LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 04-14-2011, 02:07 AM   #21
hujdrftgkas

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
525
Senior Member
Default


Do I really need to explain the differences between taxing an individual, in this case Mr. Immelt, and a corporation, in this case GE? Really?






Seriously? You don't understand the difference?









Really?















You can't be serious.
















Can you?
And do I need to explain to you the difference between a class C corporation and a sub-S corporation?

GE being a class C corporation--thereby being responsible for paying federal taxes on 18.4 BILLION dollars that didn't because they got a pass from this administration.
hujdrftgkas is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 02:11 AM   #22
pKgGpUlF

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
547
Senior Member
Default
And do I need to explain to you the difference between a class C corporation and a sub-S corporation?

GE being a class C corporation.
Now you're just using the Chewbacca defense.

Edit:

Oh, sure, stealth edit while I'm dumbfounded by your initial post. Added while I was bewildered:

--thereby being responsible for paying federal taxes on 18.4 BILLION dollars that didn't because they got a pass from this administration.
1) No. Once again, they only earned a portion of that within the US - they are not liable for the whole thing.

but

2) WTF does that have to do with Immelt? Are you saying that Immelt didn't pay taxes because GE didn't?
pKgGpUlF is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 02:34 AM   #23
Noilemaillilm

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
443
Senior Member
Default
And do I need to explain to you the difference between a class C corporation and a sub-S corporation?

GE being a class C corporation--thereby being responsible for paying federal taxes on 18.4 BILLION dollars that didn't because they got a pass from this administration.
You know I think I would like an explanation of exactly how Obama allowed GE to go tax free.
Otherwise I might have to call "BULLSHIT".
Noilemaillilm is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 02:37 AM   #24
Noilemaillilm

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
443
Senior Member
Default
Wow... that is a ton of money, and a huge increase in just 6 months of this fiscal years...


WASHINGTON The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011, the Treasury Department said Wednesday as political knives were being sharpened for a new budget battle.

The Treasury reported a deficit of $829 billion for the October-March period, compared with $717 billion a year earlier, as revenue rose a sluggish 6.9 percent as the economic recovery slowly gained pace.

AFP: US deficit up 15.7% in first half of fiscal 2011
And to think just a few years ago we had full employment, a growing economy, a balanced budget and we were winning two wars, that Obama guy has ruined everything.
Noilemaillilm is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 02:40 AM   #25
italertb

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
You might want to ask OBAMA why it is General Electric earned 14.2 billion dollars last year and didn't pay a penny in taxes on it--
Oreo, which tax laws were changed during the Obama administration to allow GE to avoid paying taxes?

Waiting...

Gee, where did your laughing faces go?
italertb is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 03:04 AM   #26
Abedgebeefs

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
422
Senior Member
Default
And to think just a few years ago we had full employment, a growing economy, a balanced budget and we were winning two wars, that Obama guy has ruined everything.
To be fair, has anyone's lives dramatically improved since Obama took office. All this hope and change and we are going to get America back on the right track speeches... Yeah I can't say that I've seen any of that. Do I personally blame Obama for that? Of course not. Do I think he made a bunch of promises to a bunch of vulnerable voters that he has absolutely no way to follow through on. Absolutely. I don't know why people fall for this crap every election year. They have all these high hopes going into an election then are let down time and again. Obama is not the answer to everyones prayers like some would think. He's just an ordinary politician. Not much different than the rest. If anyone thinks that any politician is going to swoop in and save the day then you're setting yourself up for another let down. With any positive thing they do, you can bet a heftier negative is looming in the shadows. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there. As you see in most bills they pass, the effects usually lag behind a few years. Do people really think the Iraq war got us nearly $14 trillion in debt? Not even close. Policies from the Clinton years and the Bush years combined got us there. It took a while, but now its time to pay the piper. Just like a credit card. You can only pay that minimum payment so long, the next thing you know you find yourself so far in you can't get out. We are now experiencing that on a national level with very very big numbers.
Abedgebeefs is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 03:01 PM   #27
pKgGpUlF

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
547
Senior Member
Default
Now you're just using the Chewbacca defense.

Edit:

Oh, sure, stealth edit while I'm dumbfounded by your initial post. Added while I was bewildered:



1) No. Once again, they only earned a portion of that within the US - they are not liable for the whole thing.

but

2) WTF does that have to do with Immelt? Are you saying that Immelt didn't pay taxes because GE didn't?
Oreo, which tax laws were changed during the Obama administration to allow GE to avoid paying taxes?

Waiting...

Gee, where did your laughing faces go?
Oreo? Where are your answers?
pKgGpUlF is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 04:11 PM   #28
Peertantyb

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
497
Senior Member
Default
Oreo, which tax laws were changed during the Obama administration to allow GE to avoid paying taxes?

Waiting...

Gee, where did your laughing faces go?
Do you not get it, none, that's the problem. What has Obama done to close loopholes in the tax code. Nothing. Yet Obama bitches about the rich not being taxed enough, and then leaves companies like GE off the hook. Obama is a fraud.
Peertantyb is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 04:30 PM   #29
pKgGpUlF

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
547
Senior Member
Default
Do you not get it, none, that's the problem. What has Obama done to close loopholes in the tax code. Nothing. Yet Obama bitches about the rich not being taxed enough, and then leaves companies like GE off the hook. Obama is a fraud.
And, what exactly can the POTUS do?
pKgGpUlF is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 04:32 PM   #30
toopyimport

Join Date
Oct 2005
Location
Mauritius
Posts
463
Senior Member
Default
Gee, I thought all appropriations must begin in the House. And didn't the GOP win the House last November?
Oh you mean the GOP didn't do the appropriations when the Democrats were in charge of the appropriations...imagine that.
toopyimport is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 07:01 PM   #31
urbalatte

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
679
Senior Member
Default
And, what exactly can the POTUS do?
Well let's see. Veto spending appropriations if they don't include them, send legislation to the house and request it be voted on, or the Senate even for that matter.

And when your party controls both the house...and the senate....asking would probably work, particularly if he did so in a State of the Union snoozer or something.

Until the Tea Party rose up last year, and Ryan put his out there, Obama had zero intention of doing anything to interfere with his gravy train of campaign contributions (and to be fair, 90% or better of congress didn't either). Remember, he spent about 2/3 of a billion dollars to get elected last time, and is looking to go well past that this time. He's got a lot of promises to make to try and get people's money.
urbalatte is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 07:08 PM   #32
pKgGpUlF

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
547
Senior Member
Default
Well let's see. Veto spending appropriations if they don't include them, send legislation to the house and request it be voted on, or the Senate even for that matter.
And then get even more flack from the GOP for "being anti-business" for trying to actually tax them. You say these things like you would have supported it.

And when your party controls both the house...and the senate....asking would probably work, particularly if he did so in a State of the Union snoozer or something. I know this is really difficult for you - but liberals pride themselves on not following orders. I know that GOP membership requires giving up any semblance of independent thought (lest you be labeled a RINO), but that's not how the Dems do things. So, that the Democrats had a majority doesn't mean that Obama could dictate.

Then there's that whole GOP screaming "you're anti-business!" thing.

Until the Tea Party rose up last year, and Ryan put his out there, Obama had zero intention of doing anything to interfere with his gravy train of campaign contributions (and to be fair, 90% or better of congress didn't either). Remember, he spent about 2/3 of a billion dollars to get elected last time, and is looking to go well past that this time. He's got a lot of promises to make to try and get people's money. Ohhhh, so it's Obama's gravy train? The GOP has been left out to dry by the large corporations? That'd be evidenced by what, Speaker Boehner handing out checks from Big Tobacco? The oil stains on the Texas delegations' zippers?
pKgGpUlF is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 07:36 PM   #33
urbalatte

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
679
Senior Member
Default
And then get even more flack from the GOP for "being anti-business" for trying to actually tax them. You say these things like you would have supported it.
Of course I would have. As long as the overall rate is reduced down to make us more competitive globally with the areas our industry IS going to.

Remember Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the house. Could have passed anything they wanted to.

I know this is really difficult for you - but liberals pride themselves on not following orders.
That's a laugh. they want EVERYONE to be forced to follow their orders. I suppose it isn't following orders if you're the one giving all of them.

I know that GOP membership requires giving up any semblance of independent thought (lest you be labeled a RINO), but that's not how the Dems do things. So, that the Democrats had a majority doesn't mean that Obama could dictate.
It'd probably help your case a lot if I was a member of the GOP. Which I'm not. The GOP is just less bad for the average person than the Democrats. Less bad meaning long term, which is how I think.

Obamacare......looks like he could dictate just fine doesn't it?
Then there's that whole GOP screaming "you're anti-business!" thing.
If the shoe fits. Wear it.

Ohhhh, so it's Obama's gravy train? The GOP has been left out to dry by the large corporations? That'd be evidenced by what, Speaker Boehner handing out checks from Big Tobacco? The oil stains on the Texas delegations' zippers?
Obama spent 2/3 of a billion dollars to get elected President.
McCain spent about half that.

They're for the most part nothing but pigs swilling at the trough, which I at least have condemned them all for. As for the worst of the worst, Obama is #1 by a mile.

The Republicans overall are bad. The Democrats overall are much worse. Pretty simple.

Given a choice between bad, and worse. I'll take bad, and be unhappy with it too. Just less so.
urbalatte is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 07:59 PM   #34
pKgGpUlF

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
547
Senior Member
Default
Of course I would have. As long as the overall rate is reduced down to make us more competitive globally with the areas our industry IS going to.
How do you lower an overall rate of zero?

Remember Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the house. Could have passed anything they wanted to. Once again - Democrats don't follow orders like Republicans. I know this is a foreign concept to you.

That's a laugh. they want EVERYONE to be forced to follow their orders. I suppose it isn't following orders if you're the one giving all of them. Projection. Which side is it that freaks out for even the slightest dissent?

It'd probably help your case a lot if I was a member of the GOP. Which I'm not. The GOP is just less bad for the average person than the Democrats. Less bad meaning long term, which is how I think. You assign me to the Dems - if you get to do that, I get to assign you to the GOP. Turnabout's fair play.

Obamacare......looks like he could dictate just fine doesn't it? The bill that was passed bears little resemblance to what he asked for.

If the shoe fits. Wear it. I wear a 12 E. Not many shoes fit.


Obama spent 2/3 of a billion dollars to get elected President.
McCain spent about half that. To not get elected. But, that's not really the point, now is it? You're not seriously arguing that big business and the GOP aren't longtime best friends, are you?

They're for the most part nothing but pigs swilling at the trough, which I at least have condemned them all for. As for the worst of the worst, Obama is #1 by a mile.

The Republicans overall are bad. The Democrats overall are much worse. Pretty simple. Why? Specific examples, please. And, don't forget how the Republicans are all about allowing corporate America to create unsafe work environments, pollute however and wherever they want without liability, and sell defective and dangerous products with impunity and immunity.

Given a choice between bad, and worse. I'll take bad, and be unhappy with it too. Just less so. Too bad you can't figure out which one is worse.
pKgGpUlF is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 08:47 PM   #35
Peertantyb

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
497
Senior Member
Default
How do you lower an overall rate of zero?
No one is asking to lower the rate to "0"


Once again - Democrats don't follow orders like Republicans. I know this is a foreign concept to you. You could not prove that my me. Remember Obamacare all the Dem's marched on line like a military unite.

You assign me to the Dems - if you get to do that, I get to assign you to the GOP. Turnabout's fair play. I know your not speaking to me but I'm a Conservative and proud of it.


To not get elected. But, that's not really the point, now is it? You're not seriously arguing that big business and the GOP aren't longtime best friends, are you? What the point is, Obama bitches about the rich not paying taxes yet leaves companies like GE to pay no taxes. All he wanted to do was tax those individuals making over 250k, which he never did. He never spoke of closing loopholes for companies. Thats the point, he and his congress had two yrs to address it and did nothing. Further the point is, everyone knows there are loopholes in the tax code and it takes a guy like Paul Ryan to do something about it. Obama would never do it because he's in bed with GE and the like.

Why? Specific examples, please. And, don't forget how the Republicans are all about allowing corporate America to create unsafe work environments, Please provide proof that Republicans are all about allowing corporate America to create unsafe work environments. Otherwise I would call that a lie.


pollute however and wherever they want without liability, and sell defective and dangerous products with impunity and immunity. Again provide proof that Republicans allow however and whenever without liability, and sell defective and dangerous products with impunity and immunity. Otherwise I would call this a lie.
Peertantyb is offline


Old 04-14-2011, 09:10 PM   #36
pKgGpUlF

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
547
Senior Member
Default
No one is asking to lower the rate to "0"

You could not prove that my me. Remember Obamacare all the Dem's marched on line like a military unite.

I know your not speaking to me but I'm a Conservative and proud of it.

What the point is, Obama bitches about the rich not paying taxes yet leaves companies like GE to pay no taxes. All he wanted to do was tax those individuals making over 250k, which he never did. He never spoke of closing loopholes for companies. Thats the point, he and his congress had two yrs to address it and did nothing. Further the point is, everyone knows there are loopholes in the tax code and it takes a guy like Paul Ryan to do something about it. Obama would never do it because he's in bed with GE and the like.

Please provide proof that Republicans are all about allowing corporate America to create unsafe work environments. Otherwise I would call that a lie.

Again provide proof that Republicans allow however and whenever without liability, and sell defective and dangerous products with impunity and immunity. Otherwise I would call this a lie.
I'm surrounded by brick walls, and trying to discuss things with them.

Again, if GE paid ZERO TAXES on the $5.1B that it generated in the USA last year, then how do you propose lowering corporate tax rates? I know you're stepping into the middle of a conversation, but when you snipped my post apart, that's what you missed. You cons are bitching about GE paying not taxes, and you're bitching about corporate tax rates. Can you see how that might just ring a bit hollow?

As far as the rest, if you're unfamiliar with individuals like James Watt, or GOP pushes to de-fang and de-fund organizations like OSHA, MSHA, the consumer product safety commission, the EPA, etc., well, there ain't much I can do for you, no matter how much you want to call things a lie or not.


Oh, and if the Democrats "marched like a military unite," then why did Democrats also have to get "bribed" to vote for the plan? And, I know you get told by your lord and master Rupert Murdoch to call it "Obamacare," but you do know that the ACA left out much of what Obama had originally asked for. So, it's really CongressCare.
pKgGpUlF is offline


Old 12-04-2011, 08:04 PM   #37
casinobonusfrees

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
413
Senior Member
Default US deficit up 15.7% in first half of fiscal 2011
Wow... that is a ton of money, and a huge increase in just 6 months of this fiscal years...


WASHINGTON The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011, the Treasury Department said Wednesday as political knives were being sharpened for a new budget battle.

The Treasury reported a deficit of $829 billion for the October-March period, compared with $717 billion a year earlier, as revenue rose a sluggish 6.9 percent as the economic recovery slowly gained pace.

AFP: US deficit up 15.7% in first half of fiscal 2011
casinobonusfrees is offline


Old 12-04-2011, 08:21 PM   #38
urbalatte

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
679
Senior Member
Default
Well hopefully since we had a change in the house from the previous bunch of spending drunkards, we'll have somewhat more thrifty spending drunkards.
urbalatte is offline


Old 12-04-2011, 08:43 PM   #39
Shootohoist

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
478
Senior Member
Default
Wow... that is a ton of money, and a huge increase in just 6 months of this fiscal years...


WASHINGTON The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011, the Treasury Department said Wednesday as political knives were being sharpened for a new budget battle.

The Treasury reported a deficit of $829 billion for the October-March period, compared with $717 billion a year earlier, as revenue rose a sluggish 6.9 percent as the economic recovery slowly gained pace.

AFP: US deficit up 15.7% in first half of fiscal 2011
In 2007 when the Dems took over CONgress our yearly deficit was $106B & the total debt was about 7.5T. Way too high fer sure, but, in Feb of 2011 the MONTHLY deficit was 233B (1.65T yearly) & our current total outstanding debt (not counting entitlements) is $14.5T. So, in about 4 years time, under a completely Dem controlled Congress the deficit has increased more than 10-fold & the debt has doubled. Nice work. I blame Bush. /sarcasm

As an aside, we've lost nearly $90B on the Gov't Motors bailout, so far. Not including Chrapsler.
Shootohoist is offline


Old 12-05-2011, 02:52 AM   #40
italertb

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Wow... that is a ton of money, and a huge increase in just 6 months of this fiscal years...
Gee, I thought all appropriations must begin in the House. And didn't the GOP win the House last November? What have they been doing all this time, cutting taxes for the rich?

The answer to that would be yes.

I see Obama being slammed every day on this forum for unemployment beginning on January 1, 2009, three weeks prior to even taking office, but I imagine the House Republicans are going to be allowed a much longer easing in period, right?
italertb is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity