[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Does Air America still exist?
One of the reasons the media delighted in reporting Rush Limbaughs misfortune is because he is a big target.
Not just a big target, but a Big Fat Idiotic Target. I’m with Al Franken on this one.
[/quote]
No surprise there!
My brother bought me that book. It was amusing but it was tripe (just like Limbaughs books).
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Does Air America still exist?
One of the reasons the media delighted in reporting Rush Limbaughs misfortune is because he is a big target.
Or maybe he was one of the most outspoken critics…no, no, it must be a leftist conspiracy.[/quote]
I think the proper term is “vast left-wing conspiracy”.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You contradict yourself Mr Lovebeads. First you say you thought I sounded bitter, then you explain how liberals are all bitter, and even why, then you say no one called me anything.[/quote]
I like the way to take liberty with what I wrote. I said what I said. It’s not my fault that You aren’t funny, or clever.
You act likr the liberals. What can I say? But I didn’t CAll YOU ANYTHING.
You can make shit up all you want, and interpret what I say any way you want. I could give a shit.
But I didn’t CALL you anything. I know that’s hard to fathom, vroom. But read what I fucking wrote - and then honestly say I called you anything.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Bigflamer-
Many Union workers voiced the same concern regarding labor’s support of the Democratic party.
It is one of the reasons given for the breakup of the AFL-CIO.
Glad you are a conservative and hope you are a proud GOP member.[/quote]
Yea I hope the split turnes out to be a positive thing for the unions. I’ve often wondered how the Teamsters, or the IAFF could support the dems when so many union members are conservative.
I catch a lot of shit for being a conservative union firefighter, but it makes the shifts interesting!
Let me know when you will be done with the childish games Rainjack. Until then there is no point in bothering to talk to you.
Notice I didn’t CALL you anything either…
–
Y’know, one of these days when I finally visit Texas again, we’re going to have to go to a bar, have a drink, punch each other in the face a few times, then have a few more drinks or something (as in that fight thread a while back).
Since you are so damned hyooge these days I’m expecting to come away worse for wear, but dammit, that’s just too bad.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Let me know when you will be done with the childish games Rainjack. Until then there is no point in bothering to talk to you.
Notice I didn’t CALL you anything either…[/quote]
That’s totally your choice - vroom. I’m not sure, however, what childish games you are referring to. You took exception to me calling you a name - which never happened.
I mean it in the friendliest way possible when I say that I would really like to kick the shit out of you - and vice-versa.
If you catch me while I’m on PCT - you won’t have anything to fear. My strength is in the shitter, and I can’t get it back.
LOL, as always… timing is everything!
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Because corporations don’t pay taxes. Only individuals pay taxes. If I’m a corporation that sells kettlebells for $100, and the government decides they are going to tax me 10%. Now I’m a corporation that sells kettbells for $110. I make the same amount of money, and the consumer is stuck paying more taxes. Simple economics. Liberals deride “evil corporations” and want them to pay through the nose, but the all it does is drive up inflation. [/quote]
What you are talking about is called a SALES TAX. The funny thing is it is Republicans that want to use this exact kind of tax to replace dividend and capital gains taxes. Corporate taxes on the other hand have no such effect since they only apply to the net profit a company makes which only reduces the dividend the company pays out.
The people who benefit the most from corporations not paying taxes are the very wealthy since the .02 cents a share the tax might take away from dividends only adds up if you have a lot of shares.
To put it simply reddog6376 is absolutely correct on the effect of a national sales tax. A national sales tax is something most Republican reps are for and most Dem reps are against. Corp income taxes have none of these bad effects. So if reddog6376 really doesn’t want the bad effects he describes he needs to vote Democrat.
Why doesn’t anyone (dems or liberals) realize that… BOTH PARTIES ARE FULL OF SHIT. You have 2 ideals:
One is that people need a little help some times and that the government is there to give it to them
The other is that the government thinks that people should make it on there own and it is there to make sure they do so
These are the party lines for democrats and republicans. Both parties do whatever they can to make themselves look good and make themselves individually profit from the situation they are in.
