Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: terapinedROTFL
James Wilkes Booth innocent - no videotape
Charles Manson and the cult innocent - no video tape
Let all prisoners go that were not convicted with video tape
LOL
Has he been charged with a crime? Convicted? I really don't know. Or is this another 'conviction by CNN' story? If he has been convicted when he is allowed representation that is another story.
Quote: billryanThis administration allowed a mutt to work in the White House, meeting with the Pres and COS on an almost hourly basis without a security clearance.
All the bleeting fuss about Hillary's server being exposed -- vs some guy who doesn't have a security clearance handling papers to President Trump. Hmm.
Quote: terapinedROTFL
James Wilkes Booth innocent - no videotape
Charles Manson and the cult innocent - no video tape
Let all prisoners go that were not convicted with video tape
Don't trust 100's of girls, Larry Nasser innocent till somebody provides the video tapes
LOL
Women lie and are 100% untrustworthy.
Quote: SOOPOOHas he been charged with a crime? Convicted? I really don't know. Or is this another 'conviction by CNN' story? If he has been convicted when he is allowed representation that is another story.
Actually the FBI didn't give him the security clearance. Yes, that same FBI that the Republican party says cannot be trusted. Yes, CNN, part of the free press in our country, among several OTHER media outlets that are ALSO part of the free press in the country, has reported the facts of the story. But yeah, Fox probably hasn't touched it.
lol @ the notion that the FBI is leftist....cracks me up, the same FBI that announced the re-opening of the Hillary investigation that likely played a key part in Trump's victory...but they want us to believe that there was a deep state conpsiracy to ensure he didn't get elected, lmao
Quote: SteverinosActually the FBI didn't give him the security clearance. Yes, that same FBI that the Republican party says cannot be trusted. Yes, CNN, part of the free press in our country, among several OTHER media outlets that are ALSO part of the free press in the country, has reported the facts of the story. But yeah, Fox probably hasn't touched it.
lol @ the notion that the FBI is leftist....cracks me up, the same FBI that announced the re-opening of the Hillary investigation that likely played a key part in Trump's victory...but they want us to believe that there was a deep state conpsiracy to ensure he didn't get elected, lmao
I'm lazy. You skirted around my question though. Was he ever convicted of anything, or is this just another example of conviction by allegation but no chance to defend himself in a court of law?
Quote: SOOPOOI'm lazy. You skirted around my question though. Was he ever convicted of anything, or is this just another example of conviction by allegation but no chance to defend himself in a court of law?
He has not been convicted of anything, no. Although if I'm ever accused of something that is categorically not true, I'm going to fight. He didn't. You could argue that he resigned in the best interest of the WH to not be dragged down in a public scandal, but the damage is already done. He looks guilty as hell.
Quote: SteverinosHe has not been convicted of anything, no. Although if I'm ever accused of something that is categorically not true, I'm going to fight. He didn't. You could argue that he resigned in the best interest of the WH to not be dragged down in a public scandal, but the damage is already done. He looks guilty as hell.
First of all, he probably is a dirtbag. He does look "guilty as hell". But seriously, how can he fight? "I didn't do it!" "They are out to get me because I divorced them because they stunk in bed!"
There is no defense against an unprovable, but also undisprovable allegation. The only person I know who can survive allegations like this is..... Donald Trump!
Quote: AZDuffmanGive it a try and let us know how it works out for you.
I don't live anywhere near D.C. but honestly they would probably just tell me to buzz off before I get arrested.
Quote: terapinedROTFL
James Wilkes Booth innocent - no videotape
Charles Manson and the cult innocent - no video tape
Let all prisoners go that were not convicted with video tape
Don't trust 100's of girls, Larry Nasser innocent till somebody provides the video tapes
LOL
But remember: Righties proclaimed Al Franken guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because he took a joke photo years before he became a Senator.
The pedophile in Alabama who everyone knew was a creep and was banned from the mall? *shrug* Not enough evidence!
