IRS Data Shows: "The Rich" Pay Higher Rates

[Taft2016]

By the way dimwit; does it occur to you that millions of small businesses are run by managers and NOT their owners?

Ironically, the McDonalds he works in is probably owned by a franchisee and run by a manager.

 

[Truth Detector]

Ironically, the McDonalds he works in is probably owned by a franchisee and run by a manager.

You're probably right about that. LOL

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Tell that to the victims of the S&L, Enron, JP Morgan, Wall St.

Unwise investors reap what they sow.

And neocon/teabagger flunkies blow smoke when they cannot face the truth.

S&L, Enron and JP Morgan executive management were the ones doing the dirty deeds.....the investors trusted them to do the right thing...NOT rip them off, as the historical records show. That's what the word "victim" means, genius.

You need to stop carrying water for criminals, Taft.....and face the truth that YOU are just a minor shareholder, NOT an owner who has direct control over a company's actions, as my examples show.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Tell that to the victims of the S&L, Enron, JP Morgan, Wall St.

Companies go broke every year!
Victims! Lol sorry I'm outta faux outrage

Going broke is one thing....ripping off your investors and clients is another. That's why folk from the S&L and Enron went to jail, don't cha know!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Tell that to the victims of the S&L, Enron, JP Morgan, Wall St.

What would you like to tell the victims of Global Crossing?

The same thing, genius.

But just so we are clear:


The then-high-flying telecom was an evenhanded giver: Of its total $3.6 million in contributions since 1998, Republicans pocketed 53%, Democrats got 47%. Top recipients in Congress were key figures in telecom regulation: Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) got $31,000, and Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), $12,500. In 1999, on behalf of Global Crossing, McCain asked the Federal Communications Commission to encourage the development of undersea telecom cables.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories...ssing-tossed-more-cash-around-town-than-enron

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You have to have cable wiring in the first place, you idiot! And why would you have that unless your building is installing cable? And as apartment buildings have several floors with several apartments on each floor, how the hell do you think your solution is going to work without some illegal hook up?

Think it through before you type, Taft....makes you look less stupid.

Let me explain you moron. The public housing buildings in NYC are owned by the city. The rents are subsidized by the taxpayers of NYC.

The city allowed the cable tv wiring to be installed for the tenants, who, as you see, some of whom are paying $200 a month for.

What you moonbats seem to believe is that these are private apartment buildings. They're not. They're government owned buildings

Know what you're talking about you dipshit beforehand.

so what are you bitching about, Taft? That cable was installed in a building SUBSIDIZED (which means not wholly owned by) the city? Do you know how many CORPORATE buildings are subsidized by the city? Do your homework, because I'm tired of doing it for willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger flunkies like yourself. Limbaugh tells you it's all the poor people's fault, and like a dumb toot you repeat it without thought or inspection. Jeezus!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Bottom line: you cannot refute the information provided, so you trot out the lame "well, it ain't illegal" horse.

That's the point, stupid....you have tax laws that favor the rich, allow them to hide their money from state & federal taxation to a large degree and therefore deny the USA MUCH NEEDED REVENUE.

Evidently, you are incapable of thinking progressively.

How do the tax laws favor the rich dimwit? By the way, I am amused with your cut and paste thought process from the "think progress" leftist web site. I find them using the word "think" rather ironic,

Do you know the difference between profit, and taxable income? Do you know that when companies have a net loss, that loss can carryover to preceding or following years. These are not tax loopholes, they are tax methods that are generally accepted and used by many companies and corporations.

But here's the real issue dimwit; even if you taxed corporations at 100%, it wouldn't make a dent in the Democrats four year spending spree they went on before losing the House.

We don't have a revenue problem dimwit, our Government has a spending problem. Trying to further destroy the capacity for creating jobs won't change that fact or make things better for the millions who have given up even trying to find work in this crappy economy which is the result of Obamunism thanks to idiots like you who abetted and aided his election and re-election.

But alas, you're a dimwit leftist stuck on stupid Marxist class envy rhetoric, how could you be expected to comprehend reality, the truth or basic facts.

Dumbass

Once again, our intellectually impotent Truth Detector blathers mantras learned at the knee of Limbaugh and Drudge.

His first few words gives insight into the depth of his ignorance; "How do the tax laws favor the rich dimwit?" (since there is no comma, I assume he's referring to rich dimwits).

Well to do the homework for the willfully ignorant once more, in hopes that they will have the courage to actually read and learn:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=0

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
This has EVERYTHING to do with "trickle down" economics (aka "reaganomics), because the changing of the tax codes to favor corporations and the rich went hand and hand with it.

Also, a "flat tax" won't solve the problem, and here's why:

Bloomberg View: Why a Flat Tax Won’t Work; Making Swiss Accounts Less … Swiss
October 27, 2011

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...-10272011.html

America needs to grow a pair (i.e., the Attorney General's office, the Executive Office) and put the kibosh on ALEC and the lobbyist run amok that are controlling our politicians. That way, you don't have "legal ways" around paying the fair share.

What tax codes were changed to only favor corporations and the rich; another incredibly stupid claim with nothing honest to back it up.

But I would like to deal with the moronic Bloomberg article and dissect why it is so incredibly wrong and stupid and could only be swallowed by dimwitted dullards like you:

FIRST:

Let’s start with “lower.” Taxes cannot be lower for everyone and still raise the same amount of money. For each dollar your taxes are lower, someone else’s must be a dollar higher. Yes, we know the argument that cutting taxes may cause people to work harder and thus substantially increase government revenue. This theory has dominated conservative economic thinking for three decades with scant evidence to support it. If you want to give everyone a tax cut—under the current system, under a flat tax, or under any other arrangement—[/b]all you have to do is lower the tax rate.[/b] This has nothing to do with flatness.

The first bolded part is flat out wrong; no one says it causes people to work harder. It creates more wealth which allows businesses to expand thus creating MORE workers paying TAXES. Thus tax revenue increases because there are MORE taxpayers.

The second bolded part is ironic in that the authors dimwitted argument first claims that tax reductions do nothing but make the rich richer then argues that by merely lowering the tax rates it would do the same thing as a Flat Tax.

But this is a moronic argument. What a simple flat tax or Fair Consumption tax would do is remove the massive paper work requirements of the current abomination of a tax code; a code no one, even experts, can comprehend in its entirety. Currently individuals and companies spend an estimated $400 BILLION annually in tax code compliance. Imagine if all that capital could be put back into the economy instead of on tax compliance and paperwork?

SECOND:

Would a flat tax be “fairer” than the current system? Perry plans to call for a rate of 20 percent, which is lower than today’s top rate of 35 percent and higher than the lowest rate (which is zero). If your income currently puts you in a bracket higher than 20 percent, a 20 percent flat tax constitutes a tax cut. If you’re in a bracket lower than 20 percent, a flat tax will constitute an increase, unless it comes with lots of deductions, in which case it’s no longer flat. If lowering taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on low incomes would be an improvement, then a flat tax is fairer than the current code. Otherwise, it isn’t.

It is apparent that the author of this article is also ignorant regarding "effective" tax rates and "nominal" tax rates. His claim that everyone's tax rates would automatically go down ignore the fact that after deductions and favoritism contained in the current code, the effective rate paid by the rich with a 35% nominal rate can actually lower than a 20% flat rate with no deductions.

In addition, by simplifying the tax code, compliance costs are lower and make tax evasion less desirable and profitable.

LAST:

Even if the flat tax were the only option, this wouldn’t make the tax code much simpler. Multiple brackets add one line and one simple calculation to the chore of computing your taxes. What causes the tremendous complexity of the tax code is defining taxable income. Some complexity is unavoidable in a complex economy. Some of it represents the hard work of lobbyists for special interests. None of it has anything to do with tax rates or how many brackets there are.

The willful ignorance in this last claim is self-evident. To suggest that the current code containing 71,864 pages is not much simpler than a flat tax requires the willing suspension of common sense and intelligence. REALLY?

No wonder you are such an incredibly dimwitted dullard; you get your information from idiots like this.

All you've done is blather your supposition and conjecture while ignoring the actual FACTS. That's the problem with you neocon/teabagger flunkies....you keep putting forth your opinions as if they are FACTS....then you DENY any FACT that does not suit you. that you put forth your contention of "favoritism" as it's quantifiable is a joke. That you bitch and moan about the amount of pages in the current tax code, but offer NOTHING as to the length of what your "flat tax" code would contain is another joke.

Even if the flat tax were the only option, this wouldn’t make the tax code much simpler. Multiple brackets add one line and one simple calculation to the chore of computing your taxes. What causes the tremendous complexity of the tax code is defining taxable income. Some complexity is unavoidable in a complex economy. Some of it represents the hard work of lobbyists for special interests. None of it has anything to do with tax rates or how many brackets there are.

Bottom line: you just ignore what you don't like and regurgitate the same old nonsense in a different form.

And despite what you believe, the CBO tells a different story about tax codes favoring the rich. Grow up and deal with it.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=0

 

[Taichiliberal]

The fascism is the Citizens United decision which allows unbounded untraceable payoffs from corporations around the globe to politicians.

And crony capitalism didnt start with Obama, dicksniffer.

then there's this.

Corporate Tax Dodgers: 10 Companies and Their Tax Loopholes
By Sarah Anderson, Scott Klinger, Javier Rojo

A new report looks at 10 U.S. corporations that have used an array of tax loopholes and corporate subsidies to slash their tax bills: Bank of America, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell, Merck, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Verizon.

Corporate Tax Dodgers - New ReportHIGHLIGHTS OF 10 CORPORATE TAX DODGERS

Bank of America
Had $17.2 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Reported it would owe $4.3 billion in U.S. taxes if profits are brought home.

Citigroup
Had $42.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Reported it would owe $11.5 billion in U.S. taxes if profits are brought home.

ExxonMobil
Paid just a 15% federal income tax rate from 2010-2012, less than half the official 35% corporate tax rate – a tax subsidy of $6.2 billion. Had $43 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.

FedEx
Made $5.7 billion from 2010-2012 and didn’t pay a dime in federal income taxes. Got a tax subsidy of $2.1 billion. Received $10.3 billion in federal contracts from 2006-2012.

General Electric
Made $88 billion from 2002-2012 and paid just 2.4% in taxes for a tax subsidy of $29 billion. Paid no taxes in 4 years. Had $108 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Received $21.8 billion in federal contracts from 2006-2012.

Honeywell
Made $5 billion from 2009-2012 and paid just $50 million in federal income taxes – a tax subsidy of $1.7 billion. Had $11.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Received $16.7 billion in federal contracts from 2006-2012.

Merck
Made $13.6 billion and paid $2.5 billion in federal income taxes from 2009-2012. Paid an 18.4% federal income tax rate, half the official 35% rate – a tax subsidy of $2.2 billion. Had $53.4 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Received $8.7 billion in federal contracts from 2006-2012.

Microsoft
Saved $4.5 billion in federal income taxes from 2009-2011 by transferring profits to a subsidiary in the tax haven of Puerto Rico. Had $60.8 billion in profits stashed offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes; reported it would owe $19.4 billion if profits are brought home.

Pfizer
Received $2.2 billion in federal tax refunds from 2010-2012 while earning $43 billion worldwide even though 40% of its sales are in America. Had $73 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. income taxes. Received $3.4 billion in federal contracts from 2010-2012.

Verizon
Made $19.3 billion in U.S. pretax profits from 2008-2012 but paid no federal income taxes during the period; instead got $535 million in tax rebates. Total tax subsidy: $7.3 billion. Received up to $6 billion in federal contracts from 2011 through 2023.

CORPORATE TAX DODGERS AND THEIR FAVORITE LOOPHOLES

As the budget battles in Washington continue, corporations have stepped into the fray with some of
the most aggressive lobbying we’ve seen in years – calling for cuts to corporate tax rates, a widening of offshore tax loopholes that already cost the U.S. Treasury $90 billion a year, and cuts to government services and benefits, including Social Security and Medicare.

In making their case, corporate executives decry the U.S.’s 35% corporate tax rate claiming it is the highest in the world and makes their businesses uncompetitive globally. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Corporate profits are at a 60-year high, while corporate taxes are near a 60-year low [See Figure]. U.S. stock markets are at record levels, and American CEOs are paid far more than executives who run firms of similar size in other nations. Many U.S. corporations pay a higher tax rate to foreign governments than they do here at home.

America’s 35% tax rate is the highest among industrialized nations, but very few companies pay anything like those rates. Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of U.S. profits in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The average profitable company in the Fortune 500 paid just 18.5% of its profits in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan tax research organization. Dozens of large and profitable companies paid nothing in recent years.

CEOs who are the face of various corporate pro-austerity, anti-tax campaigns with names like Fix the Debt, The LIFT America Coalition, The RATE Coalition and even the long-standing Business Roundtable, preach a theory that cutting corporate taxes is “pro-growth.” But they neglect to say that the growth is of their corporate bottom lines, not the economy and certainly not social well-being.

Though many of these austerity crusaders have corporate retirement plans that will provide tens- and even hundreds of thousands of dollars PER MONTH in their retirement, these CEOs shamelessly argue for cutting monthly Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age to 70 – which automatically reduces seniors’ retirement benefits by 20%.

It wasn’t always this way. There was a time, not so long ago, when America’s largest businesses did not question the need for taxes to pay for investments in education, infrastructure and basic research that benefited businesses and citizens alike. It was from these investments that things like computers, the Internet and life-saving drugs and medical technology emerged in life-changing ways.

In 1952, under Republican President Dwight D Eisenhower, corporate income taxes were nearly a third of the federal government’s receipts but had declined to less than 10% by 2012. This is due to a corporate tax code riddled with loopholes, perks and preferences won by corporate lobbyists and backed by millions of dollars of campaign gifts to Members of Congress.

Corporate Tax Dodgers - Decline of Corporate Taxes as Percentage of Federal Revenues, 1952-2012

This report looks at 10 U.S. corporations that have used an array of tax loopholes and corporate subsidies to slash their tax bills. Here are a few of the loopholes and subsidies:

The offshore tax loophole. This gaping loophole costs the U.S. Treasury $90 billion a year by letting corporations ship profits and jobs overseas. It was originally established to encourage U.S. multinational corporations to expand their businesses into other countries; for instance, to encourage car manufacturers to build plants and sell cars in Germany or England. If profits from those sales were reinvested in new and better plants overseas, that money would not be subject to U.S. income taxes. But starting a couple of decades ago, corporate tax attorneys and accountants found ways to stretch this concept and set up ways for companies to register intellectual property, such as patents or trademarks, in low-tax nations, called tax havens.

When a product is sold in America, a chunk of the purchase price is sent to the tax haven to pay for use of the patent, and these funds escape U.S. taxes. One of the companies profiled in this report is Microsoft, which sends 47 cents of every U.S. sales dollar to Puerto Rico to pay for patents on discoveries largely made in the United States. Pfizer has turned these tax-avoiding paper transactions into an art form – it sells 40% of its drugs here but hasn’t reported any U.S. profits in five years. Merck and Citigroup also benefit from offshore tax loopholes.

The excessive CEO pay tax dodge. This loophole was created in 1993 when Congress passed legislation seeking to cap the deductibility of executive compensation to no more than $1 million per year per executive. Companies could continue to pay whatever they wanted, taxpayers just wouldn’t be subsidizing more than the first $1 million per executive. As the bill moved through Congress, a loophole was inserted that exempted all pay considered to be “performance based.” Rather than reining in pay, the effect of the law with the loophole intact was an explosion of stock-based compensation. This loophole costs the U.S. Treasury $8 billion a year. Honeywell is one of the company’s profiled that has used this loophole to save on its taxes.

The corporate malfeasance tax dodge. When you get a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, come tax day you are out of luck because such fines are not tax deductible. But if you are a corporation, the costs of corporate crimes and abuse are most often tax deductible, in effect forcing other taxpayers to subsidize their abusive behavior. When Bank of America paid to settle claims that its foreclosure practices violated the rights of customers who lost their homes or when ExxonMobil paid $1.1 billion to settle claims for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, their tax deductions of these costs meant the rest of us picked up some of the tab for their harmful practices.

The paying business to do what it would do anyway tax subsidy. Several companies profiled were able to sharply cut their taxes by taking advantage of special tax write-offs associated with the 2009 stimulus bill. Corporations have long been allowed to deduct a portion of the cost of their property and equipment over the life of the asset. But the 2009 law allowed companies to immediately write-off 50% of the value of the equipment in the year the purchase was made, regardless of how long the equipment was expected to last. While the intent of the legislation was to get businesses to spend more to stimulate the economy, in reality most companies got enormous tax breaks for doing what they were going to do anyway. FedEx and Verizon are big beneficiaries of this subsidy as they buy aircraft and build cell phone towers.

Bank Bailout, round 2. America’s taxpayers spent more than $2 trillion to bailout America’s financial institutions during the recent banking crisis. But the terms of the bailout did not address whether the financial institutions involved could use the losses incurred during the crisis to reduce their taxes for years to come, in effect, giving them a second bailout. Bank of America used its losses as a get-out-of-taxes free card. Many other banks and financial institutions did the same.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY

There are two bills in Congress that would close some of these loopholes and ensure that some companies pay their fair share of taxes.

The Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act (S. 268, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)) would close offshore loopholes by establishing command and control provisions that would treat foreign subsidiaries controlled from America as U.S businesses for tax purposes. It would also end some of the deductions corporations presently enjoy from stock-option based pay of corporate executives, and close some of the oil and gas subsidies in the tax code.

The Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act (S. 250, introduced by Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and H.R. 694, introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)) would end the current practice of deferral that allows companies to avoid taxes on offshore profits, both those earned offshore and those shifted there through accounting gimmicks. This bill would tax the global profits of U.S. corporations and provide for a 100% foreign tax credit for any taxes paid to foreign governments. It would raise $590 billion over ten years according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

There is widespread and growing public opinion among the American public and the small business community that corporate tax loopholes need to be closed so we have the money to invest in a more promising future. This support is seen across the political spectrum. Corporate tax dodging is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, it is an American issue. The American people are saying it is long past time that corporations step up and pay their fair share to fix the debt and assure that our country has sufficient public investment to create opportunities for all to succeed in their life, their liberty and the pursuit of happiness for them and their families.

Authors: Scott Klinger, Sarah Anderson, Javier Rojo, Institute for Policy Studies
Editorial Support: Frank Clemente, Americans for Tax Fairness
Designer: Tyler Driscoll

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/corporate_tax_dodgers

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nice try Wack, but you didn't answer my question......Are ALL shareholders privy to ALL decisions made by the Board? Do ALL shareholders vote on all decisions?

I cannot believe that you or other shareholders in JP Morgan or S&L or ENRON voted for the heinous actions and policies that resulted in the hurt caused to many Americans and the country's very economic existence! If you did, then shame upon you and your fellow "owners".

If not, then my previous statement stands.

Shareholders elect board members. As a shareholder you don't get to vote on every decision the Board makes just as the Board doesn't get to vote on every decision the CEO makes although it selects the CEO.

People in Enron broke the law. I'm not smart enough to understand how you can prevent someone from breaking the law if that's what they are going to do. What we can do is catch them after the fact and prosecute them for it. In Enron's case these lawbreakers cost a lot of people a lot of money. That's why they were rightfully punished.

Stop making moot points and just own up to the FACT that the statement that a shareholder is an "owner" of a company is a false and misleading statement.

You keep proving my point, but stubbornly won't admit it

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
So what I stated is true, you are NOT an "owner" of the company, because an owner decides what his/her company does....PERIOD! You just own stock.

You are talking about two different things. I can own a restaurant. I'm the boss I call the shots I report to no one (unless I have investors). The CEO of a publicly traded corporation doesn't own the company. The shareholders do. Yet the CEO is the one who makes decisions that determine the direction the company is going in.

Correction: One of the neocon/teabagger clowns are talking two different things and tried to pass it off as one true statement. Shareholders own stock, NOT the company. you keep making my point.

 

[The Dude]

Tai put the shovel down

 

[Taichiliberal]

Tai put the shovel down

You mean stop burying the water carriers for the wealthy in facts? Nope, sorry.....it's just too much fun.

 

[Taichiliberal]

What a post!!!...???????????????????/....So...you really ARE that stupid.....All shareholders vote on Board members (and others matters).... to oversee the company and hire
a CEO to run the daily operations of the business.....as a shareholder you own a piece of the company depending on what percent of the outstanding shares you own.
Are you really that stupid.....?

Stop parroting mantras that have already been addressed. Shareholders do NOT elect the CEO, nor do they have a say on internal appointments, nor do they have a say in the DAY TO DAY operations. If they did as you say, then THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE JUST AS GUILTY for the S&L scandal, Enron, the mortgage meltdown, the shennanigans of JP Morgan, etc., because those incidents just didn't happen overnight.

Back in 2007, there was a dust-up among the shareholders and clients of Morgan Stanley when an internal memo accidentally was put into the annual report and updates. Essentially, MS was using their money in a "temporary" shift to cover some other investments WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CLIENTS/SHAREHOLDERS.

Had some desk jockey not made the mistake, no one outside management would have known. Needless to say, changes in procedure were made.

So you can keep parroting the party line...but logic and facts will always prove you wrong. You own stock, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[cawacko]

Correction: One of the neocon/teabagger clowns are talking two different things and tried to pass it off as one true statement. Shareholders own stock, NOT the company. you keep making my point.

Since I'm not following the claims others are making I'm not sure how I'm making your point here.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Kettle, meet thy pot.

This coming from a repugnant leftist who calls everyone who disagrees with him idiots and neocon teabagger trolls.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid.



You think there is a big difference between devastated and destroyed? REALLY?

From the dictionary:

devastate (ˈdɛvəˌsteɪt) — vb
1. to lay waste or make desolate; ravage; destroy
2. to confound or overwhelm, as with grief or shock

Yes, you really are THAT stupid.



Where did I claim this? Another lie from a prolific leftist liar and dimwit.



Wars are never fought with surpluses dimwit. Please find me a war that was not fought by deficit spending.

But alas, you are an incredibly uninformed repugnant leftist dimwit who fabricates your own version of reality while wallowing in blatant hypocrisy.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid and THAT repugnant.



If you are talking about the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, that was passed during the Bush administration you dimwit.

Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.



Yes you could; and they would be proven as lies, distortions and in your case, just plain stupid as illustrated above.



You whining about intellectual honesty is about as comedic as your effeminate whine about insults. You're truly an idiot of epic proportions.

I read the article; and it holds a lot of truth. How does this article support your inane claims that Reaganomics devastated the economy?
Let me help you comprehend what it is you are reading:

Average deficit during Reagan’s Presidency: $165.688 billion
Increase in debt during Reagan’s Presidency $1.859 Trillion.
Revenues increased by 65.3% during Reagan’s Presidency from $599.272 billion to $991.105 billion.
Unemployment when Reagan entered office was 8.5% and by the end of his Presidency it was down to 5.4%
Marginal top Tax rates when Reagan came into office were at 70% and by the time he left office they were at 31%.
During Reagans Presidency 2.6 million Americans were added to the labor pool.

Those are all facts. Now you can rant stupid about what happened during Reagan’s Presidency all you want, but the facts hardly support your asinine contention that Reaganomics devastated the economy. You can, however, correctly make that claim about Democrats and Obama.

I am quite certain that millions of Americans would trade the Reagan years for the Obama years; what do you think? Oh that’s right, you don’t think; you parrot moronic DNC talking points like a trained little circus monkey because, alas, you really are THAT stupid.

Average deficit during Reagan’s Presidency: $165.688 billion
Increase in debt during Reagan’s Presidency $1.859 Trillion.
Revenues increased by 65.3% during Reagan’s Presidency from $599.272 billion to $991.105 billion.
Unemployment when Reagan entered office was 8.5% and by the end of his Presidency it was down to 5.4%
Marginal top Tax rates when Reagan came into office were at 70% and by the time he left office they were at 31%.
During Reagans Presidency 2.6 million Americans were added to the labor pool.

And here's a prime example of some neocon/teabagger parrot squawking away while displaying his sheer blind faith and ignorance.

Learn to read, stupid.....if the debt INCREASED by over 1 trillion, that supercedes revenue of 991 billion

2.6 million new jobs in 8 years is a piss poor record compared to Clinton, or Obama for that matter.

And Reagan's unemployment record depended heavily upon the FACT that there was no accounting for the vast number of people who's unemployment benefits ran out....a staunch indicator for calculating unemployment vs. employment.

Oh and dropping the tax rate drops REVENUE, you fool. So while rich folk and corporations are doing well, the rest of us working stiffs (that includes YOU) and the vaunted middle class are not.....Reagans policies went right into the first 2 years of the Clinton administration...and he left the office with a SURPLUS!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Another incredibly stupid claim from the forum dullard.

Where is it written that one cannot "own" interest in a company if one does not "direct" the day to day operations? A CEO is merely a manager dimwit. The shareholders are the "owners" with "ownership interest" in the form of stocks. They, and only they, elect board members who establish corporate policy and hire the CEO, a MANAGER, which runs the company on behalf of the "owners" and at the pleasure of the BOARD which is ELECTED by the OWNERS of STOCK.

By the way dimwit; does it occur to you that millions of small businesses are run by managers and NOT their owners?

Nah; you don't think. You're a dimwit who parrots asinine leftist talking points like a trained little circus monkey in a vacuum of reality or the facts.

Yes, you really are THAT stupid.

CEO's report to the owners of the company, jackass. Always have, always will.

Stockholders like YOU only get to vote on CERTAIN issues, NOT day to day actions and policies. If that's the case, then ALL stockholders are responsible for ENRON, S&L, the housing market cheat, JP Morgan, Wall St., etc.

Those things took time, not just an overnight thing. So either by your own words YOU are one of the bastards responsible for screwing the country, or your not. You can't have it both ways (but Lord knows you're stupid enough to try).

YOU do not own sufficient stock to deter a companies path....and a consensus vote does NOT rule every faucet of company operations.

But do keep parroting your drivel my delusional friend.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Correction: One of the neocon/teabagger clowns are talking two different things and tried to pass it off as one true statement. Shareholders own stock, NOT the company. you keep making my point.

Since I'm not following the claims others are making I'm not sure how I'm making your point here.

Then go back and read from the beginning where I engaged these dimwits....no sense in us continuing to debate when I'm talking A and you're talking B.

 

[NOVA]

Originally Posted by NOVA
What a post!!!...???????????????????/....So...you really ARE that stupid.....All shareholders vote on Board members (and others matters).... to oversee the company and hire
a CEO to run the daily operations of the business.....as a shareholder you own a piece of the company depending on what percent of the outstanding shares you own.
Are you really that stupid.....?

Stop parroting mantras that have already been addressed. Shareholders do NOT elect the CEO, nor do they have a say on internal appointments, nor do they have a say in the DAY TO DAY operations. If they did as you say, then THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE JUST AS GUILTY for the S&L scandal, Enron, the mortgage meltdown, the shennanigans of JP Morgan, etc., because those incidents just didn't happen overnight.

Back in 2007, there was a dust-up among the shareholders and clients of Morgan Stanley when an internal memo accidentally was put into the annual report and updates. Essentially, MS was using their money in a "temporary" shift to cover some other investments WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CLIENTS/SHAREHOLDERS.

Had some desk jockey not made the mistake, no one outside management would have known. Needless to say, changes in procedure were made.

So you can keep parroting the party line...but logic and facts will always prove you wrong. You own stock, nothing more, nothing less.

Learn to read numbnuts....I didn't say 'shareholders elect a CEO'..nor did I say 'they control internal appointments'......I said they vote on board members...
who oversee the company....
who hire the CEO that decides on day to day operations
I never said shareholders control day to day operations anywhere in my post.

if you can't understand English, just stfu and shove off.

Your MS crap in irrelevant as is the nonsense about shareholders being responsible for Enron, S&L wrongdoings, mortgage meltdowns, or shennanigans of JP Morgan....shareholders can't control crooks.

All you seem to know how to do is lie about what others post and to thrown up smokescreens about issues outside the debate hoping you'll confuse others and give the false impression you actually know what the hell you're talking about.....

Shareholders OWN a piece of the company....how much of that company you own is determined by how many shares you own....owning 51% of the outstanding shares means
you OWN over 1/2 the company.
It doesn't mean you have complete control of the company or can sell the company or make sweeping changes in what the company does....
It doesn't mean you become the boss, hire or fire at will, or pass out raises to your pals....there are laws you realize.
The fact that this has to be explained to you makes you a fool.

 

[Annie]

Originally Posted by NOVA
What a post!!!...???????????????????/....So...you really ARE that stupid.....All shareholders vote on Board members (and others matters).... to oversee the company and hire
a CEO to run the daily operations of the business.....as a shareholder you own a piece of the company depending on what percent of the outstanding shares you own.
Are you really that stupid.....?





Learn to read numbnuts....I didn't say 'shareholders elect a CEO'..nor did I say 'they control internal appointments'......I said they vote on board members...
who oversee the company....
who hire the CEO that decides on day to day operations
I never said shareholders control day to day operations anywhere in my post.

if you can't understand English, just stfu and shove off.

Your MS crap in irrelevant as is the nonsense about shareholders being responsible for Enron, S&L wrongdoings, mortgage meltdowns, or shennanigans of JP Morgan....shareholders can't control crooks.

All you seem to know how to do is lie about what others post and to thrown up smokescreens about issues outside the debate hoping you'll confuse others and give the false impression you actually know what the hell you're talking about.....

Shareholders OWN a piece of the company....how much of that company you own is determined by how many shares you own....owning 51% of the outstanding shares means
you OWN over 1/2 the company.
It doesn't mean you have complete control of the company or can sell the company or make sweeping changes in what the company does....
It doesn't mean you become the boss, hire or fire at will, or pass out raises to your pals....there are laws you realize.
The fact that this has to be explained to you makes you a fool.

Regarding 'forced ignores,' can everyone other than Evince, Jarod, and a few others be forced to ignore Zappas? Seems it would clear up many issues. By the same token, can everyone that is 'forced to ignore him' also have him forced onto ignore for their posts?