Occupy Wall Street

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
342

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

A good quote I found by Elizabeth Warren is in the picture above (if you couldn’t tell before haha)[/quote]

Awful quote, but superficially plausible I guess.[/quote]

Lol how is it awful? And how is it only superficially plausible?[/quote][/quote]

Well, how would you feel if I mowed your lawn whether you wanted to or not, took three times as long as any other person mowing lawns and then went up to your door, demanding twice the money that you would pay on the free market and insist that you owe me?

Because that is what she does.

Also, very few people object to spending for roads, the police and fire departments, at least not in principle, its the other shit thats the problem.

Once she has called off the war on drugs, unnecessary wars, studies on how penis size affects gay relationships or the well being of sea otters, corn, ethanol and other farm subsidies, cut back entitlements programs so that they are sustainable and the military to a size that it would only gobble up 1/3 instead of 1/2 of the planets “defense” spending, then we could talk.

But then we would not have to have this talk, wouldnt we. [/quote]

I don’t see how the lawn-mowing analogy applies. Elizabeth Warren’s job (as I understood it) was to try to figure out what the financial institutions that ran our economy into the ground did to achieve that. As much as corrupt companies kick, scream, bitch, and moan about the government “tying their hands with so much oversight and control,” it’s never the “crushing oversight” and double-checking-of-the-books that sinks a company. However, rampant corruption and gambling away people’s financial futures DOES sink companies when customers finally find how badly their getting fucked, and rightfully so.

I’m in total agreement with you on reducing spending on the defense industry and drug wars. I’m also against the Fed pissing away $12 trillion of our nation’s wealth by writing some extra “0’s” on the ends of transactions with European banks. I do think some projects (like Sarah Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere project) are frivolous too, but pork barrel spending only accounts for 0.5% of our economy. The major problem is that businesses on Wall Street are deeply corrupt, and have no problem gambling away your mortgage if it increases their bottom line, and politicians are all too happy to offer these businesses tax holidays and tax cuts and tax breaks as long as the companies keep stroking the politicians. For example, Exxon Mobile, who’s profits are still the highest in world history, paid 0 in taxes last year. 0!!! That means I paid more in taxes buying a fucking Butterfinger than all of Exxon Mobile did last year. I’m sure you also heard about Warren Buffet paying a smaller percentage of his salary on taxes than his secretary did. This is insanity and it needs to stop. Those are just a few reasons I’m protesting (if you didn’t see my first post in the thread, that has the main reasons haha).

343

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

A good quote I found by Elizabeth Warren is in the picture above (if you couldn’t tell before haha)[/quote]

Awful quote, but superficially plausible I guess.[/quote]

Lol how is it awful? And how is it only superficially plausible?[/quote][/quote]

Well, how would you feel if I mowed your lawn whether you wanted to or not, took three times as long as any other person mowing lawns and then went up to your door, demanding twice the money that you would pay on the free market and insist that you owe me?

Because that is what she does.

Also, very few people object to spending for roads, the police and fire departments, at least not in principle, its the other shit thats the problem.

Once she has called off the war on drugs, unnecessary wars, studies on how penis size affects gay relationships or the well being of sea otters, corn, ethanol and other farm subsidies, cut back entitlements programs so that they are sustainable and the military to a size that it would only gobble up 1/3 instead of 1/2 of the planets “defense” spending, then we could talk.

But then we would not have to have this talk, wouldnt we. [/quote]

I don’t see how the lawn-mowing analogy applies. Elizabeth Warren’s job (as I understood it) was to try to figure out what the financial institutions that ran our economy into the ground did to achieve that. As much as corrupt companies kick, scream, bitch, and moan about the government “tying their hands with so much oversight and control,” it’s never the “crushing oversight” and double-checking-of-the-books that sinks a company. However, rampant corruption and gambling away people’s financial futures DOES sink companies when customers finally find how badly their getting fucked, and rightfully so.

