The Democratic debates are starting

[Firefighter]

Oh man!  TAXES!

[baldo]

Your government is the reason Walmart employee's qualify for welfare. Your government is the reason there is welfare. All these things mentioned are vote buying started by your government.

People are on welfare because it is designed to be more profitable than the governments minimum wage.

Tired of hearing "jobs Americans wont do". If they were not sucking up welfare they would line up for jobs. Government needs to get out of the way!

Wow....

[baldo]

Don't worry. If Sanders wins, he'll be going after the real welfare whores, corporations. Everyone gets their collective panties in a twist about people on the dole (rightfully so in many cases). But nobody seems to worry about these multi-nationals that hide their TRILLIONS of $$$$ overseas, avoiding their tax obligations. It's not like it's a secret, it's in the news everyday. It's just easier to get all hot and bothered over the individuals. If the government could just capture 10% of money being held overseas, we might actually be able to fix some roads and bridges. Maybe even help pay for some deserving kids to go to school and be productive members of society. Just think of the possibilities.

Translation - Insanely high corporate tax rates are making companies do crazy things to protect their assets from confiscation, so obviously corporate tax rates are too low.

It's easy to cherry pick and make statements based on a headline, but when you do a little digging, you see a different story....

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/

I'd say that if a US corp makes the move to base overseas, it's for one main reason....greed.

Greed is the driver, but what bothers me the most about these corps. doing this is how unpatriotic they are. 

And thus is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think ANYTHING could be MORE patriotic than doing everything you legally can to pay as little in taxes as possible.

That's a very interesting statement. Explain that reasoning to me. How is it patriotic to pay as little tax as possible?

[Serk]

That's a very interesting statement. Explain that reasoning to me. How is it patriotic to pay as little tax as possible?

My government is not my country.

I love my country.

My government is destroying my country.

The more resources the government has, the bigger it gets, the more destructive it becomes.

Thus starving the beast is the most patriotic thing one can do.

(That, and we're Americans, since when is making money NOT one of our core values?!?!?! And keeping the money you make is part and parcel of making money.)

And from a more practical view - Any money stolen by the government will be mostly wasted.
Any money kept by private people or interests will mostly be spent, renewing the cycle of capitalism, spreading prosperity and success for all.

Three separate, but related thoughts there, I'd try to write it more succinctly but work has been crazy lately, gotta get back to it.

[Jess from VA]

That's a very interesting statement. Explain that reasoning to me. How is it patriotic to pay as little tax as possible?

My government is not my country.

I love my country.

My government is destroying my country.

The more resources the government has, the bigger it gets, the more destructive it becomes.

Thus starving the beast is the most patriotic thing one can do.

(That, and we're Americans, since when is making money NOT one of our core values?!?!?! And keeping the money you make is part and parcel of making money.)

And from a more practical view - Any money stolen by the government will be mostly wasted.
Any money kept by private people or interests will mostly be spent, renewing the cycle of capitalism, spreading prosperity and success for all.

Three separate, but related thoughts there, I'd try to write it more succinctly but work has been crazy lately, gotta get back to it.

Exactly right!!!!   

[baldo]

That's a very interesting statement. Explain that reasoning to me. How is it patriotic to pay as little tax as possible?

My government is not my country.

I love my country.

My government is destroying my country.

The more resources the government has, the bigger it gets, the more destructive it becomes.

Thus starving the beast is the most patriotic thing one can do.

(That, and we're Americans, since when is making money NOT one of our core values?!?!?! And keeping the money you make is part and parcel of making money.)

And from a more practical view - Any money stolen by the government will be mostly wasted.
Any money kept by private people or interests will mostly be spent, renewing the cycle of capitalism, spreading prosperity and success for all.

Three separate, but related thoughts there, I'd try to write it more succinctly but work has been crazy lately, gotta get back to it.

I see. As far as 'starving the beast' goes, here's food for thought.....

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/07/what_really_happens_when_you_s

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=14

As far as keeping as much as you possibly can. I agree, who doesn't want more money in their pocket? But how do you expect all the things necessary to keep the country going, to get paid for? Where will that cash come from? Corporations? We see how well that's working.

I agree, there is a whole TON of cash being wasted, in ways we probably can't even imagine. If you're serious about starving the beast, go after the waste and fraud. It's everywhere you look. But don't scream (not saying you) about not paying for seniors needs, cutting funding for school meals, cutting funding for kids to go to college, I could go on and on.

How do you feel about the military budget? Are you comfortable with the fact that we spend multiples of whatever more than anyone else?...http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison That could probably get whittled down a bit, don't you think?

I could go on and on, but I'm crazy busy too. Gotta pay my taxes, don't you know.

[G-Man]

This country was founded on the idea of Liberty and Freedom.
To see individuals not apply themselves and eke out a living on the taxpayer is something to get bent out of shape about.
To put corporations in the “welfare” column is disingenuous. They are employing people, most cases supplying health care access and retirement options and either building things, making things or providing a service.

Despite that you and Bernie want to hammer them with additional taxes and regulations.
This results in corporations either raising their prices to cover the new taxes (ultimately making this a tax increase for the little guy as they get passed down) or the corporation restructures and heads overseas for a more business friendly climate. Taking the jobs along with them by the way.

I like our corporations. I like to see them wildly profitable. That means more jobs and a better economy.

I like our individuals that are energetic, bold, and forward thinking. Working hard, creating businesses, building futures, creating products and providing services to make their community great and robust which, in turn, makes our Country stronger.

You don’t get there by government taking and taking and taking what they have worked hard for and earned just to be given away by politicians looking for re-election and votes from those who haven’t.

Just because a company is "wildly profitable" has nothing to do with them creating more jobs.
The welfare that individuals receive is just as rampant in the corporate world.

While wild profits may not create more jobs, less profit or losses certainly create less jobs.

I work for a company who markets a drug that is more effective and has less significant side effects than the drug it replaces that has been around for 30 years.  But, because it's a new drug, and there will always be side effects, the vultures swarmed and the company settled for $640 million.  Two years later and half my department has been outsourced to a company in India.  Too expensive to do business here.

[G-Man]

After about 15 minutes I dubbed it the "Free crap Giveaway Debate" and went to bed.
Tax the 1%ers at a 90% rate and they might be able to pay for 10% of the giveaway.  Then I guess the will have to come after their disappearing middleclass to pay for the rest of the stuff.  That won't go over very well.  You can't give everything to the 47% and expect the rest of us to keep paying for it. 
Ayn Rand was right in the precept that somewhere along the line the 1% will just quit and then who the hell do they expect to pay.  BTW, quitting may well just mean moving your assets away from the US to a more capital friendly country.  The great John Templeton found the Bahamas to be very tax friendly.  One of the co-founder of Facebook to his Billions to Taiwan.  Keep pushing, more will follow suit.

Yep.  And, when the gov't decides something should be free for some, the prices skyrocket for those that pay.  Not only are they responsible to pay for it, they OVERPAY for it.

Don't worry. If Sanders wins, he'll be going after the real welfare whores, corporations. Everyone gets their collective panties in a twist about people on the dole (rightfully so in many cases). But nobody seems to worry about these multi-nationals that hide their TRILLIONS of $$$$ overseas, avoiding their tax obligations. It's not like it's a secret, it's in the news everyday. It's just easier to get all hot and bothered over the individuals. If the government could just capture 10% of money being held overseas, we might actually be able to fix some roads and bridges. Maybe even help pay for some deserving kids to go to school and be productive members of society. Just think of the possibilities.

OK, so what, we tax them more???  That should make them want to come back.   

Seriously, how does demonizing and asset grabbing become a positive business atmosphere?

[Patrick]

Even more corps will be leaving, socialist Ireland is now trying to lower its tax rate to 6.25% to attract business.

[baldo]

After about 15 minutes I dubbed it the "Free crap Giveaway Debate" and went to bed.
Tax the 1%ers at a 90% rate and they might be able to pay for 10% of the giveaway.  Then I guess the will have to come after their disappearing middleclass to pay for the rest of the stuff.  That won't go over very well.  You can't give everything to the 47% and expect the rest of us to keep paying for it. 
Ayn Rand was right in the precept that somewhere along the line the 1% will just quit and then who the hell do they expect to pay.  BTW, quitting may well just mean moving your assets away from the US to a more capital friendly country.  The great John Templeton found the Bahamas to be very tax friendly.  One of the co-founder of Facebook to his Billions to Taiwan.  Keep pushing, more will follow suit.

Yep.  And, when the gov't decides something should be free for some, the prices skyrocket for those that pay.  Not only are they responsible to pay for it, they OVERPAY for it.

Don't worry. If Sanders wins, he'll be going after the real welfare whores, corporations. Everyone gets their collective panties in a twist about people on the dole (rightfully so in many cases). But nobody seems to worry about these multi-nationals that hide their TRILLIONS of $$$$ overseas, avoiding their tax obligations. It's not like it's a secret, it's in the news everyday. It's just easier to get all hot and bothered over the individuals. If the government could just capture 10% of money being held overseas, we might actually be able to fix some roads and bridges. Maybe even help pay for some deserving kids to go to school and be productive members of society. Just think of the possibilities.

OK, so what, we tax them more???  That should make them want to come back.   

Seriously, how does demonizing and asset grabbing become a positive business atmosphere?

How about we make them pay the tax that is due? Walmart gets millions of $$ in tax refunds, after posting BILLIONS in profits. How does that work? And they're just one corporation. How do you feel about that?

[Moonshot_1]

Just because a company is "wildly profitable" has nothing to do with them creating more jobs.
The welfare that individuals receive is just as rampant in the corporate world.
[/quote]

How does a company that is unprofitable and losing money have the wherewithal to hire and create jobs?

Is it not far more likely that a profitable company will expand their business and thus hire more people?

[Moonshot_1]

[

How about we make them pay the tax that is due? Walmart gets millions of $$ in tax refunds, after posting BILLIONS in profits. How does that work? And they're just one corporation. How do you feel about that?
[/quote]

Well, Walmart paid their taxes. If they didn't they couldn't get millions in tax refunds.
So since they paid their taxes, they should keep the rest of the money they earned.
Why should we care how much they have earned in profits? Don't like Walmart, don't shop there and tell your friends and family not to shop there.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I noticed the two debates were run completely different. But, what else could be expected from CNN.

Surprisingly hillary done did the best from what I heard. Thats not saying much though.

sanders is an absolute fool. His 'freebies' will cost $18 trillion.

I don't think CNN ran the debates all that much differently. But having 11 people with one of them being the Donald was going to make for completely different debates. Kind of like comparing watching "The Kardashians" to watching "Frontline"  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Don't worry. If Sanders wins, he'll be going after the real welfare whores, corporations. Everyone gets their collective panties in a twist about people on the dole (rightfully so in many cases). But nobody seems to worry about these multi-nationals that hide their TRILLIONS of $$$$ overseas, avoiding their tax obligations. It's not like it's a secret, it's in the news everyday. It's just easier to get all hot and bothered over the individuals. If the government could just capture 10% of money being held overseas, we might actually be able to fix some roads and bridges. Maybe even help pay for some deserving kids to go to school and be productive members of society. Just think of the possibilities.

Translation - Insanely high corporate tax rates are making companies do crazy things to protect their assets from confiscation, so obviously corporate tax rates are too low.

It's easy to cherry pick and make statements based on a headline, but when you do a little digging, you see a different story....

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/

I'd say that if a US corp makes the move to base overseas, it's for one main reason....greed.

Greed is the driver, but what bothers me the most about these corps. doing this is how unpatriotic they are. 

And thus is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think ANYTHING could be MORE patriotic than doing everything you legally can to pay as little in taxes as possible.

What I was referring to was corps. moving their headquarters to other countries to avoid U.S. taxes. Their operations stay here but they avoid taxes thru the move. IF you believe that to be patriotic then yes we do have diametrically opposing views. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Just because a company is "wildly profitable" has nothing to do with them creating more jobs.
The welfare that individuals receive is just as rampant in the corporate world.

How does a company that is unprofitable and losing money have the wherewithal to hire and create jobs?

Is it not far more likely that a profitable company will expand their business and thus hire more people?
[/quote]Yes it is. But that's not what you said.

[baldo]

Just because a company is "wildly profitable" has nothing to do with them creating more jobs.
The welfare that individuals receive is just as rampant in the corporate world.

How does a company that is unprofitable and losing money have the wherewithal to hire and create jobs?

Is it not far more likely that a profitable company will expand their business and thus hire more people?

Yes it is. But that's not what you said.
[/quote]  And that's not the way it works. The old 'trickle down theory' has been thoroughly proven to be the farce that it is.

[Wizzard]

I thought the "trickle down" problem was only when you got old

[Willow]

i won't get deeply involved in this discussion as there's too much being said that just doesn't really make sense.

What strikes me is the repeated calls for, defenses of, and attacks against the taxing of corporations.  As much as I understand it corporations are business that sell goods and services to you and me.  When they are taxed higher or lower, do we think about where that money comes from or doesn't come from?  It's your pocket and mine.  Corporations get their income from the buyers of the goods and services they sell.  By law the owners, the stockholders, are protected from the debts of the corporations.  If one's intent is to snatch money away from the rich and give it to the less blessed it won't happen by taxing corporations.  Taxes on corporations are paid almost entirely by you and me, and people much poorer than you and me.  

[Pete]

i won't get deeply involved in this discussion as there's too much being said that just doesn't really make sense.

What strikes me is the repeated calls for, defenses of, and attacks against the taxing of corporations.  As much as I understand it corporations are business that sell goods and services to you and me.  When they are taxed higher or lower, do we think about where that money comes from or doesn't come from?  It's your pocket and mine.  Corporations get their income from the buyers of the goods and services they sell.  By law the owners, the stockholders, are protected from the debts of the corporations.  If one's intent is to snatch money away from the rich and give it to the less blessed it won't happen by taxing corporations.  Taxes on corporations are paid almost entirely by you and me, and people much poorer than you and me.  

Thank You, my thoughts exactly and you are absolutely correct only individuals pay taxes because the buck stops with the individual.

[Moonshot_1]

Just because a company is "wildly profitable" has nothing to do with them creating more jobs.
The welfare that individuals receive is just as rampant in the corporate world.

How does a company that is unprofitable and losing money have the wherewithal to hire and create jobs?

Is it not far more likely that a profitable company will expand their business and thus hire more people?

Yes it is. But that's not what you said.

  And that's not the way it works. The old 'trickle down theory' has been thoroughly proven to be the farce that it is.

[/quote]

That's not the way it works?

Let’s create a simple model.

You are cleaning out your grandma’s attic. You come across an old recipe box. In it you find her long lost recipes that everyone has always raved.

You make her cookies and share them. They are outstanding. People hear about them and want some. You finally start making them and selling them, just for cost.

More people want them. So you make more. You sell more. You sell them and start making a profit.

You get so busy making these things that you quit your job, buy bigger equipment, and hire a couple people to help.

You sell even more.

You hire more people. You find yourself having to expand to a new and larger facility.

You get your first corporate grocery order. You hire more people you expand and build another facility to handle the load.

Eventually sales level off but the facility is constantly at capacity.

You find another recipe. You grow even more.

Meanwhile one of the workers in your facility comes up with a packaging idea on the side and winds up creating a business of his own making the packaging for the cookies.

So you are telling me it never works like this?

Seems to me Walmart started with one store.
Pizza Hut started with one Hut
I think Microsoft started in a garage somewhere and the software business it spawned is epic.
Exxon with one oil rig.
Every business out there has a history going back to some guy or gal with a lot of guts and a crazy idea.

It isn't really trickle down. It is more like an apple tree that gets loaded with apples. They ain't gonna pick themselves. The opportunities exist.

[dinosnake]

Your government is the reason Walmart employee's qualify for welfare. Your government is the reason there is welfare. All these things mentioned are vote buying started by your government.

People are on welfare because it is designed to be more profitable than the governments minimum wage.

Tired of hearing "jobs Americans wont do". If they were not sucking up welfare they would line up for jobs. Government needs to get out of the way!

Wow....

"Wow" is right.  People think they know what they know, but don't know anything in relation to how things have actually, provably, happened.

Business is there to make money.  The issue, in case you missed the point of "A Christmas Carol", is that historically businesses focus only on the money to the detriment of the people and the population and large.  In other words, I am sure you've never read "How The Other Half Lives" by Jacob Riis, have you??

http://www.bartleby.com/208/

Why don't you read how actual workers were treated in the late 19th century instead of taking pundits, talking heads and revisionist TV shows' word for it, eh?  America works the way it does because people abused the system when they had every available opportunity to do so - "trickle-down economics" is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy because, somehow, we're all supposed to believe that the wealthy will part with their wealth (do beneficial things with it) just because they feel generous?!  Why don't you try actually reading history: the wealthy have always horded their wealth.  Always.  That's why they are "wealthy" - they will move their money where it is most beneficial to them.   So, kindly, tell me why a wealthy person will "invest in jobs" by taking the chance of starting [yet another] new business, as 50% of new businesses fail, when they can move their money to where ever makes them the most income?  And if that is investing in off-shore tax sheltered annuities, hidden bank accounts, multi-tier holding corporations...even tax-free "charities" that hide their business dealings (did you know, for example, that IKEA is held by a family-own 'charity' that is almost completely tax free and does not report income??)...

Why bother.  130 years and people just ignore what you can learn, from books, of how people will act if given the any reasonable chance of doing so.  Yet we still believe that removing controls and oversight will only bring out the "best" in people...

[fudgie]

I didn't watch it cause I was working. But snippits on the news mention healthcare etc for illegals. How is that right?  What about care of our veterans?

[Oss]

Couple of thinks strike me and have since law school

It is a fundamental flaw in corporate law

You see an individual can be jailed and killed for treason

A corporation only has an obligation to shareholders

Hence unless the moral compass of the corporation matches the high moral character of the patriot Houston we have a disconnect

I submit that both Corp tax rates are too high and large profitable salaries and perks toCorp perks to the CEO;s are too high as well

The trick is finding someone willing to risk assassination to try to fix it

Actually I think there are 2 republicans who just might do it

No democrats would dare and Sanders is not really a democrat he is an avowed socialist. You can't be both and tell the truth IMHO

The law of corporations must somehow be made to reflect the duty to country

[art]

I didn't watch the D debate. I did see news reports an I'm glad I didn't watch. Just looking at the hildabeast head bobbing up and down while others talked was enough to justify not watching. I can't stand to look at her anymore than Mooshe and her dingbat husband. God help the USA.

[Firefighter]

I am tired now. I read about corporations, and it seems they pay plenty of taxes.

We do have to have some government controls of coarse, and we do.

 The wealthy hording money? Generous? Not sure what you mean, if you sold your house, would you be generous and help out some starting out or poor family, or would you sell it for every dollar you could get?

The military, we have to have the strongest on earth if we wish to remain, even more if you wish to remain free. History proves that.

[Moonshot_1]

"Trickle Down Economics" doesn't mean the wealthy mindlessly throw their excess wealth at the poor.

The Wealthy will buy large houses, luxury boats, luxury cars. They will buy their horses, their farms, build their vacation homes.

Someone has to build those houses, boats, cars and vacation homes. Someone has to care for the horses, tend to the farm. Entire industries have been based on that.

Excess taxation and high taxation of the wealthy will have them take action that will have them move their wealth offshore. Will have them purchase their toys elsewhere. They are rich, they can do that.

Explain this to the craftsman who used to build yachts and luxury boats until the government drove his customers away.

Yeah I know they can get unemployment insurance which apparently is even better for the economy according to Nancy Pelosi.

And the point in the Christmas Carol was not to disparage businessmen as there is a part in the story where his fellow business peers were out collecting donations for the less fortunate. The point was to disparage one man's selfish attitude of life and others and Celebrate his redemption.

[Serk]

Explain this to the craftsman who used to build yachts and luxury boats until the government drove his customers away.

It's sad that we have to keep relearning and reteaching basic economics, isn't it?

Here's a blast from the past, an article from 1991 in the Baltimore Sun on the unintended consequences of the "Soak the rich" luxury tax (And before our leftist friends point it out, yeah, Bush Sr. signed this one in to law, economic ignorance is not limited to those with a (D) after their name)

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-09/business/1991160128_1_luxury-tax-yachts-harrison

[baldo]

[

How about we make them pay the tax that is due? Walmart gets millions of $$ in tax refunds, after posting BILLIONS in profits. How does that work? And they're just one corporation. How do you feel about that?

Well, Walmart paid their taxes. If they didn't they couldn't get millions in tax refunds.
So since they paid their taxes, they should keep the rest of the money they earned.
Why should we care how much they have earned in profits? Don't like Walmart, don't shop there and tell your friends and family not to shop there.


[/quote]

This is a timely article.....http://usuncut.com/class-war/walton-family-loses-11-billion-in-one-day-as-walmart-stock-prices-implode/

[Firefighter]

YES! Why wouldn't they keep their profits?

[Robert]

First its not liberals anymore its progressives.

Next if anyone would really research we did not even have taxes in the early 1900,s this was not that long ago.

Why are we talking about corporate taxes when the Federal Reserve makes more money and prints our money and has the US in their pocket? This is against our laws and against our good. Why do we pay interest on money that has no backing except the good will of the US? Get rid of the Fed.

I cannot see giving a person or government more money when the waste, corruption, fraud, rampant disregard for the Constitution and lack of prosecution of Government officials for wrong doing shows a massive and over the top disregard for financial responsibility for personal accountability or the tenants our country was founded on.

Its like giving a drug addict more and more money and expecting them to be responsible for it.
We talk about corporate profits and lack of paying taxes like its going to matter either way when you have the what we have in government.

The idea that anyone like Hillary would even be considered for office and not brought up on charges as a viable contender for president shows how far down the slippery slope of personal accountability we have come.

She among all the scandles she has going on is a puppet for one of the organizations that wants the sovereignty of the US taken away, that is the Counsel on Foreign Relations.

While everyone has good points on this discussion they are all mute unless we address some of the issues that are the basis this country was founded on.

Read a simple interesting article about the national debt
http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

Being responsible to monetary constraints is not advantageous to political goals but it does not sell our children or population into debt slaves which we are now. Can anyone say Solyndra no one prosecuted no one held accountable and the tax payers on the hook as one small example of a drunk for power out of control government with progressives not willing to hold accountable or explain why this is ok for government officials to do.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/277512/solyndra-fraud-andrew-c-mccarthy

As a personal note to any progressives show me how to hold accountable the wrongs done and change the corruption in government and make it for the people again and I will sign on whole heartedly. But tell me we have to tax more or give more to disadvantaged by the same system, when the middle class suckers are paying the bills for illegals, welfare, stolen promise of SS, health care and gloss over the myriad of problems we have now and I say Kiss MY A.

[Firefighter]

I agree with you, just can't communicate like you! Thanks

[The emperor has no clothes]

Looks like Willow was right again. "There is too much being said here that makes no sense" 

[Robert]

We should be able to break this down to three simple issues that anyone can easily understand that show a representative of the larger problems we face.

I want to hold accountable the ones that took the fiduciary account of Social Security system and took the funds that were supposed to be earning interest and hold them accountable for fraud and theft.

The other statement is I want the ones that pass a health care law that I am responsible to pay into to subject themselves to the same system and pay into it the same way or to revise it to allow reasonable coverage at an affordable price.

This last point would be nice but I may be expecting way to much

                    Congress should not be allowed legally to do insider trading


     Below is a copy and paste snipit in case anyone needs to break it down to understandable terms and how the Congress and President maneuver and lie to serve themselves.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law

The law wouldn't just outlaw trading on nonpublic information by members of Congress, the executive branch and their staffs. It would greatly expand financial disclosures and make all of the data searchable so insider trading and conflicts of interest would be easier to detect.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, shown in August 2011, criticized the STOCK Act that passed Thursday, saying it didn't go far enough.
It's All Politics
Insider-Trading Ban Passes Congress, But Some See Missed Opportunity

But on Monday, when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed announcement was one sentence long. There was no fanfare last week either, when the Senate and then the House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure known as unanimous consent.

By the way as a side note this is exactly the same way we got the Federal Reserve.

    Now these are the people we are discussing corporate taxes about? And yes Willow was right we will pay in the end if they levy more taxes on corporations. We have mentioned lobbying groups, cronyism, money that changes hands and we really think corp taxes amounts to anything, we are deceiving ourselves.

[baldo]

We should be able to break this down to three simple issues that anyone can easily understand that show a representative of the larger problems we face.

I want to hold accountable the ones that took the fiduciary account of Social Security system and took the funds that were supposed to be earning interest and hold them accountable for fraud and theft.

The other statement is I want the ones that pass a health care law that I am responsible to pay into to subject themselves to the same system and pay into it the same way or to revise it to allow reasonable coverage at an affordable price.

This last point would be nice but I may be expecting way to much

                    Congress should not be allowed legally to do insider trading


     Below is a copy and paste snipit in case anyone needs to break it down to understandable terms and how the Congress and President maneuver and lie to serve themselves.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law

The law wouldn't just outlaw trading on nonpublic information by members of Congress, the executive branch and their staffs. It would greatly expand financial disclosures and make all of the data searchable so insider trading and conflicts of interest would be easier to detect.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, shown in August 2011, criticized the STOCK Act that passed Thursday, saying it didn't go far enough.
It's All Politics
Insider-Trading Ban Passes Congress, But Some See Missed Opportunity

But on Monday, when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed announcement was one sentence long. There was no fanfare last week either, when the Senate and then the House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure known as unanimous consent.

By the way as a side note this is exactly the same way we got the Federal Reserve.

    Now these are the people we are discussing corporate taxes about? And yes Willow was right we will pay in the end if they levy more taxes on corporations. We have mentioned lobbying groups, cronyism, money that changes hands and we really think corp taxes amounts to anything, we are deceiving ourselves.

These are all good points, worthy of discussion. I wish I knew what the answers are.

As far as the insider trading issue, the change doesn't apply to the White House and Congress members. They're still required to disclose their financial dealings, such as they are. The law is full of loopholes. The change does apply to staffers and other insiders. This law was eye candy in the first place, they just changed it around a bit....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/stock-act-change-insider-trading_n_3100115.html

[Robert]

Baldo I don't think we need discussion on these points, we need corrective action. We have had to much discussion. We have had new laws and new actions each shown to add very little and most of the time add vagueness and stamp out clarity. Each candidate promises change and its more of the same. we all do the same thing look for a candidate that will set this country back on track. I don't think progressives or conservatives are really that much different in what we want. But if someone has shown to be a manipulator, deceptive, liar, how can that person hold others accountable to change things? If you give back to the people the prosperity that this country was founded on then people would have no problem in conquering the problems of the poor and needy. But if people understand that waste, corruption, back room deals, manipulation, siphoning off of the money is all being done and then all look at the same warmed over offering everyone becomes disheartened. Then fighting among groups or each other instead of directing it where it deserves to be.

   I believe that there is no lack in this country except of moral conviction and public oversite among our leaders. This is where it becomes a heart issue. This is the real problem, we did at one time leaders that actually cared to make laws and rules based on the good of the people. We have not seen that in some time now, and I think this country could be great again if there was accountabilty, prosecution lack of elitist ideals of the one who are in power. Capitalism has problems without a conscience and socialism does not allow people to be themselves. We are moving more and more to socialism now and in the past years. It failed in Russia for the same reason, moral conscience and self serving officials. Someone has to have the power to call these lapses in judgement into question. The People as in WE THE PEOPLE.

  Over-site is the biggest deterrent to dictatorship we have. The phrase absolute power corrupts absolutely has been shown to be true time and time again. If you are not responsible to anyone then you can do anything to hurt or change anything without it bothering your conscience.

[baldo]

Robert, that sounds great. And I agree with you 100% on all points. I don't know why you're calling me out, I'm responding to other comments.

What do you suggest? How would you work toward bringing about change?

[G-Man]

Even more corps will be leaving, socialist Ireland is now trying to lower its tax rate to 6.25% to attract business.

Ubber Liberal New York State has been running a program that offers 10 years tax free if you open a company in certain areas.  

So which is it???  Are low taxes or high taxes on business the way to go?

[G-Man]

After about 15 minutes I dubbed it the "Free crap Giveaway Debate" and went to bed.
Tax the 1%ers at a 90% rate and they might be able to pay for 10% of the giveaway.  Then I guess the will have to come after their disappearing middleclass to pay for the rest of the stuff.  That won't go over very well.  You can't give everything to the 47% and expect the rest of us to keep paying for it.  
Ayn Rand was right in the precept that somewhere along the line the 1% will just quit and then who the hell do they expect to pay.  BTW, quitting may well just mean moving your assets away from the US to a more capital friendly country.  The great John Templeton found the Bahamas to be very tax friendly.  One of the co-founder of Facebook to his Billions to Taiwan.  Keep pushing, more will follow suit.

Yep.  And, when the gov't decides something should be free for some, the prices skyrocket for those that pay.  Not only are they responsible to pay for it, they OVERPAY for it.

Don't worry. If Sanders wins, he'll be going after the real welfare whores, corporations. Everyone gets their collective panties in a twist about people on the dole (rightfully so in many cases). But nobody seems to worry about these multi-nationals that hide their TRILLIONS of $$$$ overseas, avoiding their tax obligations. It's not like it's a secret, it's in the news everyday. It's just easier to get all hot and bothered over the individuals. If the government could just capture 10% of money being held overseas, we might actually be able to fix some roads and bridges. Maybe even help pay for some deserving kids to go to school and be productive members of society. Just think of the possibilities.

OK, so what, we tax them more???  That should make them want to come back.  

Seriously, how does demonizing and asset grabbing become a positive business atmosphere?

How about we make them pay the tax that is due? Walmart gets millions of $$ in tax refunds, after posting BILLIONS in profits. How does that work? And they're just one corporation. How do you feel about that?

I don't feel anything.  I haven't seen their deal with the IRS.  There are no tax liens against them that I know of.  Haven't heard of any illegal money laundering or transfers.  Haven't heard of anything illegal at all in the way Walmart is conducting their business.  Where's the criminal investigation?

Again, how does demonizing and asset grabbing create a positive business atmosphere?  It doesn't.  

Looks like we may be at the beginning of running out of other people's money.  First business, then the citizens, then we're all lower middle class and the 1% are still the 1%.  Free cheese and toilet paper but you gotta get your place on line before they run out.

[G-Man]

I noticed the two debates were run completely different. But, what else could be expected from CNN.

Surprisingly hillary done did the best from what I heard. Thats not saying much though.

sanders is an absolute fool. His 'freebies' will cost $18 trillion.

I don't think CNN ran the debates all that much differently. But having 11 people with one of them being the Donald was going to make for completely different debates. Kind of like comparing watching "The Kardashians" to watching "Frontline"  

They were run verrrrry differently.  The R debate was "This one said this about you, what do you want to say about that?"  "This one said this, do you want to tell her/him something about it?"

And the D debate was "Lay of Hillary".  Lob her a soft ball, let her lie and deceive her answer, then no follow-up question. 

I only have one question for Hillary,.... What ever happened to that amateur video maker, I believe a U.S. citizen, they blamed Benghazi on?  Remember, the guy they jailed when Rice was told to go out and tell the press that it was all about a video, and  Obama stated at the UN, even though they knew it was a terrorist response to their role in destabilizing Libya?  Whatever happened to that guy?

[Moonshot_1]

Even more corps will be leaving, socialist Ireland is now trying to lower its tax rate to 6.25% to attract business.

Ubber Liberal New York State has been running a program that offers 10 years tax free if you open a company in certain areas.  

So which is it???  Are low taxes or high taxes on business the way to go?

I would think that if the goal is a vibrant business climate, strong economic growth and plentiful employment opportunities, the lowest tax plan would be the choice.

I would think that a community with a high business tax plan would be a major disincentive to new and fledgling businesses and even drive existing business elsewhere.