IRS Data Shows: "The Rich" Pay Higher Rates

[Taichiliberal]

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.....?

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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.


I didn't say that you did, genius. YOU picked up the guantlet when your fellow parrot squawked that shareholders "own the company". Go back and see where I first engaged that idiocy. I'm merely pointing out that he was wrong....and in your ass-backwards attempts to fault me, you prove my initial point over and over. Maybe you should follow your own advice and LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.

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

See above response.

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.

No one said they could....but to date I don't see any news reports about shareholders jumping ship en masse regarding the aforementioned companies.....the initial point of your idiot compadre was that shareholders own companies....so if they do, then they are guilty. And if they stay on after the crime is committed, then they are aiding and abetting criminals.

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.....

You don't even know what the initial point of contention is about, genius. I suggest you back track and get up to speed before I make more a fool out of you by displaying the post by your idiot compadre that started this detour.

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.

See above responses to this latest regurgitation of a moot point by you. To date, the initial claim of the subject title has been proven false....and now you agree with me that your idiot compadre was WRONG in claiming that just because you own stock, you own the company. Thanks for playing.

 

[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.

Oh, and for the record, most dictionaries list destroy as synonymous with devastate. Go ask a high school teacher how that works out in reading comprehension and sentence/paragraph construction, bunky.

 

[NOVA]

Originally Posted by NOVA
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/ima...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by NOVA http://www.justplainpolitics.com/ima...post-right.png
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.....?

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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.


I didn't say that you did, genius. YOU picked up the guantlet when your fellow parrot squawked that shareholders "own the company". Go back and see where I first engaged that idiocy. I'm merely pointing out that he was wrong....and in your ass-backwards attempts to fault me, you prove my initial point over and over. Maybe you should follow your own advice and LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.

TCLIAR says....
"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, "

Yeah....underlined "if they did as you (meaning me) say....I didn't say that what you accuse me of. LIAR
I picked up NO guanlet....I speak for myself, not others...you want to point out that others are wrong, quote them]
and post to them, not me, asshole.


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

See above response.

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.

No one said they could....but to date I don't see any news reports about shareholders jumping ship en masse regarding the aforementioned companies.....the initial point of your idiot compadre was that shareholders own companies....so if they do, then they are guilty. And if they stay on after the crime is committed, then they are aiding and abetting criminals.

Why would or should shareholders jump ship....they didn't do anything wrong and the companys stocks are still valuable...
Shareholders DO own companys to the degree that they own stock....The stockholders power over the company is spelled out in the law, as is the majority shareholders power....
The owners a any company aren't responsible for the crimes of those that work for the company, so don't start talking like a fool again....


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.....

You don't even know what the initial point of contention is about, genius. I suggest you back track and get up to speed before I make more a fool out of you by displaying the post by your idiot compadre that started this detour.


I displayed NO OTHER IDIOTS posts in my responses but yours...You're the only idiot I quoted...


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.


See above responses to this latest regurgitation of a moot point by you. To date, the initial claim of the subject title has been proven false....and now you agree with me that your idiot compadre was WRONG in claiming that just because you own stock, you own the company. Thanks for playing.


Yeah....see above responses....lies are in red to easily identify....to date I have schooled you in the power and duties of shareholders, whether large or small....
Shareholders OWN the company, as in assets, in as much as the outstanding shares value compare to the value of the companys assets.....
Just as a hostile takeover is a competitors offer to shareholders to sell their holdings to them for some stated profit in order to gain control of the companys assets.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by NOVA
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/ima...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by NOVA http://www.justplainpolitics.com/ima...post-right.png
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.


I didn't say that you did, genius. YOU picked up the guantlet when your fellow parrot squawked that shareholders "own the company". Go back and see where I first engaged that idiocy. I'm merely pointing out that he was wrong....and in your ass-backwards attempts to fault me, you prove my initial point over and over. Maybe you should follow your own advice and LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.

TCLIAR says....
"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, "

Yeah....underlined "if they did as you (meaning me) say....I didn't say that what you accuse me of. LIAR
I picked up NO guanlet....I speak for myself, not others...you want to point out that others are wrong, quote them]
and post to them, not me, asshole.


First off, why don't you grow up and honestly link EXACTLY where you quote from? Because AGAIN, I responded to a GENERAL STATEMENT that either you or your idiot compadre made that a stock holder "owns" a company. My statement regarding such stands...AS YOU YOURSELF KEEP PROVING OVER AND OVER. Jeez, get your act together bunky!


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

See above response.

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.

No one said they could....but to date I don't see any news reports about shareholders jumping ship en masse regarding the aforementioned companies.....the initial point of your idiot compadre was that shareholders own companies....so if they do, then they are guilty. And if they stay on after the crime is committed, then they are aiding and abetting criminals.

Why would or should shareholders jump ship....they didn't do anything wrong and the companys stocks are still valuable... But your idiot buddy said that stockholders own the company (and hasn't changed that stance). So if that's the case, then they are just as guilty
Shareholders DO own companys to the degree that they own stock....The stockholders power over the company is spelled out in the law, as is the majority shareholders power.... No shit sherlock...and if the company is being run by crooks and you keep your stock despite being alerted to that knowledge, then you are aiding and abetting.
The owners a any company aren't responsible for the crimes of those that work for the company, so don't start talking like a fool again....

Newsflash for ya bunky....if you OWN a company and the people under you are committing crimes IN YOUR NAME, and you do NOTHING to stop it, then you are aiding and abetting a criminal act. If you continue to run the company but are unaware of what's going on, you're guilty of negligence if you can't prove in court you were being duped by underlings.

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.....

You don't even know what the initial point of contention is about, genius. I suggest you back track and get up to speed before I make more a fool out of you by displaying the post by your idiot compadre that started this detour.


I displayed NO OTHER IDIOTS posts in my responses but yours...You're the only idiot I quoted...

Again, YOU picked up the guantlet left by others.....so I respond to you as such. If you don't know WTF is going on, then STFU.

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.


See above responses to this latest regurgitation of a moot point by you. To date, the initial claim of the subject title has been proven false....and now you agree with me that your idiot compadre was WRONG in claiming that just because you own stock, you own the company. Thanks for playing.


Yeah....see above responses....lies are in red to easily identify....to date I have schooled you in the power and duties of shareholders, whether large or small....
Shareholders OWN the company, as in assets, in as much as the outstanding shares value compare to the value of the companys assets.....
Just as a hostile takeover is a competitors offer to shareholders to sell their holdings to them for some stated profit in order to gain control of the companys assets.

You keep going on about my "lying", but yet you can't show what I'm lying about. To date, all you've done is prove my point to that other idiot who stated that "stockholders own the company", which he was wrong. Your blathering moot points doesn't change that fact.

So unless you've got something else to add other than your irrational axe to grind, I'd say we're done here. Thanks for playing, and next time please check with an adult before you begin.