I’m in total agreement with you on reducing spending on the defense industry and drug wars. I’m also against the Fed pissing away $12 trillion of our nation’s wealth by writing some extra “0’s” on the ends of transactions with European banks. I do think some projects (like Sarah Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere project) are frivolous too, but pork barrel spending only accounts for 0.5% of our economy. The major problem is that businesses on Wall Street are deeply corrupt, and have no problem gambling away your mortgage if it increases their bottom line, and politicians are all too happy to offer these businesses tax holidays and tax cuts and tax breaks as long as the companies keep stroking the politicians. For example, Exxon Mobile, who’s profits are still the highest in world history, paid 0 in taxes last year. 0!!! That means I paid more in taxes buying a fucking Butterfinger than all of Exxon Mobile did last year. I’m sure you also heard about Warren Buffet paying a smaller percentage of his salary on taxes than his secretary did. This is insanity and it needs to stop. Those are just a few reasons I’m protesting (if you didn’t see my first post in the thread, that has the main reasons haha).[/quote]

Well the lawn mower analogy applies because nobody asks them to do this shit, they do it anyway, waste enormous amounts of money doing it and then demand money at gunpoint.

Hey, how about not doing it?

Warren Buffet does not get a salary, which is voluntary on his part and he is free to donate as much moolah as he sees fit.

Also, are politicians bought and paid for?

Sure, but people like these kids have made sure that they have so much to sell that you practically have to buy one or two.

No, this crazy woman wants more money because she is unwilling to face the people who bought her boss, but that is entirely her problem, not that of some mythical greedy factory owners.

What is this anyway, a Charles Dickens novel!?!

344

[quote]Viking13 wrote:
I’m sure you also heard about Warren Buffet paying a smaller percentage of his salary on taxes than his secretary did.[/quote]

And I’m sure you’ve heard, since I just posted the link, that Buffet’s company has been fighting the IRS for ten years and may very well 1 billion in back taxes…yet he has the nerve to go out and blame the rich for not paying their fair share…classy.

345

[quote]Sloth wrote:

The DNC is seriously going to regret their flirtation with this movement[/quote]

Ah, it seems there are cautionary voices among the liberals.

346

501×750 37.8 KB

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

A good quote I found by Elizabeth Warren is in the picture above (if you couldn’t tell before haha)[/quote]

Awful quote, but superficially plausible I guess.[/quote]

Lol how is it awful? And how is it only superficially plausible?[/quote]

It’s not plausible at all! Her statement is pure idiocy.
#1- Her argument presupposes that the factory owner hasn’t paid for the roads, when in fact he has probably paid much more in taxes than “the rest of us”.
#2- She also implies that the other people who pay taxes for the roads and infrastructure don’t use them, when in fact they do. She is implying that everyone else is paying for roads that only the factory owner gets to use, and he doesn’t pay for them. Complete bullshit.
#3- The arrogance that we will “allow” the factory owner to keep some of his profits. And if you heard this statement live, which I did, her contempt for businesspeople was clear in her tone.
#4- There is no such thing as a “social contract”. She can’t claim a contract and then invent the terms for others. That is not a contract, it is tyrrany.

It’s a simple tactic to pit you against this hypothetical “greedy” factory owner. No mention of the people the factory EMPLOYS. Easy trick, play on your emotions, plenty of people fell for it.[/quote]

To counter some of your points, if you live in a country - any country - you live with an implied social contract (yes, I know it’s not officially written in the constitution or the laws, but it’s the idea off which all laws are based). If you know the works of the Enlightenment thinkers (and I’m sure you do), Rousseau maintained that in order to ensure protection and common, social harmony and the good things that come from living peacefully with a large number of people, one must give up some amount of personal freedom. In our society, most of that is accounted for my having to pay taxes.

