The Myth of High US Corporate Taxes

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

 

The Republican spin machine is at it again. They falsified "evidence" against Iraq, in the 80's and during the Bush administration sold the myth of " trickle down" to to the public to give their main contributors a massive tax break.

Now they are after corporate taxes. Why should the top .5% have all the fun as individuals when they can double dip as corporate CEOS....

 It's deja vu all over again...and was tried once before in 2004 under the auspices of the American Job Creation Act of 2004.

In 2004 McCain,  called it the "worst example of the influence of the special interests I have ever seen."

< McCain contemplating tax policy...and his fiber intake.

Now, firmly in the pocket of mainstream Republicanism, ex-maverick McCain and the old guard have set their sights set once again on our " abusive" corporate income tax code. You know, the oppressive corporate tax that 66% of US and foreign corporations operating in the US do not pay now or have not paid in the past according to a report released this month from the GAO that analyzed tax records from 1998-2005.

SPIN: McCain demands a cut in the Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent. "A lower corporate tax rate is essential to U.S. competitiveness. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace, leaving us with the second-highest rate among the world’s advanced economies."

FACT: GAO:Two-thirds of U.S. corporations  paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.( while exporting jobs at a record rate)

FACT: More than 38,000 foreign corporations doing bussiness in the US had no tax liability in 2005.

FACT: 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales.

FACT: 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.n( while exporting jobs at a record rate)

 

Even the corporations that do pay rarely if ever, pay the 35% tax rate. most pay an effective rate between 15-20% US companies paid an average of $11.88 in corporate taxes for every $1,000 in gross receipts.

It gets better:

FACT Over 1.6 million businesses owed over $58 billion in unpaid federal payroll taxes, including interest and penalties. Some of these businesses took advantage of the existing tax enforcement and administration system to avoid fulfilling or paying federal tax obligations—thus abusing the federal tax system. Over a quarter of payroll taxes are owed by businesses with more than 3 years (12 tax quarters) of unpaid payroll taxes.

Why is that? Like all things tainted by Republicanism the IRS's overall approach under the Bush administration is that "collection focuses primarily on gaining voluntary compliance"—even for egregious payroll tax offenders—a practice that can result in minimal or no actual collections" for these offenders.

In other words we can

  • Rigorously enforce stem cell research bans,
  • Aggressively protect frozen embryo's,
  • Demand abstinence only in the schools
  • Fret endlessly over Janet Jacksons breasts.
  • Set the Justice Department #1 prosecutorial priority as "pornography" (in the age of Terrorism).
  • Cut Veterans programs.
  • Suppress scientific evidence about global warming.
  • Save Terry Schivo
  • And, in a cynical nod to"fiscal responsibility",insist on a 10% reduction in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements at the detriment to the elderly and the sick.
However, when it comes to enforcing the law, particularly laws they don't like...nada. 

The whole Corporate tax rate argument rings hollow. Why? As noted above ,because they tried it before.

In 2004 the Republican controlled Congress passed the conservative solution essential to U.S. competitiveness the American Job Creation Act of 2004. The law was purported to create American jobs by providing huge tax incentives to companies  in the USA.

At the time McCain called it: "worst example of the influence of the special interests I have ever seen."

In fact the act provided 250 billion in tax breaks to whole multitude of  Republican insiders. It purportedly gave tax deductions to American manufacturers, and offered a one-time tax holiday in 2005 when corporations could "repatriate" their foreign income at a bargain tax rate.

This repatriation according, to the Republicans would"encourage R & D and capital investment in the United States", leading to new American jobs.

Sound familiar? So how did it work?

"IBM, for example, is banking a $2.8 billion refund—well, better to call it a "tax savings"—because instead of paying the normal corporate tax rate  on $9.5 billion in profits it earned overseas, the company paid only 5.25 percent. "

So what does IBM do? Create American jobs with their repatriation? No, within days after repatriating billions of dollars in foreign profit IBM implemented a program called LEAN. From a leaked IBM email:

"LEAN is about offshoring and outsourcing at a rate never seen before at IBM. For two years Big Blue has been ramping up its operations in India and China with what shareholders have been told is the ultimate goal of laying off at least one American worker for every overseas hire. The plan is to continue until at least half of Global Services, or about 150,000 workers, have been cut from the U.S. division."