Quote: SOOPOOHas he been charged with a crime? Convicted? I really don't know. Or is this another 'conviction by CNN' story? If he has been convicted when he is allowed representation that is another story.
I am not a Trump supporter
I don't yell or post "Lock her up" or "Lock him up" without a conviction
Quote: SteverinosDow taking a plunge. "Hey, let's give corporations who are already sitting on boatloads of cash and enjoying record profits in a thriving economy more money because...well, they need it"...said no economist ever.
I'm sorry I must have missed something. When did we give or propose giving corporations money?
Quote: AZDuffmanI'm sorry I must have missed something. When did we give or propose giving corporations money?
Thank you. Liberals equate taking less money from an individual or corporation as the same as giving them money. Steverinos' post is a classic example of that thinking. If I paid $200,000 in taxes in 2017 but now have to 'only' pay $198,000 in 2018 he thinks the government "gave" me $2,000!
Quote: SOOPOOThank you. Liberals equate taking less money from an individual or corporation as the same as giving them money. Steverinos' post is a classic example of that thinking. If I paid $200,000 in taxes in 2017 but now have to 'only' pay $198,000 in 2018 he thinks the government "gave" me $2,000!
They just ripped you off $2000 less. 😉
Quote: SOOPOOThank you. Liberals equate taking less money from an individual or corporation as the same as giving them money. Steverinos' post is a classic example of that thinking. If I paid $200,000 in taxes in 2017 but now have to 'only' pay $198,000 in 2018 he thinks the government "gave" me $2,000!
I was under the impression thats exactly how economics works
If i win straight up on a number with a dollar bet
Did i
A) win $35 or
B) lose $2
Quote: SOOPOOIf I paid $200,000 in taxes in 2017 but now have to 'only' pay $198,000 in 2018 he thinks the government "gave" me $2,000!
Now instead of going to the government, that $2,000 is going towards executive bonuses!
Quote: SOOPOOThank you. Liberals equate taking less money from an individual or corporation as the same as giving them money. Steverinos' post is a classic example of that thinking. If I paid $200,000 in taxes in 2017 but now have to 'only' pay $198,000 in 2018 he thinks the government "gave" me $2,000!
Their tax liability decreased. Happy?
Democrats = tax and spend
Republicans = borrow and spend
Pick your poison. History has shown which formula works better.
Quote: darkozI was under the impression thats exactly how economics works
That's what we're afraid of.....
Quote: darkozIf i win straight up on a number with a dollar bet
Did i
A) win $35 or
B) lose $2
Playing along with the analogy, you won $37 (ie: job), then the casino took $2 from you.
If the casino next door takes $1 from that win instead of $2, they aren't giving me $1.
Forgot what show it was, but I remember seeing a cartoon (Family Guy or maybe Simpson's?) where someone says, "I just saved your life!" the other says, "What, no you didn't?" Then he says, "Yes I did, I was going to push you off the bridge, but decided not to." Of course, that was a joke and meant to be funny. But liberals use the same logic.....and unfortunately, they aren't trying to be funny, they're being serious.
It could have been the end of a dock or pier, not a bridge. Same concept though.
Quote: SteverinosTheir tax liability decreased. Happy?
Democrats = tax and spend
Republicans = borrow and spend
Pick your poison. History has shown which formula works better.
Here's what President Trump has to say about that....
Kidding aside, over the last century, by almost every economic measurement, the economy has done much better under Democratic administrations. In some cases, it's not even close. There are a variety of factors, of course. But we are at point where the data is in, the sample size is large enough, and we can't just chalk it up to luck or coincidence.
Democrats are just better at it. We believe the economic loop starts with consumers. Empowering consumers to spend money benefits everybody while empowering businesses to invest doesn't always translate and "trickle down" to everybody else. It's the never ending fundamental debate between the two parties that, at least in my opinion, has been settled. The data is freely available. No excuses.
Quote: RSThat's what we're afraid of.....
Playing along with the analogy, you won $37 (ie: job), then the casino took $2 from you.
If the casino next door takes $1 from that win instead of $2, they aren't giving me $1.
Forgot what show it was, but I remember seeing a cartoon (Family Guy or maybe Simpson's?) where someone says, "I just saved your life!" the other says, "What, no you didn't?" Then he says, "Yes I did, I was going to push you off the bridge, but decided not to." Of course, that was a joke and meant to be funny. But liberals use the same logic.....and unfortunately, they aren't trying to be funny, they're being serious.I think it was King of the Hill, where Bobby is bonding with Hank, or something.
It could have been the end of a dock or pier, not a bridge. Same concept though.
They are giving you an extra dollar from the payout of the next door casino. The fact you cant see that is incredible
Quote: darkozThey are giving you an extra dollar from the payout of the next door casino. The fact you cant see that is incredible
Yup, just like the guy who saved hundreds of people's lives from a bomb.....because he decided not to set off the bomb. Quite noble.
Quote: RSYup, just like the guy who saved hundreds of people's lives from a bomb.....because he decided not to set off the bomb. Quite noble.
So you are not against raising taxes?
Because if the government is not giving the corporations extra money by lowering taxes then they cannot poasibly be taking extra money by raising taxes
Quote: darkozSo you are not against raising taxes?
Because if the government is not giving the corporations extra money by lowering taxes then they cannot poasibly be taking extra money by raising taxes
Yes they are taking money, you see
IT IS THE CORPORATION'S MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE, IT CAN ONLY TAKE.
Quote: AZDuffmanYes they are taking money, you see
IT IS THE CORPORATION'S MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE, IT CAN ONLY TAKE.
Im sorry. I didn't hear you. Can you please speak up
Quote: AZDuffmanYes they are taking money, you see
IT IS THE CORPORATION'S MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE, IT CAN ONLY TAKE.
So you have no problem with me not paying taxes. After all its my money
Quote: SteverinosTheir tax liability decreased. Happy?
Democrats = tax and spend
Republicans = borrow and spend
Pick your poison. History has shown which formula works better.
Mine was just an example. As stated before, as a high earner in a high tax state (NY) I will be paying substantially more in taxes due to the Republican tax bill. I like your analysis. Given the two I prefer tax and spend. But I sort of disagree. Here is my take on it....
Democrats = tax and borrow and spend
Republicans = tax and borrow and spend
Me= increase tax and decrease spend until debt paid off (or to some more reasonable amount if not fully paid off)
Quote: darkozSo you are not against raising taxes?
Because if the government is not giving the corporations extra money by lowering taxes then they cannot poasibly be taking extra money by raising taxes
In general, I am against raising taxes. If there is a specific reason that’s actually good, then I’m all for it. It’s just that generally the raising of taxes would be for something stupid.
I don’t remember saying the government is giving corporations extra money. If I did, I misspoke, and likely meant they are taxing a corporation less.
If someone asks for $100 every month from me but I only give him $80, did he just give me $20? What if one month I give him $85, did I just give him $5 or did he give me $15? Or did I give him $85?
How is this so hard to do — pay for what you use, don’t pay for what you don’t use. Very few things should be forced upon you to pay for, like military, police, fire department, etc. and maybe a low level safety net.
Quote: RSIf someone asks for $100 every month from me but I only give him $80, did he just give me $20? What if one month I give him $85, did I just give him $5 or did he give me $15? Or did I give him $85?
As an AP, you should know this answer. Example: hole carding Three Card Poker betting $100 on the ante and you see a dealer Ace. You look at your cards and see K, Q, 10 offsuit and fold. Did you just lose, make, or save $100?
Quote: IbeatyouracesAs an AP, you should know this answer. Example: hole carding Three Card Poker betting $100 on the ante and you see a dealer Ace. You look at your cards and see K, Q, 10 offsuit and fold. Did you just lose, make, or save $100?
And here's a tougher one. Same game but you see a dealer 9. You look at your cards and see 2, 4, 6 offsuit and play. Dealer reveals 9, 6, 3 off suit and pays you $100. Did you:
A) win $100
B) win $200
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd here's a tougher one. Same game but you see a dealer 9. You look at your cards and see 2, 4, 6 offsuit and play. Dealer reveals 9, 6, 3 off suit and pays you $100. Did you:
A) win $100
B) win $200
Heres one
I have $100 freeplay which the casino says has no cash value
After playing it i leave with $80
Did i win $80 or lose $20
Did the casino give me $80 or take $20
Quote: darkozHeres one
I have $100 freeplay which the casino says has no cash value
After playing it i leave with $80
Did i win $80 or lose $20
Did the casino give me $80 or take $20
Most store coupons say the same thing.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAs an AP, you should know this answer. Example: hole carding Three Card Poker betting $100 on the ante and you see a dealer Ace. You look at your cards and see K, Q, 10 offsuit and fold. Did you just lose, make, or save $100?
You lost $100 because you actually did lose $100 by folding.
Comparing it to what “would” have happened, you saved $100, because following BS you would have lost $200 instead of $100.
But no, you did not make $100, if that’s what you’re getting at.
I don’t make money by using coupons, I save money by using coupons. I don’t make money by having a lower tax liability, I save money by having a lower tax liability.
Quote: RSYou lost $100 because you actually did lose $100 by folding.
Comparing it to what “would” have happened, you saved $100, because following BS you would have lost $200 instead of $100.
But no, you did not make $100, if that’s what you’re getting at.
I don’t make money by using coupons, I save money by using coupons. I don’t make money by having a lower tax liability, I save money by having a lower tax liability.
So money won with freeplay is not taxable. You didnt make money
Quote: darkozSo money won with freeplay is not taxable. You didnt make money
With FP of course you make money.
But that's beside the point, idk why you guys are bringing up this stuff that isn't analogous to taxes.
WTF
Didn't we just go through this like a week ago or so
Its never ending
I see Rand Paul is ranting on the debt
I really respect Rand Paul.
He really does have a point regarding the debt going up with Republicans governing.
Quote: AZDuffmanHaving kids without being married is the #1 way to end up in poverty. Democrats live off the votes of people in poverty. They do not have a vested interest in getting them out. Their vested interest is in acting like they will help just enough.
This would be as opposed to the Republicans who want nothing more than to get them out of poverty?
Your average Democrat, or Leftist of any kind, is not currently running for office and has no plans to. I can't speak for anyone, but I'd like to see people get out of poverty and would like to have means in place to help them do that. Whose vote am I getting? For what office?
Quote:1. You get 12 years of free education. If that does not get you to 1st base, 4 more will not make a difference.
2. This will just become 13th-15th grades, needed skills will not be learned.
3. Most kids do not belong in college in the first place.
4. We cannot afford such a handout.
Fix the high schools. Make vo-tech mean something. But having them lose 4 years of income for a marginal degree just makes you feel better, doesn't help them.
1.) It may for someone who has the academic wherewithal, but is afraid of incurring too much student loan debt.
2.) They don't teach, "Needed skills," in college? You know that there are Tech Schools if that is what you're referring to, right?
3.) That's a very Republican assumption.
4.) Numbers? It's an investment. In other words, saves money over the long run.
What income do they lose? Who says they are not working during that time? Some of them do now. Hell, you could even make that a requirement for all I care...that they either have a PT job or be trying to find one.
Quote: AZDuffmanDon't limit it to private prisons. Look at what the government rakes in off DUIs. Two beers with dinner can ruin your life. I am of two minds on the incarceration rate. On one hand, it is high. OTOH, just 1% are locked up. People do not want crime. It is shown that hoods tend to settle down by age 30 or else have moved up the ladder by then, so there might be 1% that just need to be locked up until they settle down. To lower it we probably need to decriminalize the Jesse Pinkmans of the world and let the damage their products do thin the herd.
You know, it's not really hard to NOT commit a DUI. I'm a fairly avid drinker, and the method I use for not getting nailed for DUI is not driving while I've been imbibing. I don't drive until the following day. It's really pretty simple.
Quote: RSI haven't caught myself up on this supposed Porter beating wife thing. What did she do, if anything, to make him do that?
I am turning up my squelch knob.
Again no proof he was banned from a mall.Quote: ams288But remember: Righties proclaimed Al Franken guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because he took a joke photo years before he became a Senator.
The pedophile in Alabama who everyone knew was a creep and was banned from the mall? *shrug* Not enough evidence!
Please show me where any reliable source accused him of being a pedophile.
Again I'm not defending him. I don't care about him at all. I don't care if he goes to jail or someone kills him, he means nothing to me.
I have a problem with people making claims of guilt and there is no proof.
FYI. Pedophiles are people who go for 13 and under boys or girls. NO ONE halfway legitimate has even accused him of pedophilia. So it seems you are just using words to make things look worst than they actually are.
Quote: AxelWolf
I have a problem with people making claims of guilt and there is no proof.
FYI. Pedophiles are people who go for 13 and under boys or girls. NO ONE halfway legitimate has even accused him of pedophilia. So it seems you are just using words to make things look worst than they actually are.
That's a not very good point followed by a great point.
Not Very Good Point: It would occasionally be tough to indict someone if you could not claim they are guilty without providing strict proof, but I get what you are saying. At the same time, while it could theoretically be a coordinated effort against the guy, you really don't see these sorts of claims being made against every single Senate candidate that there is. I think that's because you have people who still have to stick their necks out there.
I don't know that all of the claims are true, and I don't know that the claims that are at all true are all strictly true, but there's enough there that I think one tends to believe that at least some of the claims are at least somewhat true.
Great Point: You are correct that the use of the word, "Pedophile," is wrong in this instance. A pedophile is pretty strictly defined as someone who prefers prepubescent children. In fact, if I ever used that word to describe him or discuss him in any way, (and I don't think I have) I hereby apologize.
You have a problem with a 3rd person (1000000th in this cae) of someone making claims of guilt, and yet there is no proof? If a legitimate person who claims to have been a victim claims someone is guilty, that's fine, but not someone who has nothing to do with it.Quote: Mission146That's a not very good point followed by a great point.
Not Very Good Point: It would occasionally be tough to indict someone if you could not claim they are guilty without providing strict proof, but I get what you are saying. At the same time, while it could theoretically be a coordinated effort against the guy, you really don't see these sorts of claims being made against every single Senate candidate that there is. I think that's because you have people who still have to stick their necks out there.
I don't know that all of the claims are true, and I don't know that the claims that are at all true are all strictly true, but there's enough there that I think one tends to believe that at least some of the claims are at least somewhat true.
Great Point: You are correct that the use of the word, "Pedophile," is wrong in this instance. A pedophile is pretty strictly defined as someone who prefers prepubescent children. In fact, if I ever used that word to describe him or discuss him in any way, (and I don't think I have) I hereby apologize.
If he wanted to Add IMO that would be fine. He wants us to believe it's all facts.
I'm all for INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! I would rather see all guilty men go free than one innocent person get convicted. I feel the same way about people just being accused of something and losing everything based on just accusations.
Someone can lose everything, including their life, based on a lie perpetuated by someone else.
Crickets.
A member of Trump's WH staff has allegations of severe abuse and the chief of staff, knowing about it for months, kept mum. Comments from forum members on the right (paraphrasing) - "well he isn't convicted yet, so we should let him stay". Another member quips, "what did she do to make him hit her?"
Barf.
DACA recipients start getting booted from the country starting next month, and they will lose their jobs, because they are not employable when their visa expire, resulting in job losses of 1,000 people per day.
Not worth discussing?
The earth's climate is getting measurably hotter every year, but the current administration denies climate change. It's ironic that the government needs to stay open for disaster relief for Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas, (and California), yet there is no thought as to what the cause of the wilder weather (obviously) is. My esteemed misinformed debater will say that, like the poverty industry, there is a climate change industry putting out fake information to keep them rich and employed. Some believe it.
Do I need a graph, too?
We have an Executive Branch who is attacking the free press (fake news) and its own Department of Justice and FBI. Mueller, Comey, and Rosenstein are all republicans. The GOP writes its own memo stating that the FISA warrant on Page was BS in order to discredit an investigation, and FoxNews decries "bigger than Watergate". People believe it, and then quote "Benghazi", "Clinton Foundation and Russians", and "email server". Meanwhile, the GOP Congress and Senate just turn a blind eye to it all and tacitly support the President and his antics. Democracy is actively being destroyed.
Russia is a great place to be.
Trump jokes Dems are treasonous for not clapping and calls (seriously) their lack of clapping as "Unamerican". He pays off porn stars. He wants to spend millions on a military parade. He goes on rallies to stroke his own insecurity. He golfs far more often then Obama after criticizing him for doing so. He hasn't released his tax returns (and he won't). He refuses to establish a blind trust for his business interests, letting his own namesake corporation profit from government related activities, including charging his secret service for golf cart security, for rent in Trump Tower, and for government staff (foreign) staying in his Washington Trump hotel. All of that increased income will become his when he leaves office. He is inexperienced. He tweets directly while watching Fox and Friends only to have to later have his WH staff jump around attempting to fix and make policy out of what he said (aka transsexuals in the military come to mind).
He's a maverick, a free-thinker. He's draining the swamp.
Now, if this was HRC or Bernie doing any of these things would have the GOP folk on this forum copying memes and foaming at the mouth but if it's your CiC then all gets overlooked while people argue over Obama's birthplace, Michelle's gender, and thank God (sorry Mission, I meant the great Spaghetti Overlord), more serious things that really have nothing to do with Trump or the issues at hand. It gets overlooked because this crap happens on a daily basis.
Yikes.
Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffmanYes they are taking money, you see
IT IS THE CORPORATION'S MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE, IT CAN ONLY TAKE.
Im sorry. I didn't hear you. Can you please speak up
I am sure you did not as liberals keep thinking letting someone keep more earnings is "giving" them the money.
Quote: Mission146This would be as opposed to the Republicans who want nothing more than to get them out of poverty?
Your average Democrat, or Leftist of any kind, is not currently running for office and has no plans to. I can't speak for anyone, but I'd like to see people get out of poverty and would like to have means in place to help them do that. Whose vote am I getting? For what office?
Republicans do want to see them get out of poverty, why do you think otherwise? But the way out is responsible behavior. The rest will take care of itself.
Quote:2.) They don't teach, "Needed skills," in college? You know that there are Tech Schools if that is what you're referring to, right?
Then take a student loan and go to a tech school. Call the trade union and see when the apprenticeship test is being given.
Quote:3.) That's a very Republican assumption.
And it is a very logical assumption. Look at how many kids enter but never complete college. Look at how many need remedial classes when they get there. Look at how many cannot find work with the useless major they chose. Look at how few jobs really require a college degree to do. Warehousing kids in college will not solve anything, though it makes many things worse.
Quote:4.) Numbers? It's an investment. In other words, saves money over the long run.
Liberals call any spending an "investment." It will not save money no matter how much we pretend it would.
Quote:What income do they lose? Who says they are not working during that time? Some of them do now. Hell, you could even make that a requirement for all I care...that they either have a PT job or be trying to find one.
What income do they lose? The income they would have made by working full time and probably at something better paying. Assume they work 20 hours per week instead of a traditional 40. Assume they make about $9 per hour (a normal starting wage) vs even $12 per hour they could easily find for full time work.
2000 x 12 = $24,000 x 4 = $96,000 an entry level person will make. And that is at a very low wage,
1000 x 12 = $12,000 x 4 = $48,000 a college student will bring in part time work.
Yes, they could work more in summer yadda yadda yadda. They also will likely work less than 20 hours per week and not work at all over breaks, so call it even. $48K is a decent years pay at the bottom level, maybe closer to a year and a half. Up in smoke. How does that help them escape poverty?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: darkozQuote: AZDuffmanYes they are taking money, you see
IT IS THE CORPORATION'S MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE, IT CAN ONLY TAKE.
Im sorry. I didn't hear you. Can you please speak up
I am sure you did not as liberals keep thinking letting someone keep more earnings is "giving" them the money.
I understand your point and its valid
Here is mine(maybe its the liberal thinking maybe not - its mine)
As republicans are fond of saying "nothing is free and everything has a price". For sanity and consistency most things have some set price or control
Going back to the roulette example the "price" of play is being shorted 2 units on a straight up number (american roulette). If the casino gives a promotion where they now offer only one unit as payment (say they pay 36:1) then they are giving me an extra dollar from the standard price
Are they giving me a dollar or simply not taking a dollar that is the recognized standard price?
Yes i know your answer. Just asking you to examine it from my pov
Heres another:
You go to the movies prepared to pay $10 for entry. The theater owner says you can go in free
Did he give you $10? Technically no. Its your money. Technically he only gave you a free movie. But it has $10 value you expected to pay.
If it was an ongoing free movie offer and you began charging your friends $10 to see your free movie the theater would be giving you the money by giving you the opportunity even though im sure you would still want to claim it was only ypur friends giving you the money while the theater only gave you free entry.
Corporations know the price of business in this country is corporate taxes. The set price has gone down thanks to the gop tax bill. If it satisfies your sense of linguistic purity i will concede this means they are now "taking less" nonetheless the Corporations are now saving billions from the previously established tax rate. That is extra money they keep to spend on (most likely themselves as there appears no oversight on how they spend it)
They have in a sense been given many more dollars to keep from being taken (my best phrasing to appease us both)
Of the billions less being taken away, corporations and the rich are the main beneficiaries.
Having a linguistic argument, or a philosophical argument about whose money it is or the legitimacy of taxes is beside the point.
Quote: darkoz
Going back to the roulette example the "price" of play is being shorted 2 units on a straight up number (american roulette). If the casino gives a promotion where they now offer only one unit as payment (say they pay 36:1) then they are giving me an extra dollar from the standard price
What does this have to do with taxes? The casino is giving me a discount to play their game. My bar gives a happy hour discount. Same thing.
Quote:You go to the movies prepared to pay $10 for entry. The theater owner says you can go in free
Did he give you $10? Technically no. Its your money. Technically he only gave you a free movie. But it has $10 value you expected to pay.
He gave me free admission. Your example is like the housewife who comes home carrying shopping bags of shoes and says, "HONEY, YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE HOW MUCH I SAVED!"
Quote:Corporations know the price of business in this country is corporate taxes. The set price has gone down thanks to the gop tax bill. If it satisfies your sense of linguistic purity i will concede this means they are now "taking less" nonetheless the Corporations are now saving billions from the previously established tax rate. That is extra money they keep to spend on (most likely themselves as there appears no oversight on how they spend it)
*sigh* Why on earth should there be "oversight" on how they spend it? On how they spend their own money that they earned?
Really, you do not get it at all. Your approach is that of the USSR or some other controlled economy. You clearly think it all belongs to the government and we all should be glad when they take less.
The government is like a wiseguy who controls the street. You gotta pay him if you want to do business. From a legit business he may take 10%. From a bookie or other guy doing something illegal he may take 50%. But no matter what he takes, he walks in and takes it at the point of a gun. Or at least the threat of broken bones.
The government takes taxes at the point of a gun. Tax cuts are not a gift, like welfare or SNAP. They are just shall we say like Uncle Jack letting Walter White keep one barrel of his own cash. The feds cutting taxes is just Jack saying, "You caught me in one hell of a good mood!"