If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes. However, the game has changed. It takes more and more money to buy the things people normally have - a house, a car, etc. and unless you’re in the top 1% of society, your wage hasn’t gone up even though you’re working harder than ever. You can’t buy a decent house or car these days without taking out a mortgage and putting your financial future in someone else’s hands. The rich now pay less and less taxes, make more and more money, and fuck over the little guy to do it. Essentially, the bean counters now control all the beans, and they find new and inventive ways to get you to give them your hard-earned beans so they can take 1-out-of-30 gambles on everything from your credit card to your mortgage.

For instance, credit card agreements used to be a page-and-a-half long. Now they’re 30 pages of unintelligible legalese that has phrases like “libor” and “rediscount,” so much so that even Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor, doesn’t even understand her own credit card agreement. The sinister part is, hidden in every single agreement, especially the 140-page mortgage agreements, companies like to slip in the phrase “Not withstanding the foregoing, the company reserves the right to charge any rate at any time.” And a whole bunch of well-meaning, unsuspecting, hard working people got fucked over because they didn’t think anybody would be evil enough to steal their fucking money right out from under them. A toaster comes with a warning saying that there’s the chance it could blow up. Similarly, I think these agreements should be easier to understand and there should be more warning that people could get fucked over.

I know that rant didn’t so much have to do with the individual points you made because I think you took some of the details of the analogy (like who drives on the road) more seriously than the general message, but on point #3, you said she had contempt for the business community and that people “allow” factory owners to have their money. I’m actually totally fine with all that. After the “business community” ran this country’s (and indeed the world’s) economy in the the ground from being the slimiest, most reptilian bunch of fucking pricks on the planet, more people SHOULD have contempt for the business community. It’s a wonder, and is to the American people’s credit that they are so peaceful and docile as to ALLOW these amoral corporate fucks to keep their money. They certainly didn’t earn it. They stole it. And not a single person got fired, not a single person went to jail, every one of them just stroked each other and got handed massive windfall bonuses for doing us the great service of tanking the entire economy. That’s why it’s time to take that money back, and that’s (partly) why I’m protesting.

I’m really not that opinionated. Can you tell? :slight_smile: haha Tits have been posted because I know a lot of people won’t like this post LOL

347

Don’t feel like getting into a pissing match here, so I’m just going to counter your opinions on the business community. You seem like a decent person, but you’ve swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. As a consultant I work with many businesspeople from corporations small and large. I know many high-level executives and CEOs. I will tell you that almost without exception, their concerns are for their shareholders and their employees. This means that they strive every day to maximize profitability because THAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY! And despite the propaganda you hear about “lazy greedy fat cats”, nobody in a company works harder or longer hours than the top level executives. The CEO and VP of our firm work 7 days a week, usually 10-12 hours per day. I know of a CEO of a “big oil” company who sleeps on a pull-out sofa in his office most nights.

Not to say there aren’t assholes and swindlers in business, and it seems a disproportionate amount are in the big-money investment community, but to paint every businessperson with that brush is an absurdity. And your comment that “they stole” the money, you really believe that Elizabeth Warren’s hypothetical factory owner “stole” the money made by his factory? That’s pure Marx right there. If you really think that, please go join the rest of those unwashed lunatics and chant for the end of capitalism and hanging the bourgeoisie, etc. Those of us who aren’t unhinged Maoists will continue ignore you.

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.

And thx for the tits, always welcome!

348

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

A good quote I found by Elizabeth Warren is in the picture above (if you couldn’t tell before haha)[/quote]

Awful quote, but superficially plausible I guess.[/quote]

Lol how is it awful? And how is it only superficially plausible?[/quote]

It’s not plausible at all! Her statement is pure idiocy.
#1- Her argument presupposes that the factory owner hasn’t paid for the roads, when in fact he has probably paid much more in taxes than “the rest of us”.
#2- She also implies that the other people who pay taxes for the roads and infrastructure don’t use them, when in fact they do. She is implying that everyone else is paying for roads that only the factory owner gets to use, and he doesn’t pay for them. Complete bullshit.
#3- The arrogance that we will “allow” the factory owner to keep some of his profits. And if you heard this statement live, which I did, her contempt for businesspeople was clear in her tone.
#4- There is no such thing as a “social contract”. She can’t claim a contract and then invent the terms for others. That is not a contract, it is tyrrany.

It’s a simple tactic to pit you against this hypothetical “greedy” factory owner. No mention of the people the factory EMPLOYS. Easy trick, play on your emotions, plenty of people fell for it.[/quote]

To counter some of your points, if you live in a country - any country - you live with an implied social contract (yes, I know it’s not officially written in the constitution or the laws, but it’s the idea off which all laws are based). If you know the works of the Enlightenment thinkers (and I’m sure you do), Rousseau maintained that in order to ensure protection and common, social harmony and the good things that come from living peacefully with a large number of people, one must give up some amount of personal freedom. In our society, most of that is accounted for my having to pay taxes.

If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes. However, the game has changed. It takes more and more money to buy the things people normally have - a house, a car, etc. and unless you’re in the top 1% of society, your wage hasn’t gone up even though you’re working harder than ever. You can’t buy a decent house or car these days without taking out a mortgage and putting your financial future in someone else’s hands. The rich now pay less and less taxes, make more and more money, and fuck over the little guy to do it. Essentially, the bean counters now control all the beans, and they find new and inventive ways to get you to give them your hard-earned beans so they can take 1-out-of-30 gambles on everything from your credit card to your mortgage.

For instance, credit card agreements used to be a page-and-a-half long. Now they’re 30 pages of unintelligible legalese that has phrases like “libor” and “rediscount,” so much so that even Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor, doesn’t even understand her own credit card agreement. The sinister part is, hidden in every single agreement, especially the 140-page mortgage agreements, companies like to slip in the phrase “Not withstanding the foregoing, the company reserves the right to charge any rate at any time.” And a whole bunch of well-meaning, unsuspecting, hard working people got fucked over because they didn’t think anybody would be evil enough to steal their fucking money right out from under them. A toaster comes with a warning saying that there’s the chance it could blow up. Similarly, I think these agreements should be easier to understand and there should be more warning that people could get fucked over.

I know that rant didn’t so much have to do with the individual points you made because I think you took some of the details of the analogy (like who drives on the road) more seriously than the general message, but on point #3, you said she had contempt for the business community and that people “allow” factory owners to have their money. I’m actually totally fine with all that. After the “business community” ran this country’s (and indeed the world’s) economy in the the ground from being the slimiest, most reptilian bunch of fucking pricks on the planet, more people SHOULD have contempt for the business community. It’s a wonder, and is to the American people’s credit that they are so peaceful and docile as to ALLOW these amoral corporate fucks to keep their money. They certainly didn’t earn it. They stole it. And not a single person got fired, not a single person went to jail, every one of them just stroked each other and got handed massive windfall bonuses for doing us the great service of tanking the entire economy. That’s why it’s time to take that money back, and that’s (partly) why I’m protesting.

I’m really not that opinionated. Can you tell? :slight_smile: haha Tits have been posted because I know a lot of people won’t like this post LOL[/quote]

Now here is an idea.

If you dont understand a contract, dont sign it.

Stand up and walk away.

349

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play.

350

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play. [/quote]

Christ we are agreeing…

/THE END IS NIGH!!!

351

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play. [/quote]

To bad it will never happen…it would be nice to never have another democrat elected to any office…

352

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play. [/quote]

And the terrorism, looting and rioting, would begin in ways we’ve never seen. Of course, that won’t happen since the above doesn’t have a chance of happening in the first place.

353

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play. [/quote]

And the terrorism, looting and rioting, would begin in ways we’ve never seen. Of course, that won’t happen since the above doesn’t have a chance of happening in the first place. [/quote]

Curious why you think this…if they took voting that seriously, would that not encourage them to find employment so they could pay taxes and vote?

354

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play. [/quote]

And the terrorism, looting and rioting, would begin in ways we’ve never seen. Of course, that won’t happen since the above doesn’t have a chance of happening in the first place. [/quote]

Curious why you think this…if they took voting that seriously, would that not encourage them to find employment so they could pay taxes and vote?[/quote]

Voting in the west is now a fundamental human right of the citizen, regardless of tax status. This is recognized far and wide. You try to take that right away in order to secure lower taxes and reduced spending–small government–you will end up with revolution on your hands. And that revolution will easily be seduced by socialist ideology. Hell, we’d make the case for them. “The capitalists took away your RIGHT to vote!” If capitalism can’t win over the poor, then there’s nothing to do for it. It’s convince them to vote for smaller government, as poor folk, or nothing. Try to take away the vote, and the streets will be filled with fire and blood.

355

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play. [/quote]

And the terrorism, looting and rioting, would begin in ways we’ve never seen. Of course, that won’t happen since the above doesn’t have a chance of happening in the first place. [/quote]

Curious why you think this…if they took voting that seriously, would that not encourage them to find employment so they could pay taxes and vote?[/quote]

Voting in the west is now a fundamental human right of the citizen, regardless of tax status. This is recognized far and wide. You try to take that right away in order to secure lower taxes and reduced spending–small government–you will end up with revolution on your hands. And that revolution will easily be seduced by socialist ideology. Hell, we’d make the case for them. “The capitalists took away your RIGHT to vote!” If capitalism can’t win over the poor, then there’s nothing to do for it. It’s convince them to vote for smaller government, as poor folk, or nothing. Try to take away the vote, and the streets will be filled with fire and blood.[/quote]

I see your point…the last thing a person on the government dole wants to see is employed people making the decisions to shrink the government.

356

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

Also, just to note when you said “If you want to live in America and have a voice in how your government is run, you pay taxes.” 47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal tax, but still can vote. If you want to modify voting law so that only those who have paid in can vote on how their money is spent, I’m all for it.
[/quote]

Me like.

You dont pay, you dont play. [/quote]

And the terrorism, looting and rioting, would begin in ways we’ve never seen. Of course, that won’t happen since the above doesn’t have a chance of happening in the first place. [/quote]

Curious why you think this…if they took voting that seriously, would that not encourage them to find employment so they could pay taxes and vote?[/quote]

Voting in the west is now a fundamental human right of the citizen, regardless of tax status. This is recognized far and wide. You try to take that right away in order to secure lower taxes and reduced spending–small government–you will end up with revolution on your hands. And that revolution will easily be seduced by socialist ideology. Hell, we’d make the case for them. “The capitalists took away your RIGHT to vote!” If capitalism can’t win over the poor, then there’s nothing to do for it. It’s convince them to vote for smaller government, as poor folk, or nothing. Try to take away the vote, and the streets will be filled with fire and blood.[/quote]

I obviously wasn’t seriously calling for an end to voting rights, just pointing out a few holes in the argument. But in all seriousness, how about a tax policy that requires everyone to pay in? We now have a permanent class of recipients so large that they can vote themselves more free stuff at the expense of those of us who are productive. This is the beginning of the end IMO. Once that 47% hits 50%, we are done. It will be full-on collapse and Lord of the Flies time.

357

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
We now have a permanent class of recipients so large that they can vote themselves more free stuff at the expense of those of us who are productive. This is the beginning of the end IMO. Once that 47% hits 50%, we are done. It will be full-on collapse and Lord of the Flies time.[/quote]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. "

— Alexis de Tocqueville*

  • Or perhaps Alexander Fraser Tytler, it is unclear who came up with it first.
358

[quote]Viking13 wrote:
For example, Exxon Mobile, who’s profits are still the highest in world history, paid 0 in taxes last year. 0!!! That means I paid more in taxes buying a fucking Butterfinger than all of Exxon Mobile did last year. [/quote]

You’re getting real loose with your words. I don’t know if you’re purposefully lying here or just accidentally omitting some words, but the above is completely false.

359

[quote]malonetd wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:
For example, Exxon Mobile, who’s profits are still the highest in world history, paid 0 in taxes last year. 0!!! That means I paid more in taxes buying a fucking Butterfinger than all of Exxon Mobile did last year. [/quote]

You’re getting real loose with your words. I don’t know if you’re purposefully lying here or just accidentally omitting some words, but the above is completely false.[/quote]

Doesn’t look like 0 to me. They reported income tax of 21,561 million in 2010. I’m no tax expert (I actually hate tax accounting), but I don’t think they reduced there income tax by $21,561,000,000.
http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/3184/4448/

360

"Douglas A. Shackelford, a tax professor at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina told PolitiFact that the $156 million number refers “to the U.S portion of the current and deferred income tax expense.” But he added that this number does not refer to the cash taxes paid by Exxon to the U.S. government.

“It is a (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) number, not a figure from their U.S. corporate tax return,” Shackelford said. “The actual income taxes paid by the Exxon to the U.S. government is confidential information. It is not reported in their financial statements.”

The company agreed with that description. “The U.S. income taxes reported in the financial statements include more than ExxonMobil?s tax bill for 2009,” said Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers. The financial statements, he said, “reflect financial transactions related to U.S. federal income taxes booked by the corporation during the year and include finalization of the taxes for prior years.”

For instance, the liberal Center for American Progress quoted Jeffers saying that the company’s tax figure for 2009 was heavily influenced by a holdover tax issue from 2008 that was technically recorded on its 2009 books. “ExxonMobil was required to bolster its pension plan by $3 billion when the market went down in 2008,” wrote CAP’s Sima J. Gandhi. “This overpayment reduced the amount of taxes owed in 2008, but the tax adjustment wasn’t made until one year later, which led to an overpayment and the refund in 2009.”

The three-year tax numbers listed on the 10-K do seem to suggest that the company’s 2009 tax bill was unusual. In 2007 and 2008, the equivalent tax totals on the 10-K were $4.5 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively, which suggests that some unusual factor reduced the ExxonMobil tax bill into negative territory for 2009.

While the company is not obligated to publicize its tax return, and thus the actual amount it paid in taxes, ExxonMobil has voluntarily released a figure for its actual federal income tax bill in response to media requests that questioned why the company reported a negative tax liability in 2009. Jeffers told PolitiFact that the “U.S. income tax expense for 2009 activities was approximately $500 million.” The company declined to provide documentation for this number, however. U.S. income taxes aren’t the only taxes ExxonMobil paid.

According to the 10-K, ExxonMobil remitted $6.3 billion in sales taxes, $110 million in state income taxes, and $1.5 billion in “other taxes and duties.” All told, the company’s tax liability according to its 10-K was $7.7 billion. (These numbers are not necessarily totals actually paid but derived using generally accepted accounting principles.) And that only counts taxes paid in the U.S. It paid an additional $70 billion-plus in taxes to foreign governments in 2009, $15 billion of which was for income taxes."

361

[quote]Viking13 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’ve got nothing against protesting, but here’s my problem. These people are so mad at the “Wall Street” people, but really what do they represent? A very small portion of the economy. How many of the investors on Wall Street are considered super rich? My guess is very few. Most of the investors are well off, but not rich by any means. Then you have the hate for CEO’s. Men and women that have devoted their lives to their careers. Do they make in some cases an enormous amount of money? Absolutely, but why shouldn’t they. Google, for example, is a multi billion dollar corporation why shouldn’t the CEO, the person that steers the multi billion dollar ship, get a few million in compensation. When compared to Google’s income CEO compensation is a small percentage of corporate expenses. At the same time these protestors are in love with the corporations they claim to hate. How many of them use Facebook on their Iphone to organize the protest? During the protests over a million pre-orders for the Iphone 4s have been placed. America loves this stuff and my guess is so do many of the protestors.

The bottom line is many of these protestors are kids. They have never worked a crap job, they have never paid into unemployment (yet collect it), they are 40 years from retirement, but are crying about retirement, they are crying about a lack of jobs, they are crying about few opportunities, they are crying they got lied into going to college and taking on debt, but the truth is there are jobs out there for them, but they feel entitled to higher paying jobs. Entitlement is the problem with these protests.

“It’s not fair that the Wall Street guy is rich. We should get that money”. That’s the message I get from these protestors.

I’m sure some of the protestors have a point and have been shit on by corporate greed. It exists for sure and I am not defending corporations or fraudulent activities of investors. I just don’t agree with the protestors message. [/quote]

Thanks for coming from a different viewpoint without simply flaming. I expected to catch a bunch of heat for my post but I guess the titties staved that off a little haha. But I don’t think it’s just “entitlement” per se that fuels the protests. No doubt, not everyone in the protests is Einstein or Isaac Newton, but really, who is in any protest? You don’t need to be Alan Greenspan to be mad at the situation the country’s in right now. And you don’t need to be an economist to realize how badly you’re getting fucked by the system every day. Or know that you’re losing your house, your job, or that the game is rigged.

It’s been said in this forum that, “if the bailouts are the problem, protest the Obama administration in D.C.” That comment has some merit, but the truth is, nearly EVERY President (and certainly every recent President, not to mention nearly EVERY member of Congress, and even a Supreme Court judge or two) has been completely bought and sold by the corporations and multinational banks. Ever notice how Obama made all those promises about all those great liberal things he was going to fight for and do for the country but never made good on? That’s because Goldmann Sachs gave him $1 million during his presidential campaign, and now Timothy Geitner (sp?) is his Secretary of the Treasury. It’s no surprise there haven’t been sweeping reforms that our financial system desperately needs.

Also, the last President to ever fight against the constant expansion of the country’s military industrial complex, or to expose the secret forces behind the government that really run the show, got shot in the fucking head. Pretty powerful reason to do the corporation’s bidding, huh? So it’s more important to go after the source - the banks and the corporations - rather than the puppets - the politicians.

A good quote I found by Elizabeth Warren is in the picture above (if you couldn’t tell before haha)[/quote]

Maybe my view is jaded, but I just don’t feel the same way as you. I don’t feel like I get screwed daily by big corporations mainly because I live comfortably within my means and I rarely try to “keep up with the Jones’” I certainly buy things I want and I’ve seen a reduction in my small retirement plan and that sucks, but the opportunities I’ve had and hopefully will continue to have make me want to work hard not complain about corporate greed.

Corporate Greed is a product of us. What I mean is if we as a society weren’t so greedy as far as out mentality of, “gimmie gimmie gimmie,” Corporations wouldn’t have such control over us. Protesting is fine, but not buying the new Iphone every single year or whatever hot product is out would hurt the corporations more.

I think the underlying problem is the government. Government officials are influenced by big business. We need to minimize this. I listed several ways I’d minimize this earlier. Term limits for all public offices, all offices should be voluntary, eliminate campaign contributions entirely (instead broadcast campaigns messages over the web or something less costly), eliminate the 2 party system, etc… I agree that the way things are going needs to change and we need to force this change. I just don’t think standing outside Wall Street is the right way to do it. Who knows maybe it will lead to positive change, but my guess is that it will not and that the change these particular protestors want is not the change this nation needs.

To you comment about the military. Here’s my take. 1.) the military is one of only a few actual duties of the nation, and 2.) It costs far less than social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while simultaneously employing millions of military personnel and civilian personnel that in turn pay taxes. It is an important job vehicle for this nation and a solid tax revenue producers.