Both sides are equally corrupt. Both sides are equally filled with dumb asses and swindlers. No one side is “better” than the other if you taking about who is in them. While I happen to think the republican party rapes the country a little more to make sure the upper 2% can afford that new yacht… they both are full of S
[quote]freemark wrote:
What you are talking about is called a SALES TAX. The funny thing is it is Republicans that want to use this exact kind of tax to replace dividend and capital gains taxes. Corporate taxes on the other hand have no such effect since they only apply to the net profit a company makes which only reduces the dividend the company pays out.
[/quote]
No, sales tax is when the gov’t takes a cut right off the top, directly from the consumer. Most corporations, believe it or not, are in business to make money. If the gov’t makes them pay X dollars in INCOME tax, they simply charge that much more for their product, passing the cost on to the consumer. If that puts the cost over what the consumer is willing to pay, then they go out of business (laying off their employees in the process). Corporations do not pay taxes! Only consumers.
I’d rather pay sales tax or have taxes levied against corporations than pay income tax.
Income tax takes my money BEFORE I get to make spending choices.
Other taxes allow me to choose whether or not to spend or invest, with all of my money, prior to the government getting its hands on it.
So, I can defer my payment of tax or choose to alter my behavior to reduce my tax load – as I see fit.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’d rather pay sales tax or have taxes levied against corporations than pay income tax.
Income tax takes my money BEFORE I get to make spending choices.
Other taxes allow me to choose whether or not to spend or invest, with all of my money, prior to the government getting its hands on it.
So, I can defer my payment of tax or choose to alter my behavior to reduce my tax load – as I see fit.[/quote]
I’d prefer a national sales tax also. However, corporate income tax is only double tax on consumers. You pay your income tax, then when you purchase something, you pay sales tax AND you pay the corporations income tax for them. Why not just eleminate so-called corporate income tax, prices will be proportionally lowered, and you’ll end up with more money in your pocket.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I’d rather pay sales tax or have taxes levied against corporations than pay income tax.
Income tax takes my money BEFORE I get to make spending choices.
Other taxes allow me to choose whether or not to spend or invest, with all of my money, prior to the government getting its hands on it.
So, I can defer my payment of tax or choose to alter my behavior to reduce my tax load – as I see fit.
I’d prefer a national sales tax also. However, corporate income tax is only double tax on consumers. You pay your income tax, then when you purchase something, you pay sales tax AND you pay the corporations income tax for them. Why not just eleminate so-called corporate income tax, prices will be proportionally lowered, and you’ll end up with more money in your pocket.
[/quote]
I think I’d prefer a Steve Forbes style flat tax system. An accross the board percentage for everybody. Although I would have to agree with reddog that a tax on corporations is just a price increase for consumers.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
…right after all?
Good article illustrating just some of the left’s hypocrisy. Although I’m sure the ABB crowd will try to defend this. I always thought it was funny that the left would call Rush a “drug addicted loser” when the left is loaded with dirty hippies crying about the war, poping pills, and doing alot more drugs than Rush ever thought about.
It’s also fun to watch air america struggle the way they are. Al Franken is about as insightfull as my retarded cousin, and no funnier than a rash on my johnson. Is it possible that Air America is strugling because a radio talk show needs a good host with a message? They’ve never had a decent host and haven’t had a real message in a long time. Unless you count hatred for conservatives and crying for government help.
Funny how the free market is kicking air america’s ass. No wonder they hate the free market so much!
Thursday, August 4, 2005
Big Fat Yawn
Media: Rush Limbaugh’s prescription drug troubles were splashed all over the media. Yet a financial scandal rocking a leftist radio network rates no coverage.
The mainstream media, fixated on bringing down Karl Rove, have so far deemed apparent funding irregularities at Air America unworthy of note. But that doesn’t make them any less of story.
Here’s the gist, according to The New York Sun ? which is giving the scandal the coverage it deserves ? and a few others, mostly bloggers and columnists, who are providing a public service:
New York City’s Department of Investigation is looking into charges that $875,000 from a Bronx nonprofit group and an affiliate whose budgets are generously stuffed with local, state and federal grants was inappropriately used to fund Air America, the left’s counterattack on the colossal success of conservative talk radio.
The two groups ? the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club and Pathways for Youth ? said they thought they were making a loan to the network. But when Evan Montvel Cohen was working as both chairman of Air America and director of development for Gloria Wise, some red flags should have been raised.
Jeannette Graves, president of Gloria Wise’s executive committee, has said that without her authorization or knowledge, Cohen siphoned $613,000 from the organization to himself and Air America. Cohen also allegedly used money from the groups for personal medical care.
While this mess is being sorted out, the city has suspended its ties with Gloria Wise and Pathways. That means money intended for poor minority children and Alzheimer’s victims was instead used to make sure the financially tanking and ratings-troubled Air America could keep blathering.
Public funds used to prop up a business! Just the kind of scandal that left-leaning media would die for. Yet for some reason they’re giving this one a pass.
Is it because there are no mean ol’ conservatives to blame?
When Limbaugh’s problems with painkillers came to light, the mainstream media could hardly contain themselves. They called him a “pill popper” and hypocrite and cheered for release of his medical records. And when he returned to the air, they couldn’t talk enough about his stay in rehab.
Al Franken, Air America’s featured host, seized the moment and labeled Limbaugh a “drug addict” ? after calling him a “Big Fat Idiot” in the title of his book years before.
Nothing wrong, mind you, with reporting on Limbaugh’s woes. Nothing, that is, as long as the media cover flaws of those on the left with equal enthusiasm.[/quote]
Here’s the difference in relation to Limbaugh’s drug abuse. Most on the left do not chide,berate or belittle drug user/abuser and Rush does…quite frequently! He once said that drug users should be punished to the full extent of the law and fed sea rations for all he cares. I remeber listening to that show when I was a nieve dittohead. I wonder if Rush would apply his own sense of justice to himself…well…of course he won’t because he’s a Class A hypocrite!
And as far as the “free market” is concerned, we don’t have one. This seems ironic to say but corporations are very much opposed to be subject to market forces unless they are sure they can win in the competition.
Misnamed treaties like NAFTA or WTO act like protectionist policies in order to keep the wealth and power concentrated in the few who are privledged. The “new economy” is based on having the principle cost and risk given to the public and then to be doled out to private corporations. The most obvious example is the internet.
I could go for a flat tax or a national sales tax. Either one is better than the repressive system which is now in place. Punishing people for making more money is a terrible idea!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I could go for a flat tax or a national sales tax. Either one is better than the repressive system which is now in place. Punishing people for making more money is a terrible idea![/quote]
I agree with you on this one Zeb. Even though I believe a flat tax is much better as sales taxes hurts the poor disproportionately. The problem is that the far left believe the wealthy should pay a much larger perc in taxes and the right believes the wealthy should have to pay no taxes. the problem is right now the far right is in control so a fair flat tax won’t fly. (It also wouldn’t if the far left was in control)
Right now the wealthy pay a smaller perc of their income in taxes than does the middle class (under $200,000 a year)
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I’d rather pay sales tax or have taxes levied against corporations than pay income tax.
Income tax takes my money BEFORE I get to make spending choices.
Other taxes allow me to choose whether or not to spend or invest, with all of my money, prior to the government getting its hands on it.
So, I can defer my payment of tax or choose to alter my behavior to reduce my tax load – as I see fit.
I’d prefer a national sales tax also. However, corporate income tax is only double tax on consumers. You pay your income tax, then when you purchase something, you pay sales tax AND you pay the corporations income tax for them. Why not just eleminate so-called corporate income tax, prices will be proportionally lowered, and you’ll end up with more money in your pocket.
[/quote]
Obviously many people here don’t understand what corporate income tax is. If anyone believes that a tax on the net profit of a corp will cause a corresponding increase in price is absolutely mistaken. There are many arguments for and against C.I.T. but a point for point price increase is a false one. As any economics text will tell you. As for job creation more jobs were created by corp during times of high corp tax (the 50’s) than during times of almost no corp tax(2000-2005). Excessive taxes can hurt R&D, can POSSIBLY cause a price increase, and can create less incentives to create new businesses.
By the way I am not arguing either way, just that the arguments being used are not correct.
As far as what started this talk about taxes. Which is the Corporate Welfare Act or as some call it The Energy Bill. I will definately argue against giving oil corporatons 2.67 Billion dollars in my tax money, when they have stated to their shareholders that they can’t find enough energy developement projects to invest their current record profits in. When a company is making the largest profit ever recorded by a corp anywhere in the world why would they need my tax money to find more sources of that profit?