Examples of what other big companies did:

"Some companies taking advantage of the generous tax break haven't even tried to hide their layoffs. In January 2005, on the same day National Semiconductor said that it was repatriating $500 million under the American Jobs Creation Act,it announced it was cutting 6 percent of its workforce, Colgate-Palmolive, which in December 2004 announced plans to cut more than 4,000 jobs, brought back $800 million in overseas profits last year. "

One item in the bill...oddly, was a provision to allow the deduction of sales taxes..but only if your state did'nt have a state income tax.

"The big winners will be higher-income people in states that have a sales tax but no income tax: Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming. Tennessee taxes only dividend and interest income. Alaska and New Hampshire have no income or statewide sales tax, but Alaska has local sales taxes.

Except for Washington, all those states went for Bush/Cheney in 2000. Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Washington are considered swing states in the  2004 upcoming election"

So Republicans can puff up and crow about  "huge tax incentives" to create jobs... it doesn't matter.Its about patronage and rewarding supporters to the detriment of all.

Lesson learned: be very, very, suspicious of claims by Republicans / conservatives of tax reduction plans  " that create American jobs."

It's fiduciary version of  "will you respect me in the morning" question. The answer is a resounding NO.  Ask the former IBM employees.

Occasionally, as in this case ,McCain claims to toss some peanuts to the common folks to try and influence an election but the real target of this largess are the RNC contributors and the status quo. McCains plans are simply designed to reward Republicans and their contributors; the super-wealthy and their special interest buddies.

We are told that companies are not people, people in turn own companies. In theory that may be true but companies are actually controlled by CEOs and board members.

Without fundamental reforms on corporate board members and CEO pay , how corporations declare and pay dividends , regulations on stock buy backs and reforms on permissible write offs and deductions, corporate tax cuts are another trillion dollar give away.

The argument that the Treasury will see more revenue with from increased stock values, stock sales, and from dividends from the shareholders is phony as well with out similar reforms in capitol gains and dividend tax rates.

So in the end its all smoke and mirrors...as envisioned by the Republicans it will be a  " voluntary " program. It sounds good in sound bites but the details are that McCain's corporate tax cut has no incentives at all to create anything except bigger bonuses for CEO's and board members and, of course, Republican campaign coffers.

To Republicans, freedom is only worthwhile when someone else is paying for it.

Sources Slate ,WaPo

< Russia Is Correct | The latest election poll from Air America >
 Display:
100 responses?

They should all say "Wow, this information is stunning and DAMNING for Republicans who say US corporations pay too much in taxes".

This is especially damning since it comes from the non-partisan GAO rather than a think tank or other group that some might criticize.

Excellent find as usual Fred, and I recommended this post. Everyone should recommend this post (click the button on the right side of the page) and Cenk HAS to talk about this and hopefully make a youtube clip about it.

by ihavenobias on 08/12/2008 11:50:42 AM EST


“If you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it.” -- Ronald Reagan

America needs more manufacturing jobs. If we give manufacturing companies three dollars in tax credits for every dollar they spend on salaries paid in America, the net result will be more manufacturing jobs.

by KenTX on 08/12/2008 12:27:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
in this latest time period with much, much lower corporate taxes (because no one is paying them)?

The End

by ihavenobias on 08/12/2008 12:37:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

 

If we give manufacturing companies three dollars in tax credits for every dollar they spend on salaries paid in America Ken TX

 “If you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it.” -- Ronald Reagan

" You get what you inspect, not what you expect" MrFred

That would be fine...but there is no provision to enforce that...under almost all Republican tax plans " that will "create American jobs" to date...after all the loopholes and exemptions are put in place.... it is "voluntary" except raking in the savings and adding up the deficits.

More precisely

McCain says this Cutting the corporate tax will expand the U.S. economy, creating jobs and opportunities for prosperity.

 What he means is this: Cutting the corporate taxes may expand the U.S. economy and could creat new  jobs and opportunities for prosperity.

You know full well that is not the case...its all talk . Unless the tax laws require bonafide jobs to be created..it will never happen.

by MRFred on 08/12/2008 12:42:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Incentivize the behavior you want to promote. Give tax credits to corporations based upon salaries paid to manufacturing workers. Give oil companies 75% of the oil they take from public land.

by KenTX on 08/12/2008 02:26:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I am well aware of how to incentivize, I did raise several children and grandchildren.

I'm all for incentives. My sons had the incentive of avoiding my boondockers on their lilly white butts,  with the additional carrot of Yes Son you made an A on tha report, you can borrow the car ...etc.

The problem is in the execution, most readers who care to recall, have seen this before. Starting with Reagan the behavior that was to be "incentivised" turned out to be more like a "suggestion". They had it backasswards

Now that you have your billion dollars could you please create a few jobs?

by MRFred on 08/12/2008 05:55:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kind of like Bill O'Reilly proposing that the Big Oil companies voluntarily donate 2% of their profits to help working families deal with high energy costs.

by ihavenobias on 08/12/2008 06:08:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is an excellent post that I will forward to my friends...as well as enemies.  The point is not whether or not any Republican theory on how tax breaks to the wealthy will positively affect America, the point is that it just isn't happening.  The US is giving tax breaks to greedy people who don't care about us.  They care about their own bottom line.  Thanks, Fred.  This is great.  And, thanks, Ken, for....well, nothing, I guess.

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 08/12/2008 12:44:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

40 billion responses

by Twba on 09/03/2008 02:53:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
MRFred wrote: Even the corporations that do pay rarely if ever, pay the 35% tax rate. most pay an effective rate between 15-20%

What are the effective rates in other countries and how do they compare to America's?

In recent years, while countries from Ireland to Estonia have been cutting corporate taxes to attract new jobs and investment, the U.S. has fallen drastically behind the wave of corporate tax reform.

Today, the combined U.S. corporate tax rate stands at 39.3 percent. That means America now has the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the world--even higher than socialist Sweden and welfare-states Germany and France.

Even our effective tax rates (that is, the rate companies actually pay after deductions and credits) are high. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the U.S. effective tax rate on manufacturing and services is 37.7 percent, which is fourth highest in the world.

If America's rate is so low, why did InBev purchase Anheuser Busch rather than the other way around?

Politicians and Wall Streeters are starting to ask why the Belgian beer company InBev purchased Anheuser-Busch and not the other way around. Anheuser-Busch is an iconic American firm and some find it almost unpatriotic that Anheuser CEO August Busch IV allowed the "King of Beers" to relocate across the Atlantic -- though shareholders were the big winners here with a $50 billion-plus takeaway.

But here's the real question: Was the takeover basically financed by the savings Anheuser expected from escaping America's increasingly uncompetitive corporate tax system? According to the Tax Foundation, Belgium's corporate tax rate is 33%, but the effective tax rate can be half the nominal rate thanks to adjustments for something the OECD calls a "notional allowance for corporate equity." Bottom line: InBev was paying around 20% of its profits in corporate taxes, compared to Anheuser-Busch's rate of 38.4%.

Things have gotten pretty bad when U.S. companies relocate to Europe to cut their tax payments. But a research analysis by Morgan Stanley finds the combined company's corporate tax bill will be lower than in the U.S. and that the tax differential indeed figured into the economics of the sale.

by Twba on 08/12/2008 02:07:56 PM EST


I don't know if you guys are smart enough to follow this post, but Twba just beat the hell out of Democrat Socialism. There is no rebuttal.

by KenTX on 08/12/2008 02:46:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Get a room.

by MRFred on 08/12/2008 10:22:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll be in Boca in a few weeks. Is the Mariott Courtyard OK with you?

by KenTX on 08/12/2008 10:28:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That skank trap? We are up in Orlando right now spending time with the new grandson and helping out the family.

by MRFred on 08/12/2008 11:05:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba, here's some toilet paper.  Ken missed a spot.

by OneHitKill on 08/12/2008 10:40:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks to Robert Borsage:

"...Not surprisingly, the income collected from corporations has been declining as a percentage of GDP, with the burden transferred to your income and payroll taxes. According to a study by the Treasury Department, from 2000-2006, an average of 2.2% of GDP was collected in corporate taxes. This compares to an average of 3.4% in other industrial countries. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that, under current law, corporate revenues will decline to 1.9% of GDP by 2017.


Why is this important? Well, the Bush Administration, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and conservatives led by John McCain are mounting a major campaign to cut the corporate tax rate even more, arguing that we are crippled competitively by having a US rate higher than any industrial nation other than Japan. "America has the second highest business [tax]rate in the entire world," says John McCain. "Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas? We're taxing them out of the country."

"But the GAO study confirms what we already knew: whatever the nominal tax rate, US corporations pay an effective rate among the lowest in the industrial world...

...To pay for these [proposed McCain Corporate] tax breaks, sustain the Bush tax cuts, add more tax breaks AND balance the budget in four years, as McCain promises, will require heroic cuts in spending. Not military spending; McCain promises to increase that. How will he do this? On the stump, McCain promises to veto any earmarked spending.

But that is a gesture, providing about $18 billion a year. (And he isn't exactly consistent. McCain often tells folks who defend a local project that it is the process, not the individual project that he opposes.) Perhaps that's why McCain calls for raising Medicare taxes on seniors with over $50,000 a year in income and taxing employer-based health care benefits for families. Working people and seniors will help pay the tab for the corporate tax give-away.


It's hard not to wonder about the pure, contrary, inanity of the current conservative position. Our military is by far the strongest in the world, while our trains are among the slowest and our sewers are collapsing. So they propose raising spending the military and cutting domestic investment.

We suffer gilded age inequality, with the wealthiest 15,000 families --one-one hundredth of one percent of the population--capturing fully one-fourth of the entire income growth from 2000 to 2006. Their average income rose from $15.2 million per year to $29.7 million per year. Meanwhile, the rest of us - 133 million households that make up 90% of the country - divided up 4% of the nation's income, adding about $305 to our average $30,354 income. So conservatives push for more tax cuts for the wealthy, while proposing to tax employer based health benefits.

Corporate profits (prior to the recession) have catapulted to what is by far the highest percentage of national income in the past half century. So they want to cut corporate taxes, inevitably increasing the burden on labor. The economic future looks dim because consumers, drowning in debt, are cutting back. So they suggest cutting taxes on corporate investments will generate new investments and growth - as if companies don't need someone to buy the products they make..."

Ihavenobias says: It's amazing how corporate profits are so amazingly high here *in spite of* the supposedly overly high taxe rates. Hmm, interesting...





 

by ihavenobias on 08/12/2008 04:07:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Borosage wrote: Today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study on taxes paid by corporations. In what Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) mildly called "a shocking indictment of the current tax system," the GAO found that about two-thirds of corporations operating in the US did not pay taxes annually from 1998 to 2005.

Let's look at the study. It starts with a cover letter to Sen. Dorgan:

The Honorable Byron Dorgan
United States Senate

In response to your long-standing concerns about whether foreign-controlled U.S. corporations are abusing transfer prices and avoiding U.S. income tax, we compared the tax liabilities of foreign- and U.S.-controlled companies incorporated in the U.S. in three prior reports. We reported that from 1989 through 2000 foreign-controlled corporations were more likely to report zero U.S. income tax liability than U.S.-controlled corporations with a majority of both types of corporations reporting no liability. We said that corporations may not report U.S income taxes for a variety of reasons including current-year operating losses, tax credits, and transfer pricing abuses.

Transfer prices are the prices related companies, such as a parent and subsidiary, charge on intercompany transactions. By manipulating transfer prices, multinational companies can shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, reducing the companies' overall tax liability.

If America's corporate income tax rate is so low, why are so many corporations suspected of using transfer pricing to move income to nations with lower tax rates? Shouldn't the transfer be taking place in the other direction? Shouldn't foreign corporations be moving income into the US to take advantage of our low tax rates?

Borosage wrote: But in 2005, with corporate profits reaching new heights as a percentage of national income, the GAO found that over one-fourth -- 28% of large corporations paid no taxes. (It defined large corporations as those with assets of at least $250 million dollars or gross receipts of at least $50 million dollars.) They can tell you how to make $50 million dollars and not pay taxes.

They had at least 50 million dollars in sales. I doubt very much that those sales were 100 percent profit. They had expenses like raw materials and wages to deduct before arriving at taxable income on line 30. For instance, in 2005, General Motors reported sales of 193 billion dollars. It paid no federal income tax, because GM's taxable income was negative.

Of course, 72 percent of those large corporations can tell you how to make enough money to owe taxes.

Borosage wrote: Not surprisingly, the income collected from corporations has been declining as a percentage of GDP, with the burden transferred to your income and payroll taxes. According to a study by the Treasury Department, from 2000-2006, an average of 2.2% of GDP was collected in corporate taxes. This compares to an average of 3.4% in other industrial countries.

In other words, countries with lower tax rates collect a larger percentage of their GDP with a corporate income tax. Ireland collects about three and a half percent of GDP with a corporate income tax rate of 12.5 percent. Isn't this an indication that America's corporate income tax rate might be on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?

by Twba on 08/15/2008 08:01:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
To realize that the costs of running a business, large or small in America is outrageous.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what is prompting these corporations to skip out on America.

Its the money, Lebowski!!!!

If America is going to be a Capitalist soceity, then we need to lift the restrictions and lower the tax rates to let business flow smoothly...

If America is going to be a Socialist nation, then we need to continue raising the taxes and nationalize commodities...

So, we as a nation have to decide what we want - Its that simple... Isnt it?

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 02:59:04 PM EST


Of course its the money. No amount of simplistic Republican style slash and burn tax cuts will ever be able to compete with the third world countries that subsidize education of the brightest, allow the sick and the poor and the average to simply die on the streets, give up any semblance of clean air and water for a " friendly business climate." plus a few billion in bribes on the back end to look the other way. They simply don't give a rats ass about the common citizens. Is that what you want? Apparently.

So when you cut taxes and hope for the best ( and a few campaign donations) you get Bush terms 1 and 2 

And it not as silly or simple as dragging out the old "socialism" straw man either

This is the greatest country on earth, right? You guy's say so all the time.  I think so. We just invested a trillion dollars to invade Iraq. We gave IBM and other companies 250 Billion in 2004 to "creat American jobs..." they instead invested in American outsourcing and pocketed the tax cut as profits. So the trillion we spent to protect IBM and other corporations, provide a stable business environment, and all the others things our country stands for...isn't worth a few tax cuts?

So I've got a deal for ya, go to , oh let's say go to your local Lexus dealership and offer him 20K for a E450 and see what you get other than laughed off the lot.

So you expect to live in the greatest country on earth for chump change? The rich can move offshore to a third world "paradise" because they can afford the security guards and bring in their own doctor, purify their own water and other things.

It's funny how those who claim to love this country so much are the first to leave if they can make a few bucks on the cheap. 

When you leave, turn in your flag pin please.

 

by MRFred on 08/12/2008 10:51:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Using Slate or the Washington Post as your sources for some of these baloney numbers should disqualify you from any serious discussion on Economics...

You guys always accuse me of throwing BSA facts around - Slate and Wapo do that and make money in the process!!!

Thanks again...

:)

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 03:01:57 PM EST


Washington Post and Slate are baloney sources? Slate is partisan, maybe, but they don't lie. The Washington Post? You're a clown, dude. You got the bulbous nose and the floppy shoes and everything. Keep talking, its hysterical.

by hazmat on 08/12/2008 04:27:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I just found out that Slate is owned by WaPo.  Bobo, what are you smoking?  The Washington Post isn't a credible source?  Compared to what?

by desertpear on 08/12/2008 05:16:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You have to admit The Washington Times *is* a more credible source than The Washington Post.



*Skim Me

by ihavenobias on 08/12/2008 05:18:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo is the oracle you know.  He can divine "facts" that nobody else can ever seem to find/prove.

by Spencer on 08/12/2008 05:25:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is a Corporate Owned Newspaper. If you trust anything a newspaper like that tells you, you are stupider than I had hoped for...

Come on Pear - do you actually believe they tell the truth on Slate or on WaPo? Come on - you know better than that! Those are opinion sites, nothing more...

:)

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 08:02:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

we are all dying to know.


 

by MRFred on 08/12/2008 10:52:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm just not silly enough to take in all of their numbers, polls and other such "findings" and actually take them at face value - in this soceity, that's utter madness. Its called thinking for yourselves - some of you should try it sometimes - Its very liberating... :)

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 11:49:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Im sure you dont, I dont take the Daily Wizard or the Klansman News and Gazett.

Regardless,

If you trust anything a newspaper like that tells you, you are stupider than I had hoped for... I'm just not silly enough to take in all of their numbers, polls and other such "findings" and actually take them at face value

It's instructive about your mindset that every information source that contradicts your insular little fantasy world is somehow suspect.

Of course you can think, if you can call it that, for yourself. Its obvious that you need that to create the reality that you prefer.   You can "think" for yourself and pick and choose the "bobo" narrative that suits your mood or sobriety.

The fact that you claim to be a teacher is even more frightening. So if bobo find some silly little fact he finds inconveient he just inserts the bobo version?

So what is an accurate source? I suppose great outlets of unbiased reporting like the Washington Times, World Net News, Fox..all soooo acurate are to be preferred?

In case you havent noticed here in the Forum, we have debates and dialogues...pretty presumptuous of you assume that we all blindly believe every thing we read and post. Of course only "we guys" would do that right?

For the sake of argument I often use sources I may question in some way, but this is the "internets"...not a formal debate or some oped piece...I compare several sources , if they all track pretty much the same way..its Ok for "internets" work. I also take positions I normally wouldn't take just for the sake of discussion...and for fun.

Or you can emulate Ken and just make shit up loosely based on some obscure neocon news story, Limbaugh or right wing propaganda. At least Ken has the sack to admit it.

 I choose to blog conservative propaganda in a left leaning forum KenTx

 Why don't you grow a sack and do the same?

 

 

by MRFred on 08/13/2008 10:27:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]

What about GAO don't you understand?

and no it doesnt mean Greater Alcoholic Output , we plenty of that from you as it is.

by MRFred on 08/12/2008 06:59:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What a Federal Government Office tells you?

I thought you were smarter than that. If you are just gonna go around spewing Government funded propoganda, I'll just start calling you Bought and Paid for...

:)

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 08:00:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Other than your crystal ball and Lou Dobbs I mean.

by Spencer on 08/12/2008 08:08:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But having the ability to seek out where its coming from, knowing its motivations and generally not suckling BS off the corporate titty is the real trick. You guys throw around newspaper polls and "statistics" like they are proven Gospel... They aren't, and relying on them to prove some unprovable point is silly! No one with capital interests should be believed... :)

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 09:20:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Something like "Yes, but he's less full than most others".

by ihavenobias on 08/12/2008 09:45:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So it's one of those glass half full or glass half empty situations.

by Spencer on 08/12/2008 09:51:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I watch Lou Dobbs because I agree with his opinions on issues (since his is an opinion show). When have I ever relayed or relied on any sort of numerical or empirical "facts" I saw on an opinion show? - Never, that's when - I simply voice my agreement or disagreement. I choose and filter the info I take in - many of you just accept info and numbers with blind faith - that's a recipe for disaster!!!

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 10:27:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

when you have no facts to base them on?  Where do YOU get facts specifically?  Because no source seems to be pure enough.  I assume you read The Nation, right?  NPR?  PBS?  Or are those all too corporate?

This is a classic right winger move.  Muddy the waters.  Nothing is real.  There are no agreed upon facts.

by Spencer on 08/12/2008 10:46:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"When have I ever relayed or relied on any sort of numerical or empirical "facts" I saw on an opinion show?"

Bobo, you understand the words "I saw on an opinion show" are completely necessary in this sentence

by ProfRich on 08/13/2008 12:00:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You were right the first time!

And by the way, thanks for the kind words on the Obama Fan Club post - Im glad I hold a special level of schtick in your heart!!!

:)

by bobo1 on 08/13/2008 12:26:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Have you ever heard of the term "paper of record" bobo?   I know what you are trying to say about corporate-owned media, but you are missing the mark.  I'm not saying any newspaper is infallible or completely unbiased, but some are of much higher repute than others and are not just printing fake shit. 

by desertpear on 08/13/2008 02:52:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm glad you're here. In all sincerity. You and ken do in fact provide a valuable service. I don't know what motivates you (it almost sounds made up sometimes), but if you wingnuts didn't post here, I wouldn't have anyone to heap abuse on when I hear stupid right-wing talking points. That came out wrong. Seriously, I think you're a trooper either way. There's something to be said for that isn't there?

by hazmat on 08/12/2008 07:01:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"If you wingnuts didn't post here, I wouldn't have anyone to heap abuse on when I hear stupid right-wing talking points."
 
The game we are playing here is interactive rather than passive. It's like playing chess with an opponent in Seattle over the internet.

It's like Fantasy Campaign Manager, or Fantasy Spin Doctor.

Isn't it more fun to argue with Rush Limbaugh's proxy than listen to Rush Limbaugh?

The thing I could never understand is the need for personal attacks? It's a lot more fun to debate the issues than hurl insults. But I've learned over the years that the only way to deal with abusive behavior is to confront it, head on.

There are plenty of sites where you can talk with like-minded liberals. At TYT, you can actually debate and exchange ideas and perspective with the other side.

Fortunately, there are only a couple of participants with zero tolerance for conservative participation. One of those guys has left the building.


by KenTX on 08/12/2008 07:34:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Really?  ...  No, really?  "The thing I could never understand is the need for personal attacks?"  Said the guy who ended an argument with this.  And that's one of the thousands of examples I could pull here.  Honestly, you've got no room to throw stones in this area.

Other than that, I guess I kind of agree.  It is fun to debate with someone when they'll actually debate you and not just repeat the same shit over and over again (like you and Rush do).  But what do I know?  I actually do enjoy listening to Limbaugh, so I'm probably insane.

by Spencer on 08/12/2008 07:52:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If DP insists on making McCain's age an issue, then it is certainly fair play to make her gender an issue. And it is equally fair play to make the political history of the African continent an issue, with respect to the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Of course all of these positions are equally ridiculous. I was illustrating the absurdity of her position by offering a mirror image absurd position.

McCain is unqualified because of his age? Then Hillary Clinton is unqualified because of her gender, and Barack Obama is unqualified because of his ancestry.

We've had a successful president who was 87 years old, but we've never had a successful black president or a successful female president.

Interesting that this is the example you offer of an unwarranted attack. I can live with myself.

by KenTX on 08/12/2008 08:34:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Honestly, this isn't the discussion I wanted to have, but here goes. 

"McCain is unqualified because of his age? Then Hillary Clinton is unqualified because of her gender, and Barack Obama is unqualified because of his ancestry."

Age has negative effects on your brain in the end (being that it's the process of gradual decay and all).  You can't deny that.  It's a legitimate concern.  It says something about your mental process that you equate that with being black or female.

And let's remind people how that exchange startedYou are the one who brought name calling into a completely unrelated thread (and really subpar name calling might I add).

by Spencer on 08/12/2008 08:49:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
for pointing out what should be obvious.

Age has consistent, well researched, documented and published (in respected peer reviewed journals) negative effects on the Central Nervous System.

That is beyond dispute, but for more details do a Medline search for cognitive decline age (or something like that).

by ihavenobias on 08/12/2008 09:25:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]


McCain is unqualified because of his age?

Yes, and because of his policies.

And his record.

And his military charlatanism.

And his musical tastes. 

We've had a successful president who was 87 years old, but we've never had a successful black president or a successful female president.

We've never had an unsuccessful black or female president, either. 

by OneHitKill on 08/12/2008 10:32:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

With his creepy double dose of Abba in his fave list I think his campaign song should be:

If you change your mind

I'm the first in line.

Honey, I'm still free,

Take a chance on me.

Isn't that the thrust of his whole campaign anyway?

Well, one of the many multi-directional uncoordinated thrusts.

 

by ProfRich on 08/12/2008 11:57:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

 

This from you was completely unprovoked, for example, just so our newer members don't get misled:

"Liberals like ProfRich and desertpair and ihavenofuckingclue are complete imbeciles on the subject of energy. What I mean by that is that these three individuals are totally mentally retarded when it comes to issues such as producing oil or converting energy from one form to another. And yet they continue talking about energy, as if they have something worthwhile to say on the subject."

 

You are a forum bully.

by desertpear on 08/12/2008 08:23:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Everything in that paragraph is true. I wouldn't debate you on the subject of mountain beavers, or whatever your area of strength is. By the same respect, you should tread very lightly when it comes to energy.

by KenTX on 08/12/2008 08:45:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

If we do that, will you tread lightly when it comes to [...checks list...] everything else?  That's the only fair way I can think of to counter-balance your epic want of internet social skills.

Watch what you agree to, for I will hold you to it.

by OneHitKill on 08/12/2008 10:39:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Anyone who is interested can go and read the thread and see that you accused me falsely.  Which you do often.  Its strange.  It seems every time an argument begins to pressure you, you automatically assume I am one of those attacking you.

Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not.

Either way you always seem to be hearing my footsteps.

by ProfRich on 08/12/2008 11:21:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I hung one out there, just for you, and you chose not to bite.

by KenTX on 08/13/2008 01:42:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I can hang just fine.  I know you like this to be the boy's club, but oh well.  I will tread where I want.  My strengths are myriad old chap.  Sadly, you are like a robot that repeats the same meaningless program over and over.

by desertpear on 08/13/2008 03:03:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]

One mistatement I found was this:

"We are told that companies are not people, people in turn own companies. In theory that may be true but companies are actually controlled by CEOs and board members.

 

Corporations are considered Natural Persons under the law.

And that makes me just sick. 

by Andrew Koenig on 08/12/2008 03:33:50 PM EST


"Corporations are considered Natural Persons under the law." You are right on the money. And that point is the root cause of 90 percent of these troubles... Good Call...

by bobo1 on 08/12/2008 11:54:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: