started down the path People will see the light. I agree with the conservatives that this plan will grow but since I am in favor of big government health care great.
Now here is me trying to be respectful of my fellow citizens. I think this should do this with a constitutional amendment. I am not saying I know the plan to be unconstitutional. I think the founding fathers really meant it when they said promote the general welfare. i just feel like this is such a big deal it probably deserved that kind of consideration.
Again talking out of both sides of my mouth I am still glad we are moving forward. I provide much lesser coverage for much more cost to my employees than I did 5 years ago.
And I LOVE the "Tea Party Patriots" banner at the bottom of my screen. You will take their money no matter what they stand for, won't you StephenDare!?
Quote from: stephendare on March 24, 2011, 02:40:27 PM
Quote from: mikeytm on March 24, 2011, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 24, 2011, 02:08:31 PM
lol. apparently 'mikey' isnt used to having to defend his more nonsensical claims unless he can anticipate the questions being asked.
It certainly does seem that you are using two names on the thread, Just trying to verify that this is indeed you.
Because, Stephen, when you're presented with facts, your modus operandi seems to be to ignore the argument and belittle the poster.
There are thoughtful, considerate, liberals who stick to the issues. I may not agree with them, but I enjoy a good debate. You are not one of those liberals.
Thats because Im not a liberal.
However, lets talk basic hypocrisy here. You make these silly, baseless claims in order to prove very disingenuous points. for example, the post that you started with under your other screen name:
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 08:05:33 PM
Of course, when Soros funds Moveon, who ran ads like "General Betrayus," that's okay with the Left. When the unions bussed thousands to Madison - when they actually had to pay people to show up to protest - the Left doesn't dare criticize.
You made this post to make it sound like anyone who is on the 'left' is treasonous, hypocritical, and cowardly to boot----and therefore not to be paid any attention to. Not to mention corrupt, since you claimed that they were paying people to show up to protest. You didnt provide anything that remotely looked or sounded like a 'fact'. You additionally posted it in order to provide cover for someone you perceive as being on 'your' side---namely, the Koch Brothers.
Which kind of makes your 'belittling' complaint seem somewhat ironic. Last time I checked, 'dumb' was way less belittling than 'corrupt, hypocritical, and potentially treasonous', but hey, why back the projector up when you are on a roll?
Then when you got called on this nonsense, you simply couldnt answer any of the underlying questions directly and honestly.
When that got less convenient, you simple switched screen names.
Now, if you didnt want to know why I thought your post was generally dumb (no reflection on the poster, incidentally, just the lazy nature of unbacked assertions and thoughtless meme repetition) then you certainly shouldnt have asked my exact reasons.
Quote from: mikew on March 23, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
Really? What's so dumb about it?
So far, your debate method is to post unsourced claims, get backed into a corner on them, accuse the questioner of 'not getting it', and then switching to a different subject by redirecting the question.
It is the kind of debate tactic that most 14 year olds on a middle school debate team can see right through.
But to have you explain such tomfoolery as an outward indication of your debate dignity, well that's laughable.
If you would like to debate the issues, then by all means, please do.
But if you are going to try and conflate intentional lying on the self interested part of the Koch Brothers with the general principle of 'rich people who back causes they believe in', then you are going to have to back that kind of nonsense up.
Im sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but this is after all the same rule that you want everyone else to play by.
Sigh. I'm doing this against my better judgement.
You've spent three quarters of your post writing about something I did not state. That's because you have this uncanny knack of straying off topic. For the record, I did not state that liberals were treasonous because they were silent on the Patraeus ad. That's something you made up in your own mind. My point, which I've made, I believe, three times, and you've missed all three times, is that the Left seems to treat the Koch Brothers as some sort of conspirator because they contributed to conservative causes. Yet - and read this closely Stephen - the same Left said nothing when Moveon - funded by Soros - tried to influence U.S. policy in Iraq.
In other words, if the Left has a problem with rich benefactors, i.e. the Koch Brothers funding conservative causes, wouldn't it make sense that would banish wealthy benefactors like Soros from their causes? It doesn't make them treasonous. It makes them hypocrites. Got that? Clear enough for you?
As to the accusations the Koch Brother's motives are in their own self-interest, so what? Are you telling me that the rich Lefties who fund liberal causes are purely altruistic? Now who's naive, Stephen?
As to the charge that unions pay for protesters, they've certainly done it before. Source? Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2010
“The carpenters union has been hiring people -- many of whom have no ideology on an issue -- to to walk picket lines, chant and generally sound off each day at around 150 picket lines in the District of Columbia and Baltimore.â€
I'm not sure why I have two names - I did register on this board years ago under another name, but I was also under another internet carrier, which I no longer have. There's no conspiracy involved.
What I've seen from you in the past twenty-four hours are personal attacks, not just against me, but against another poster who argued with you. The opening sentence in your editorial about election was condescending against people who don't agree with you.
"Jacksonville is not a conservative, anti tax, anti vision town."
Nothing insulting there.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 24, 2011, 03:11:41 PM
I think the characterization of "monstrosity" is false. There are many with much lesser misgivings about the plan including that it does not go far enough.
Now here is me me being a little condescending. I believe because we finally started down the path People will see the light. I agree with the conservatives that this plan will grow but since I am in favor of big government health care great.
Now here is me trying to be respectful of my fellow citizens. I think this should do this with a constitutional amendment. I am not saying I know the plan to be unconstitutional. I think the founding fathers really meant it when they said promote the general welfare. i just feel like this is such a big deal it probably deserved that kind of consideration.
Again talking out of both sides of my mouth I am still glad we are moving forward. I provide much lesser coverage for much more cost to my employees than I did 5 years ago.
Jeffrey,
I am interested in how the law will affect your business financially. Why are so many companies "opting out"?
I am meeting with the accountants this week for filing our 2010 corp taxes(Yes we had to file an extension from last week). I have this question on the agenda. I believe that if the money is similar (or less obviously) than our current premiums we will make out well because some of my competition have not been providing health care. I will be happy to spill the beans on what I find out. I was convinced at one time this would save me a ton but now so few of my employees use the plan it may well go the other way.
Quote from: NotNow on March 24, 2011, 03:59:43 PM
OK, if you want to play games, go ahead. Everyone else here can read a thread and I'm sure are tired of me and you bickering again. Maybe you have demurred long enough that some have forgotten your incorrect claims and your insults. Have a good day.
I find it hilarious when i hear t partiers demanding that they know all that is right and good...it's hilarious because most are still reeling that we have a non white man in the whitehouse and they would be really upset that the rest of the world might find out that they are just scared and have been lied to by thier leaders.....just a bunch of fear mongerers that are white not overly educated and really never understood that the social security system was'nt a savings account and we've all been dupted by the right.
Quote from: Garden guy on March 24, 2011, 04:16:13 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 24, 2011, 03:59:43 PM
OK, if you want to play games, go ahead. Everyone else here can read a thread and I'm sure are tired of me and you bickering again. Maybe you have demurred long enough that some have forgotten your incorrect claims and your insults. Have a good day.
I find it hilarious when i hear t partiers demanding that they know all that is right and good...it's hilarious because most are still reeling that we have a non white man in the whitehouse and they would be really upset that the rest of the world might find out that they are just scared and have been lied to by thier leaders.....just a bunch of fear mongerers that are white not overly educated and really never understood that the social security system was'nt a savings account and we've all been dupted by the right.
Nothing worse than being dupted by mongerers.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 24, 2011, 04:12:06 PM
I am meeting with the accountants this week for filing our 2010 corp taxes(Yes we had to file an extension from last week). I have this question on the agenda. I believe that if the money is similar (or less obviously) than our current premiums we will make out well because some of my competition have not been providing health care. I will be happy to spill the beans on what I find out. I was convinced at one time this would save me a ton but now so few of my employees use the plan it may well go the other way.
Thanks for an honest appraisal. I would rather hear the truth from a small businessman than try to trust the web or media types. Let me know what you think as 2014 rolls around.
I chose the Patraeus ad because it was a valid comparison with the Tea Party - both examples are efforts to change policy through organizations which have been funded by rich guys. Anything else you want to make out of it is in your own mind. I'm not going down that road.
Yes, George Soros was active in moveon.org prior to the ad - which came out in the Fall of 2007.
According to an article in the Washington Post dated March 10, 2004:
"The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee."[17]
The Koch Brothers aren't being criticized because they're conservative. They're being criticized because it's been speculated they want to buy Wisconsin public power plants for their energy interests. That hasn't happened, and there's no evidence it will, but to the Left, that's not the point. They'd like to show the Koch Brothers as heartless rich guys who happen to be the puppeteers behind the evil Scott Walker. "Scott Walker wants to dirty our air and rivers, and starve teachers!" Total BS.
You ask if it matters what political opinions one has. But when those opinion are expressed, you seem to be more tolerant of defending the Left than the Right. You note that EVERYONE should criticize the Swift Boat
vets. I wonder, do you think EVERYONE should also criticize Moveon.org for calling the Commander of Forces in Iraq a traitor? Do the same rules apply?
Again, there's no evidence that the Koch Brothers are profiting from what's happened in Wisconsin. I'd argue that their reputation has taken a hit - unfairly, I might add.
I never said that the protestors in Wisconsin were being paid to show up. I stated that unions have done it before.
Quote from: stephendare on March 24, 2011, 06:19:46 PM
The Koch's have been bidding very low on the State owned energy companies of Wisconsin for a while, Mikey.
If you wanted to draw out the equivelancy, it would be like Soros openly controlling US monetary policy as a member of the Fed. He makes his money from fluctuations in Currency and trading back and forth in them.
If he were to suddenly start spending 100 million dollars on ads, blogs, and whisper campaigns claiming that the US currency is about to go back onto the gold standard, right after having purchased a billion dollars of treasury notes and greenbacks, then there would be a similarity.
The connection would then be clear. Just as it is with the Koch brothers creating false propaganda for the purposes of enriching themselves, and dressing it up as 'constitutionalism' or 'patriotism'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
QuoteWhat’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab â€" an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.
For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.
And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).â€
What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.â€
When coupled with this little bit of info, (opinion piece though it may be... the text of the bill quoted in the essay is correct. I checked myself) Stephen's claim seems a bit more believable, and therefore urgent.
Let's Imagine Obama given these exact same powers while Soros is bidding low on public utilities.
I took the wrong side of this issue initially. I do believe the unions in this case need to make concessions, but to outlaw public employee unions was wrong, disingenuous, and no more than cover for the real looting that is being attempted.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/king-davids-war-20110202
The Kochs have been bidding on the power plants for a long time? Where's the evidence of that? And what is the lie they are telling?
As for making a profit at the public's expense, you might want to check George Soros's record on that. He alone profited from a panic that cost the British taxpayers billions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
Um, the surge in Iraq - putting more boots on the ground - was a critical factor in stabilizing Iraq. Check the number of military deaths before and after the surge, and come back and tell me it wasn't a success. Furthermore, the ad appeared BEFORE Patraeus even testified before Congress. Pretty classy, huh?
Quote from: finehoe on March 24, 2011, 07:57:28 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/king-davids-war-20110202
Here's a more accurate source on the success of the surge. This gives a month by month casualty count of deaths in Iraq since the invasion began in 2003.
Bush announced the surge in late 2006. The maximum number of boots on the ground didn't occur until June of that year.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
You want to talk about urgent, Buckethead? States like California, New York and Illinois have millions of dollars in unfunded pensions. They're on the brink of defualt. How are they going to pay for it? They could raise taxes - but those states already have high taxes - and it's not conducive for business and generating new revenue.
You're misinformed when you state that Scott Walker wants to do away with public unions. He doesn't even want to do away with collective bargaining on pay raises. It's the benefits that are driving up the costs (see CA, IL and NY). When the politicians and the unions sit down to negotiate, there's no incentive to keep the costs down. Quite the opposite. When a politician agrees to generous benefits, that politician has union support for the next election.
There's another little feature to that bill that unions don't want to talk about. The new bill would require unions, not the state to collect union dues. This means that non-union members wouldn't have to pay union dues. Right now they do. Does that seem fair to you?
We can agree on that Steven. I'm no fan of the Kochs either. I would agree that if this law does allow them to pursue the power plants, heads should roll. I'm sorry that item was a part of that bill.
Quote from: mikew on March 24, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
You want to talk about urgent, Buckethead? 1) States like California, New York and Illinois have millions of dollars in unfunded pensions. They're on the brink of defualt. How are they going to pay for it? They could raise taxes - but those states already have high taxes - and it's not conducive for business and generating new revenue.
2) You're misinformed when you state that Scott Walker wants to do away with public unions. He doesn't even want to do away with collective bargaining on pay raises. It's the benefits that are driving up the costs (see CA, IL and NY). When the politicians and the unions sit down to negotiate, there's no incentive to keep the costs down. Quite the opposite. When a politician agrees to generous benefits, that politician has union support for the next election.
There's another little feature to that bill that unions don't want to talk about. The new bill would require unions, not the state to collect union dues. This means that non-union members wouldn't have to pay union dues. Right now they do. Does that seem fair to you?
1)Many states are on the brink. Oddly many
are high tax states. Pensions are
a problem, but simply making a blanket statement won't fit the bill. There is a problem, and it's name is legion.
Each state has it's own recipe for debt and insolvency. It's just one of those delicious recipes you create yourself, with a mixed bag of ingredients.
2) Not misinformed, but I did misspeak. He ended collective bargaining (I incorrectly stated he wanted to "outlaw public employee unions".) for many public employee union members. Oddly enough, not the police unions.
I like the proposal for the unions collecting their own dues.
I also dislike that these unions perennially support the Democrat ticket, regardless of the leanings of individual members. A conservative ought not be forced to support a liberal against his/her will.
That is likely a faily uncommon occurrence since birds of a feather...
You seem pretty bright. Have a looksee at the bill and scrutinize it as if the opposite party you support had created it.
I criticize the Koch brothers because they are the biggest polluters of the St. Johns river that I love.
QuoteIts a vicious circle, and no one seems to have informed a single Californian tax cutter..
All the more reason for the "Terminator" to have bailed on his job as governor. He realized that in a state he loves very much, his republican views of cutting taxes could do little for the state. They have some real issues for sure, and not many ways to resolve other than increasing taxes. Great place to visit, but their taxes and cost of living are rediculous to that of us here in Florida.
And yet we elected a governor on the basis that we are a high tax state. So high tax that he is cutting taxes and de-funding much of our state government. Just ignorant!
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_3c23590c-572a-11e0-afc0-001cc4c002e0.html
QuoteCaterpillar CEO's letter talks of leaving Illinois
By Kurt Erickson SPRINGFIELD --
The chairman and CEO of Peoria-based Caterpillar Inc. is raising the specter of moving the heavy equipment maker out of Illinois.
In a letter sent March 21 to Gov. Pat Quinn, Caterpillar chief executive officer Doug Oberhelman said officials in at least four other states have approached the company about relocating since Illinois raised its income tax in January.
"I want to stay here. But as the leader of this business, I have to do what's right for Caterpillar when making decisions about where to invest," Oberhelman wrote in the letter obtained Friday by the Lee Enterprises Springfield bureau. "The direction that this state is headed in is not favorable to business and I'd like to work with you to change that."
Oberhelman said he's being actively courted to move.
"I have been called, 'cornered' in meetings and 'wined and dined' -- the heat is on," Oberhelman wrote. "Before, I never really considered living anywhere else and certainly never considered the possibility of Caterpillar relocating. But I have to admit, the policymakers in Springfield seem to make it harder by the day."
Cat spokesman Jim Dugan said the letter was designed to show Quinn that Oberhelman wants to be involved in finding solutions that benefit the company, which employs 23,000 people in Illinois.
"I view it as an olive branch to offer our help," Dugan said.
Quinn plans on discussing the letter with Oberhelman April 5 when the two meet at a conference in Peoria. The governor also plans on touring Caterpillar facilities at that time, spokeswoman Brie Callahan said Friday.
"The governor welcomes frank and open exchanges between the business community and government, and we are always open to new ideas that can help our businesses grow, innovate and create jobs," Callahan said.
Oberhelman didn't single out any specific problem with the state's policies in his one-page letter, but Dugan said the recent income tax increase -- signed into law by Quinn in January -- played a significant role in triggering the note.
The tax hike has led to attempts by other states, including Wisconsin, Indiana and New Jersey, to try and poach companies that don't want to stay in the Land of Lincoln.
Oberhelman also sent along correspondence Cat has received from other states.
"I stand ready to help convince you to relocate or expand in the fiscally conservative, low-tax Lone Star State," wrote Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a Jan. 24 letter.
"I encourage you to consider South Dakota as a place for your business to grow and prosper," noted J. Pat Costello, secretary of the South Dakota governor's economic development office.
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman wrote in February to say, "In Nebraska, we balance our budget by controlling spending, not by raising taxes."
Republican leaders, who unsuccessfully fought Quinn on the tax hike, say the letter confirms why they were opposed to the increase.
"These are the kinds of letters we fear," said Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont. "Even more worrisome are the hundreds of businesses being wooed that we don't know about."
Schuh said the tax hike and the state's worker compensation costs on businesses "make Illinois a hostile environment, prime for the picking."
QuoteIn a letter sent March 21 to Gov. Pat Quinn, Caterpillar chief executive officer Doug Oberhelman said officials in at least four other states have approached the company about relocating since Illinois raised its income tax in January.
Luckily Florida does not have an income tax. There are going to be different solutions in different places. In a high tax state cutting taxes may be very stimulating to the economy in a low tax you may not get much bang out it at all. In fact cutting taxes so low that you can't maintain QOL initiatives or properly educate your workforce may drive some businesses away. My fear is that now we govern for our next quarterly report sound long term investments in our state may be ignored as not having the immediate political bang to a politician just working for his next job.
But as you read this, remember that from 2002 to 2008 (latest available data), 67% of U.S. corporations paid NO income taxes. Also remember these facts next time you hear someone blathering about our high corporate income tax rates. 35% X $0 is still $0.
Even if the figure you offer is factual, it doesn't account for the profitability of those 67% of corporations.
Even corporations that do pay income taxes... do not pay income taxes. They charge their customers, and pass the money on to the federal government.
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2011, 12:07:15 PM
But as you read this, remember that from 2002 to 2008 (latest available data), 67% of U.S. corporations paid NO income taxes. Also remember these facts next time you hear someone blathering about our high corporate income tax rates. 35% X $0 is still $0.
So... the problem isnt the rate(35%). The problem is the tax code and loopholes passed by our Congress year afteryearafteryearafteryear...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Teabaggers...er...extremists...er...anarchists hijack trade union protest in London.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/26/article-1370053-0B59B3B100000578-827_964x511.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370053/TUC-anti-spending-cuts-protest-200-arrested-500k-march-cut.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370053/TUC-anti-spending-cuts-protest-200-arrested-500k-march-cut.html)
The British version of teabaggers (Tories) caused this. ;) (better throw in the winky here)
What else were these brilliant young citizens to do?
The taxation rate is 35%. Why do they not pay 35%? Loopholes and sweetheart deals like the one Rangel wrangled for GE to the short term benefit of his election chances...
What if we had a flat corporate income tax of 10% of profits (no deductions, exemptions or depreciation)? At 10% it would probably generate more revenue (I'm guessing) than the current tax with all the loopholes.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 10:36:47 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 28, 2011, 10:34:55 AM
What if we had a flat corporate income tax of 10% of profits (no deductions, exemptions or depreciation)? At 10% it would probably generate more revenue (I'm guessing) than the current tax with all the loopholes.
What is wrong with the current system, urban libertarian?
I'm not UL, but I will offer this:
Corporate control of a malleable tax structure.
Nutshell version.
This, Stephen:
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2011, 12:07:15 PM
But as you read this, remember that from 2002 to 2008 (latest available data), 67% of U.S. corporations paid NO income taxes. Also remember these facts next time you hear someone blathering about our high corporate income tax rates. 35% X $0 is still $0.
I'm actually not a fan of the corporate income tax or income taxes in general but if we gotta have them they should be simple and apply equally to everyone.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 10:36:47 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 28, 2011, 10:34:55 AM
What if we had a flat corporate income tax of 10% of profits (no deductions, exemptions or depreciation)? At 10% it would probably generate more revenue (I'm guessing) than the current tax with all the loopholes.
What is wrong with the current system, urban libertarian?
The big corporations don't pay. The complicated nature of our system leads to loopholes and corruption.
Yes to coerce those who get the loopholes to do worthwhile things for society such as a "green tax break". The system however has been corrupted as in lobbyists give contributions to legislators who pass loopholes favorable to whomever hired the lobbyists.
QuoteDoes anyone realize what those loopholes are there for?
To give certain corporations an advantage over their competition?
The loopholes are there to get re elected... usually under the guise of "creating jobs" or as an "incentive".
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
QuoteBy 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.
G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.
Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.
G.E. officials say that neither Mr. Samuels nor any lobbyists working on behalf of the company discussed the possibility of a charitable donation with Mr. Rangel. The only contact was made in late 2007, a company spokesman said, when Mr. Immelt called to inform Mr. Rangel that the foundation was giving money to schools in his district.
But in 2008, when Mr. Rangel was criticized for using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a City College of New York school being built in his honor, Mr. Rangel said he had appealed to G.E. executives to make the $30 million donation to New York City schools.
G.E. had nothing to do with the City College project, he said at a July 2008 news conference in Washington. “And I didn’t send them any letter,†Mr. Rangel said, adding that he “leaned on them to help us out in the city of New York as they have throughout the country. But my point there was that I do know that the C.E.O. there is connected with the foundation.â€
In an interview this month, Mr. Rangel offered a different version of events â€" saying he didn’t remember ever discussing it with Mr. Immelt and was unaware of the foundation’s donation until the mayor’s office called him in June, before the announcement and after Mr. Rangel had dropped his opposition to the tax break.
Asked to explain the discrepancies between his accounts, Mr. Rangel replied, “I have no idea.â€
So let's close the loopholes and if it is revenue positive enough we can lower rates.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 28, 2011, 11:09:21 AM
Yes to coerce those who get the loopholes to do worthwhile things for society such as a "green tax break". The system however has been corrupted as in lobbyists give contributions to legislators who pass loopholes favorable to whomever hired the lobbyists.
It was a trade off.
Conservatives promised that wealthy corporations and individuals were better at helping the poor and serving society.
If we would only give them tax breaks for doing good things for the country and for the poor, we were told, then they would dutifully make sure that the safety net was maintained at a fraction of the cost that it was taking to government to do so.
Unfortunately there were never any consequences built into the tradeoff, If the wealthy or the corporations weren't able to 'better administer' the social safety net, there was no provision built in that the government would resume these functions of government.
Now that the middle class is disappearing, and the social safety net is leaving millions of people without shelter, health care, or even basic nutrition and safety, the tea party -------ignorant of the original tradeoff, as are most news cycle short attention span americans----wants to treat these basic government services as a 'new' form of 'socialism'.
Or bitch about the 'loopholes' that were created solely on the myth that wealthy people and corporations are somehow more 'noble' than government or democracies.
The mantra I recall was slightly different. Conservatives espoused that private charities and individuals were generous enough to provide for the needs of the underclass.
They suggested that liberal policies had failed to help the poor help themselves. In fact, conservatives believed that federal welfare policies had actually hurt the poor by making them dependent.
It is a valid argument. Not comprehensively reality based, but neither are any factious arguments.
Ultimately we find ulterior motives in every faction.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 28, 2011, 01:29:37 PM
So let's close the loopholes and if it is revenue positive enough we can lower rates.
We agree again Jeffrey! These loopholes are not a recent phenomenon nor are they the invention of republicans. They have been used over the past decades by BOTH parties to get reelected, or to prove they are "doing something" for their constituents, or in the past life were a lobbyist for them. Many of the loopholes began innocently enough... an incentive here... a tax break there... to promote jobs or lure a company from somewhere else. But like many laws... they never time out or end... so the loopholes just pile up. More and more tax revenue is lost and what is worse... now the company actually RELIES on the tax breaks and loopholes as part of the profitability model for the company. IT IS NOW INSTITUTIONALIZED! Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year. Kinda messes up the model huh...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 01:42:04 PM
Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year. Kinda messes up the model huh...
No problem. Then they just blackmail the state with the threat that they will move somewhere else, like Caterpillar in the piece you posted.
Quote from: finehoe on March 28, 2011, 01:51:54 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 01:42:04 PM
Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year. Kinda messes up the model huh...
No problem. Then they just blackmail the state with the threat that they will move somewhere else, like Caterpillar in the piece you posted.
ding ding ding... We have a winner! I bet Caterpillar does not think it is blackmail... The breaks and loopholes they have are now part of their business model. Threaten to to take x% away and it might make sense to move.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Many of the imprisoned are there for minor drug violations. A huge waste of human capital as well as resources and energy.
How much each year is spent processing, prosecuting, feeding, clothing, housing etc... ?
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 02:13:16 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 28, 2011, 01:51:54 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 01:42:04 PM
Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year. Kinda messes up the model huh...
No problem. Then they just blackmail the state with the threat that they will move somewhere else, like Caterpillar in the piece you posted.
ding ding ding... We have a winner! I bet Caterpillar does not think it is blackmail... The breaks and loopholes they have are now part of their business model. Threaten to to take x% away and it might make sense to move.
hmm. the law of unintended consequences eh?
Doesnt sound like a very good idea for 'conservatives' to have implemented does it?
It wasnt. Nor was it simply "conservatives". There are plenty Charlie Rangel examples to go around.
I have no idea what you are talking about. New Deal and conservatives...what?
Im discussing this...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 01:42:04 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 28, 2011, 01:29:37 PM
So let's close the loopholes and if it is revenue positive enough we can lower rates.
We agree again Jeffrey! These loopholes are not a recent phenomenon nor are they the invention of republicans. They have been used over the past decades by BOTH parties to get reelected, or to prove they are "doing something" for their constituents, or in the past life were a lobbyist for them. Many of the loopholes began innocently enough... an incentive here... a tax break there... to promote jobs or lure a company from somewhere else. But like many laws... they never time out or end... so the loopholes just pile up. More and more tax revenue is lost and what is worse... now the company actually RELIES on the tax breaks and loopholes as part of the profitability model for the company. IT IS NOW INSTITUTIONALIZED! Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year. Kinda messes up the model huh...
and this...
Quote
By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.
G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.
Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.
G.E. officials say that neither Mr. Samuels nor any lobbyists working on behalf of the company discussed the possibility of a charitable donation with Mr. Rangel. The only contact was made in late 2007, a company spokesman said, when Mr. Immelt called to inform Mr. Rangel that the foundation was giving money to schools in his district.
But in 2008, when Mr. Rangel was criticized for using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a City College of New York school being built in his honor, Mr. Rangel said he had appealed to G.E. executives to make the $30 million donation to New York City schools.
G.E. had nothing to do with the City College project, he said at a July 2008 news conference in Washington. “And I didn’t send them any letter,†Mr. Rangel said, adding that he “leaned on them to help us out in the city of New York as they have throughout the country. But my point there was that I do know that the C.E.O. there is connected with the foundation.â€
In an interview this month, Mr. Rangel offered a different version of events â€" saying he didn’t remember ever discussing it with Mr. Immelt and was unaware of the foundation’s donation until the mayor’s office called him in June, before the announcement and after Mr. Rangel had dropped his opposition to the tax break.
Asked to explain the discrepancies between his accounts, Mr. Rangel replied, “I have no idea.â€
So Stephen it sounds like the conservatives here are saying close the loopholes and you just want to beat them up for it being a conservative mistake in the first place. How about we just move on as a unified voice for closing the loopholes.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 03:19:39 PM
I understand what you are trying to say, and its absurd.
Charlie Rangell has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the passage of tax loopholes.
So this is just... a lie? Not blaming Charlie at all. He is the target dujour. All of Congress does it... and ALL are responsible. Your ideological finger pointing is counter productive.
Quote
By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.
G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.
Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.
I don't think GE did enough social spending on the poor to reconcile not paying taxes on 14bil in profits plus another 3.5 in credits toward GE.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 03:28:53 PM
Bridge Troll, youve already admitted that you don't know what is being discussed, so why not just stay out of the debate until you can read up on it. ::)
Would you consider yourself a follower of the norse religion?
I know exactly what WAS being talked about. Your efforts to cloud the issue is... well... prdictable and we have seen it all before.
Back to the topic...
Quote
By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.
G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.
Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 03:39:15 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 28, 2011, 03:37:40 PM
I don't think GE did enough social spending on the poor to reconcile not paying taxes on 14bil in profits plus another 3.5 in credits toward GE.
exactly. They didnt keep their end of the bargain. And there's nothing in place to replace that safety net.
If they aren't keeping their end of the bargain then why keep the loopholes?
At least our Democrat President will hold GE's feet to the fire.
Or give GE a fireside foot rub... I forget which.
Oh don't you sound like all of us partisan shot takers. Bucket I thought you were our high road guy. Good line though.
In fairness... as we all know... it isnt just GE nor is Charlie Rangel any worse(in this case) than any other congressman. It is the way things are done in Washington. Deals (loopholes, incentives, tax breaks)are cut for votes. Tax loopholes, incentives, tax breaks are often used to promote certain industry or business in favor of others. The newest fad tax loophole...Green Technology...
I refused to vote for Obama, perhaps due to an ill informed libertarian mindset.
OTOH, I did hope he would get us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, (although that wasn't his platform) and hold corporations and bankers responsible for the damage they do to the economy.
My post is just to keep the conservative bashing honest. Both sides of the aisle are complicit, and I wonder if there is any hope we can actually change it. (no hope and change pun intended)
Now we can hope he will get us out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I agree that both sides have sold out time and time again.
Quote from: buckethead on March 28, 2011, 05:39:06 PM
I refused to vote for Obama, perhaps due to an ill informed libertarian mindset.
OTOH, I did hope he would get us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, (although that wasn't his platform) and hold corporations and bankers responsible for the damage they do to the economy.
My post is just to keep the conservative bashing honest. Both sides of the aisle are complicit, and I wonder if there is any hope we can actually change it. (no hope and change pun intended)
I did vote for Obama. First vote for a Democrat or a Republican since voting against Nixon for McGovern! My huge hope was that he would get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq and I am hugely disappointed in him for not doing so.
And he was the first WINNING presidential candidate I've EVER voted for.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 04:35:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 03:28:53 PM
Bridge Troll, youve already admitted that you don't know what is being discussed, so why not just stay out of the debate until you can read up on it. ::)
Would you consider yourself a follower of the norse religion?
I know exactly what WAS being talked about. Your efforts to cloud the issue is... well... prdictable and we have seen it all before.
Back to the topic...
Quote
By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue — an estimated $4 billion a year — to other priorities.
G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.
Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.
Do you worship the norse gods, Bridge Troll?
Do you worship unicorns, Stephen?
No.... drum roll please...................................................................................... :)
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 06:56:40 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
No.... drum roll please...................................................................................... :)
So what three days of the week come after Tuesday?
Would you agree that they are Wednesday, Thursday and Friday?
I am all a-quiver for the surprise ending... yes Stephen... I agree...sigh....
OK I am waiting for the finish too but hurry dinner is almost ready.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:06:55 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 06:56:40 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 06:55:10 PM
No.... drum roll please...................................................................................... :)
So what three days of the week come after Tuesday?
Would you agree that they are Wednesday, Thursday and Friday?
I am all a-quiver for the surprise ending... yes Stephen... I agree...sigh....
So you freely admit to celebrating in Wodens Day, Thor's Day, and Freyr's Day?
How can you possibly deny that you worship norse deities when you call half of your days after Norse Gods?
THATS IT?? HUGE disappointment here. All I agreed to was that wednesday, thursday and friday followed tuesday. I certainly do not celebrate them... in fact I always thought Woden was kind of creepy...
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:13:03 PM
Well how can you run from the fact that all of america participates in this Norse Religion stuff?
Both sides do it! Both Sides!
The Norse worshippers and the non norse worshipers alike.
Good lord Stephen... I am sure you have a satisfyingly obscure point to this...... may we hear it?
Please hurry... the Presidents speech is coming on soon... and I never miss one of those... :)
I don't buy it if the companies are not using the tax breaks per the altruistic intentions of the tax breaks as you say they don't. Then it won't negatively effect those altruistic interests to close the loopholes as you say they will.
If those things should be funded then fund them keep the tax code simple.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:24:07 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:13:03 PM
Well how can you run from the fact that all of america participates in this Norse Religion stuff?
Both sides do it! Both Sides!
The Norse worshippers and the non norse worshipers alike.
Good lord Stephen... I am sure you have a satisfyingly obscure point to this...... may we hear it?
Well it goes back to the basic absurdity of trying to find joint authorship of an idea, long after the fact has become fait accompli.
Just because you use the names of the old norse gods for the days of the week doesnt make you complicit in norse mythology or philosophy does it? You are simply subscribing to the order of the day and the times, and operating in the widely accepted paradigm. After all, you do have choices. You could call the days after their numerical value, you could use their french names, you could simply refuse to utter the dreaded norse names after all.
But you don't. This doesnt mean that you believe in the All Father, his thunderous son or the queen of the norns.
Similarly, the idea of tax breaks for wealthy individuals who contribute to good causes or spend their money in a specific way was a conservative notion that was championed by conservatives on behalf of the wealthy in order to avoid the competing New Deal philosophy that social costs were best paid for by tax money.
The conservatives won the argument, and the outcome has been just as mixed as if the Liberals had won.
But that doesnt mean that operating within the common framework gives any kind of shared 'responsibility' for the origin of the ideas.
And its absurd to try and obfuscate the matter anyways.
The tax breaks represent a pre existing negotiation, and trying to undo the loopholes will have unintended consequences if the conditions that required this negotiated solution arent addressed.
You simply cannot go around blindly, ineptly trying to restructure this stuff without risking disasters.
Seems kinda weird hearing the "We cannot change that because thats the way we have always done it argument" from you...
The Multi-State Survey of Race and Politics (http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html) has just conducted a poll of Republican voters in interviews that lasted an average of 40 minutes. Two distinct camps emerged: Tea Party and non-Tea Party. This captures the divide:
QuoteMore than twice as many Tea Party conservatives desire to see the president’s policies fail (76%) than non-Tea Party conservatives (32%). (As a corollary, 53% of non-Tea Party conservatives wish to see the president’s policies succeed versus 18% of Tea Party conservatives.) Why might this be the case? Why do so many Tea Party conservatives wish to see the president’s policies fail, relative to non-Tea Party conservatives? Perhaps it’s because three quarters (75 %) of Tea Party conservatives believe that President Obama’s policies are socialist compared to 40% of non-Tea Party conservative, a disparity of 35 % points.
The study then examined how susceptible the respondents were to core Tea Party themes - on Obama's birth certificate, religion, etc. Then they threw race into the mix:
QuoteIf the interviewer was perceived as white, conservatives were less likely say “don’t know†or “no opinion†than if the interviewer was perceived as non-white. In the latter case, respondents were far more likely to opt for these options. We also found that conservatives were more likely to view President Obama as alien if they believed themselves to be interviewed by someone white than a non-white interviewer.
Quote from: finehoe on March 29, 2011, 04:02:19 PM
The Multi-State Survey of Race and Politics (http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html) has just conducted a poll of Republican voters in interviews that lasted an average of 40 minutes. Two distinct camps emerged: Tea Party and non-Tea Party. This captures the divide:
QuoteMore than twice as many Tea Party conservatives desire to see the president’s policies fail (76%) than non-Tea Party conservatives (32%). (As a corollary, 53% of non-Tea Party conservatives wish to see the president’s policies succeed versus 18% of Tea Party conservatives.) Why might this be the case? Why do so many Tea Party conservatives wish to see the president’s policies fail, relative to non-Tea Party conservatives? Perhaps it’s because three quarters (75 %) of Tea Party conservatives believe that President Obama’s policies are socialist compared to 40% of non-Tea Party conservative, a disparity of 35 % points.
The study then examined how susceptible the respondents were to core Tea Party themes - on Obama's birth certificate, religion, etc. Then they threw race into the mix:
QuoteIf the interviewer was perceived as white, conservatives were less likely say “don’t know†or “no opinion†than if the interviewer was perceived as non-white. In the latter case, respondents were far more likely to opt for these options. We also found that conservatives were more likely to view President Obama as alien if they believed themselves to be interviewed by someone white than a non-white interviewer.
Suspicions confirmed!!
That is the silliest thing I have seen all day. :D
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 04:45:19 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 06:33:57 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:24:07 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:13:03 PM
Well how can you run from the fact that all of america participates in this Norse Religion stuff?
Both sides do it! Both Sides!
The Norse worshippers and the non norse worshipers alike.
Good lord Stephen... I am sure you have a satisfyingly obscure point to this...... may we hear it?
Well it goes back to the basic absurdity of trying to find joint authorship of an idea, long after the fact has become fait accompli.
Just because you use the names of the old norse gods for the days of the week doesnt make you complicit in norse mythology or philosophy does it? You are simply subscribing to the order of the day and the times, and operating in the widely accepted paradigm. After all, you do have choices. You could call the days after their numerical value, you could use their french names, you could simply refuse to utter the dreaded norse names after all.
But you don't. This doesnt mean that you believe in the All Father, his thunderous son or the queen of the norns.
Similarly, the idea of tax breaks for wealthy individuals who contribute to good causes or spend their money in a specific way was a conservative notion that was championed by conservatives on behalf of the wealthy in order to avoid the competing New Deal philosophy that social costs were best paid for by tax money.
The conservatives won the argument, and the outcome has been just as mixed as if the Liberals had won.
But that doesnt mean that operating within the common framework gives any kind of shared 'responsibility' for the origin of the ideas.
And its absurd to try and obfuscate the matter anyways.
The tax breaks represent a pre existing negotiation, and trying to undo the loopholes will have unintended consequences if the conditions that required this negotiated solution arent addressed.
You simply cannot go around blindly, ineptly trying to restructure this stuff without risking disasters.
Seems kinda weird hearing the "We cannot change that because thats the way we have always done it argument" from you...
That would be weird indeed. Is that what you are interpreting my post as being about?
This...
Quote
The tax breaks represent a pre existing negotiation, and trying to undo the loopholes will have unintended consequences if the conditions that required this negotiated solution arent addressed.
You simply cannot go around blindly, ineptly trying to restructure this stuff without risking disasters.
Yes... I do. Have I misinterpreted something? Perhaps I should not think the norse god Woden is creepy?
::) No problemo! 8)
Perhaps you explain your point slowly for me... minus references to Norse gods... then maybe we can move forward?
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 05:01:23 PM
Yes... I do. Have I misinterpreted something? Perhaps I should not think the norse god Woden is creepy?
So you read the admonition to understand the underlying reasons for something before changing it to mean, "Don't change it because thats the way its always been done"?
Well, ok, Bridge Troll, if thats what you take away from the conversation, it certainly explains a lot about many of your other political posts. ::)
I though the same thing Stephen that you were saying the loopholes don't work but we can not lose the loopholes. So you just think we need to better understand the loopholes first? Now remember the loopholes change every year in exchange for "contributions" so study fast.
I think this means Jeffrey and I are truely interested in the point you are trying to make...
Sorry Stephen... just cause you think something is childish doesn't make it so. The same holds for your "version" of tax loophole history. I evade nothing by using Rangel as an example... as I have stated quite often... that he is simply an example. You may freely substitute any congressmans name you wish... chances are very good they have been involved in something similar.
As for the loopholes themselves. I am quite aware of the house of cards for which they are built. Hence my constant annoyance at GG, Faye, or yourself wailing about some corporate welfare for X company or "tax breaks" for the rich BS. Thank you for making my argument. The terms Corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, Tax evading corporations are no more than BUMPER STICKERS... and I am very happy to hear you finally say so.
I do agree with you that closing the loopholes and breaks is not as simple as most on the left seem to believe... :)
I also appreciate the complete lack of Norse god references...
I'm so happy to be an annoyance to you mrs troll...with out me and those like me the world would be full of you and from what i've heard from your fingers it would'nt be a place anyone would really want...
I'm has confused.
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 09:22:10 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 06:09:15 PM
Sorry Stephen... just cause you think something is childish doesn't make it so. The same holds for your "version" of tax loophole history. I evade nothing by using Rangel as an example... as I have stated quite often... that he is simply an example. You may freely substitute any congressmans name you wish... chances are very good they have been involved in something similar.
As for the loopholes themselves. I am quite aware of the house of cards for which they are built. Hence my constant annoyance at GG, Faye, or yourself wailing about some corporate welfare for X company or "tax breaks" for the rich BS. Thank you for making my argument. The terms Corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, Tax evading corporations are no more than BUMPER STICKERS... and I am very happy to hear you finally say so.
I do agree with you that closing the loopholes and breaks is not as simple as most on the left seem to believe... :)
I also appreciate the complete lack of Norse god references...
And I would appreciate a complete lack of your Democrats as the blood of Jesus equivocations.
And you clearly still don't understand the issue, if you think that moving a corporation to Dubai in order to avoid taxes is the same thing as exploiting a tax loophole.
I'm not that interested in a response, but I would be curious to see a link where I have 'bewailed' corporation x.
Perhaps in the secret little partisan land where you concoct most of these formulaic posts, it exists, but please...do share it with me.
I understand the issue well enough. I will admit that I probably do not understand the issue from
YOUR perspective. But that would be nothing new.
Partisan Land?? Formulaic?? Really?? I suspect if we could do a word count of the entire site of the words Tea, Conservative, and republican... you would win going away...
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 09:52:06 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 06:46:22 AM
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 09:22:10 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 06:09:15 PM
Sorry Stephen... just cause you think something is childish doesn't make it so. The same holds for your "version" of tax loophole history. I evade nothing by using Rangel as an example... as I have stated quite often... that he is simply an example. You may freely substitute any congressmans name you wish... chances are very good they have been involved in something similar.
As for the loopholes themselves. I am quite aware of the house of cards for which they are built. Hence my constant annoyance at GG, Faye, or yourself wailing about some corporate welfare for X company or "tax breaks" for the rich BS. Thank you for making my argument. The terms Corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, Tax evading corporations are no more than BUMPER STICKERS... and I am very happy to hear you finally say so.
I do agree with you that closing the loopholes and breaks is not as simple as most on the left seem to believe... :)
I also appreciate the complete lack of Norse god references...
And I would appreciate a complete lack of your Democrats as the blood of Jesus equivocations.
And you clearly still don't understand the issue, if you think that moving a corporation to Dubai in order to avoid taxes is the same thing as exploiting a tax loophole.
I'm not that interested in a response, but I would be curious to see a link where I have 'bewailed' corporation x.
Perhaps in the secret little partisan land where you concoct most of these formulaic posts, it exists, but please...do share it with me.
I understand the issue well enough. I will admit that I probably do not understand the issue from YOUR perspective. But that would be nothing new.
Partisan Land?? Formulaic?? Really?? I suspect if we could do a word count of the entire site of the words Tea, Conservative, and republican... you would win going away...
I have more than 20 thousand posts, bridge troll.
And writing about something often is not the same thing as formulaic.
look it up. and while you are there, look up the word 'conflation'.
I see you do not disagree with the winner of the word count... 20k posts or not... and I would not attempt to usurp your mastery of conflation...
Conflation=Congress?
The two party system?