I'm funny like that Todd, I believe that Mericans should keep their money here.


Fishy

They are in fact off shoring dollars in large amounts and not bringing it back into this country, leaving the onus on the rest of the taxpayers to pick up the shortages.


Fishy

You just described extortion.

We are all fukked..

Why don't we take back the 50 billion we gave GM? Oh wait that would cut into the union vig..

How about allowing the pipeline from Canada, that would raise some tax income.

Why don't cut some of the massive entitlement programs, for example offer job training in lieu of SSDI. There are alot of people on SSDI that could be retrained into other occupations that instead are content to live on the government [Bleeeeep!]..

When you raise taxes on my bosses and the business I work for.. The money comes out of my pocket at the end. Its not fuckin magic or sorcery by the evil successful people.

Corporations are taxed and produce huge tax bases in many forms, employee taxes, property taxes, B&O taxes, capital gains for shareholders, etc. If you raise their taxes, its most likely going to come at the expense of their employees, which will negatively effect the economy..

The 2.4 billion in tax cuts for oil, if their gone will come directly out of the people who drives pocket via gas prices. Which would be fine if you ride a bike to work, unfortunately most of us aren't that lucky.

Right, like your not paying for the corps now to off shore money.

Over the last 30 plus years tax loopholes have strangled income into our government limiting its ability to provide the services that we have paid for. Cutting social security or medicare so some lame ass can ride in his private jet makes no sense to me, especially when those programs have been paid by the workers for years.

If you continue to cut taxes then the short fall comes directly out of the peoples pockets. Corporations have been making record profits now for years and how is that helping our standard of living, it is declining!

If business's have it so crappy here why do most corporations try to sell their products and service to Americans? If its so crappy then why do we have so many millionaires and billionaires?

Fishy

That one almost made me vomit. Do you realize that you just admitted to being at the mercy of your "bosses," and that, furthermore, you're okay with that?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are all "fukked." Far too many of us are willing to accept that this is how corporations treat us; some to the point of DEFENDING it???!!! Do they ever throw you a bone for being such a loyal subject? My guess is you accept their continuing to shell out your pittance, minus whatever reductions they feel are appropriate, as payment enough, because that's what the Republican party says is best for our country. That is SAD.

Taxes on corporations should be exactly the same as they are for the ma and pa businesses they destroy on a daily basis. The fact that many actually profit from filing taxes is nothing shy of criminal.

The larger corporations get, the less "free" the market becomes. With no competition, consumers have no options. With no options, corporations don't need to worry about annoyances like customer satisfaction, quality service, and competitive pricing, which are the things we all benefit from in a true free market. Hence, you get what we've got today. Apparently, many of us, inexplicable though it may seem, embrace it as good Capitalism.

wro: If you truly mean what you say, the Socialist system you so blatantly oppose would put you in far better standing than where you're at. Just sayin'.

Did Someone say GM?

Usually, when the administration needs a distraction from just how broke and insolvent in reality the country is, it finds ways sends the stock market soaring higher. They'll hop on their non traceable, FOIA act proof, non-government official business cell phone (trust me I know) and call up a buddy at a bank, or perhaps the fed, and drum up a new scheme to keep the illusion alive.

As such it is beyond ironic that as the S&P is set to hit an all time high, Detroit - that shining symbol of the Obama administration's bailout of General Motors - effectively goes broke.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/detroit-michigan-rick-snyder-dave-bing_n_2783330.html

Lets see if I worked in the comrade system, I would get paid soley based on longevity and not productivity. Where I am at now, I make significantly more than many of my co-workers sheerly because of my output and quality of work generated, and if I don't like where I am at, I'll move to greener pastures that pay more and offer better benefits.

While I see your point, you completely missed mine.. If you take money out of circulation and give it to the government, it comes out of someones pocket and people don't get rich by giving it away, so the cuts are going to trickle down to everyone.

That is advantage to having a college degree and a little bit of drive..

The socialist system only works when there is the assumption that all people are equal, and to be honest we are not. (i.e. YBD, Redhook etc)

So your saying corporate socialism is good, but public socialism is patently evil?

I don't much care for either to be honest..

One of them is costing tax payers $100 billion a year, can you recognise which one?

Estimates of $31 trillion in hidden offshore accounts by rich Americans, you don't suppose that might have something to do with our budgetary short falls do you?
Yet the ignoramuses want to cut entitlements, of course, what were we thinking?

Hey Todd - I agree that drug testing is silly in general and I would prefer it did not exist (civil liberties and all that) - but its a fact of life for a lot of folks. I just took a new 6 figure+ job and was drug tested 3 hours ago (seriously). If I have to take a drug test to earn money that will be taxed at a high rate, then its only far that the recipients of that money are also drug tested. That's the only reason why I think it should be done for unemployment and welfare. But again, I'd prefer that NOBODY was ever drug tested.

Nick

How much do you think it is?

I know it's not Fox News, but here's what NPR is saying.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158441566/tax-evaders-beware-moneys-getting-harder-to-hide

So now two wrongs make a right, since you're tested, others should be too? T'ain't sound reasoning Nick.

Sg

tax justice network?

I have some great stats on Black on Black crime from the KKK website or some other awesome stats on fish pain for the PETA website if your interested, you seem to not give a [Bleeeeep!] about the credibility of the source.

I hear you Salmo and I agree to a point with what you are saying. Like I said I wish nobody had to take take one. But since that's not the case, I'm just saying that fair is fair and if I have to be tested to earn it, they should have to be tested to spend it. Its a fairness / equality thing. The argument on the other side of my position is that nobody is forcing me to take a job with a company that requires one nor is anyone forcing someone to take umemployment or welfare. I get that too...

Seriously?

Because your employer thinks they should have a drug-free employee for the six figures they're paying you, you think that makes testing welfare recipients fair?

If you say so...........

Yeah Dan - I do.

The employer isn't giving me the money - I'm earning and working for it. This basic exchange is the basis of "work". All I owe the employer is an honest day’s work and all they owe me is an honest day’s pay based on fair market pricing for that type of work. Whereas, the welfare recipient is not working or earning a thing. Is it too much to ask the welfare recipient, who is essentially doing nothing for monies received, to be on the up and up when receiving said assistance instead of blowing it on weed and beer? Look at it this way, we the tax payers are the "employer" of the welfare recipient, so why can we not ask for the same in return?

BTW - 28 states also agree with this basic principle and more are starting to follow suit, so I’m not alone in my thinking here - AND it’s ok if we agree to disagree....