Gee, who could have predicted...

[Rustic]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

That's a good excuse to want to murder everyone you disagree with… LOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

More interesting? Possibly. What's more interesting, entertainment or politics? What's more interesting, real policies or make belief ones? Has the US sunk so low that people who are entertaining are the ones who get listened to? Those with real ideas don't?

Imagine an interview for the job of CEO of a large multi-national company, and the person who gets the job is the one who is the most entertaining. Wouldn't happen, would it?

You might have been bored by Bush, but he also might have run the country better. Think about it.

Perhaps, but I don't get to make that call. Like you, I only have one vote and I didn't use it for Trump in the primaries. I voted for our governor out of solidarity. Had I known of his lack of integrity he displayed after the primary, I would have never voted for him at all.

When people look for a President, they look for a little bit of toughness. Jeb just is't tough. George had a little bit of that, and DumBama has a strong voice even though he's really a wimp. But you have to have something that displays a hint of leadership besides words when running for President. Look at Sanders and how he spoke. Hillary is just a natural bitch and everybody knows it.

Guys like Huckabee and Ben Carson just didn't stand a chance; not because of what they said, but because of their soft spoken nature.

Yes, we have been drawn towards celebrities for quite some time now. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jessie Ventura were both Governors. Cher got into the entertainment business with her husband, Sonny Bono, who eventually became a Mayor and then US Senator. Ronald Reagan was an actor.

So ask yourself, did these people get into various government positions because of their great policy ideas?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But that was back in the time when the states actually meant independent states. That isn't so any more. The current system leads to some states having much less power anyway. California still has more EC votes than Wyoming. So it's mob rule just in a slightly different way.

For every electoral college vote in California, you have 711,000 people voting. For ever EC vote in Wyoming you have 195,000 people voting. So a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California by 3 1/2 times. Why should the people in Wyoming be given such power and the people in California have such little power?

Most of the time the mob wins the election. Does this cause problems?

The one thing it does do is allow the rich to completely take over. The Founding Fathers intended a system which gave power to the people. They wanted to do away with a monarch having total control over things, and put this in the hands of the people. Well something went wrong in their calculations. The people aren't in control any more, this is the biggest problem. The system is so easily open to abuse, it's ridiculous. The people don't have a say in who will be their president, they don't have a say in how their Congress will act, the rich decide. And this is why it needs to change.

Things have change. I understand that now the conservatives have seen that the system unfairly represents them, and gives them a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had, but it's unfair, and a person of principles would see that what the founders wanted no longer exists anyway.

Perhaps, but getting rid of the College would drive that even further away from what they wanted.

You did stumble on a good point though, and that is states don't have the power that they used to. If anything is to change, that should be the first target. Remember too that a Presidents decision or policy can affect states differently. So it's imperative that they do have some advantage over larger states with larger populations. It's equitable that they do so.

The rich have not taken over. If that were the case, their taxes would be much lower. If that were the case, they wouldn't be paying over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that were the case, Hillary would have been the winner since she outspent Trump by over a two-to-one margin. If that were the case, corporations would not have to suffer the tens of thousands federal regulations they have to abide by.

The system we have is fine, it's just that you lost this round. But you had eight years of Obama and don't want to give anybody else a turn. Talk about a monarchy. I also believe that people are starting to see the man behind the curtain. The Democrat party is trying to make whites a minority in this country since the first time of our founding. This is because minorities vote Democrat most of the time, and making whites a minority will be a monarchy since we would then be a single-party government for the rest of our time.

Well, whatever the Founding Fathers wanted, it doesn't exist and can't exist. This is 200 something years after they devised a system and it's clearly not working. Perhaps it's time for something else. Most people want to believe that they have an equal say in their country, wouldn't you say? Instead there is a system which treats people unequally. Is that what the modern USA wants to be about?

Yes, states have lost a lot of power. Why? Well it's probably down to collective greed. People wanted to be the best, they want to go around the world kicking ass and all that stuff, you need a strong federal govt for that. The US with strong states and a weaker federal govt is one that plays less of a part in the world. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

However if the president's power were much reduced, then I think people wouldn't care so much about the presidential election, but they do. People are more likely to know who the president is than their own state representatives.

The rich HAVE taken over. The tax rate for the rich is what? In Trump's case in the last 20 years it seems to be at about -$900,000,000 dollars. He's not paid federal taxes, I'd wonder if he's paid state taxes, and it seems he's been given a lot of money. The actual tax rate for the rich and the reality of what they pay are two very different things. Why do you think Trump refused to release his tax returns? It's not hard to imagine, is it?

"The rich" pay so much because they'll put people in over $100,000 in there as "the rich", but when you get to the top earners, the top 0.1%, the real people who do the real controlling, then what do you get? Oh, wait, we won't be able to find out those statistics, will we?

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

"
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes"

"the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)."

So, they pay 45%, and yet probably make something like 80% of the money. But this is the top 1%.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

"In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues"

So, the rich have managed to get corporate income tax down from between 25% and 33% to 10%. Oh, yeah, the rich aren't running things.

Yes, they're paying a lot of tax, perhaps in ways they can't manage to get out of. It depends on how the govt sees that they're paying the tax. I mean, if a businessman takes into account their business, and other things, are they paying this tax or is their business paying this tax?

All in all we know a lot of rich people are getting out of paying their fair share of taxes. Pharma companies are a classic example. They get rich off of the US govt spending money on medical research that the Pharma companies deem too risky, ie a high chance that the research won't produce anything. But when it does they make billions from it, and yet manage to get out of paying a lot of the taxes that go to fund the research, let alone the infrastructure they use.

Also the US system is set up, and the EU govt has recently and famously stopped this against Google, is that companies can threaten to move to another part of the country in order to get states or cities to pay them huge sums of money, whereas smaller businesses won't be able to get this money. Another example of the rich being in charge.

I lost this time, I was always going to lose, seeing as I don't support the main two parties. There's no chance for change, for a third party to come up. That's why I prefer a system which allows other parties. I did a test a few days back and the candidate that was closest to me was a third party and came in at 47%, ie, 53% I didn't agree with her. Wonderful.

Oh please, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Reagan realized that you need to make it profitable for companies to stay in the US.

Yes, corporations paid more in the past, but that was only because they had nowhere else to go. Travel was risky as we didn't have satellites in the sky to warn us of dangerous weather, our communications were primitive at best, and company owners needed to be near their top executives for meetings, management and planning.

Today is a different world. A CEO can run a company from the bathroom of his home with a simple cell phone. He doesn't need to travel back to the US to manage his investments. He can also do all that over the phone. Meetings are setup over the internet instead of in person. That makes it easier to have companies overseas and still have personal contact with valuable executives.

Because of our technological advancements, we need to cater to our job creators more than ever. They can leave and take jobs with them at the drop of a hat. If that's not feasible, they can invest in automation to replace workers that do monkey jobs.

The US has a higher corporate tax rate than other countries, slightly higher than France's. There are 8 1/2 countries with corporation tax higher or as high as the US's. Greece being higher in the first year and then lower after that.

Then again the US might have such high corporate tax because of the loopholes that effectively reduce the amount large companies end up spending.

These 4 Corporate Tax Loopholes Are Mind-Boggling -- The Motley Fool

"One particularly egregious corporate loophole effectively rewards companies for wrongdoing. When companies get sued, they're allowed to deduct the amounts they have to pay in damages to compensate their victims against their taxable income. In effect, this forces taxpayers to share in the financial fallout of their actions."

"some companies are getting a killer tax break through a method commonly known as tax inversion deals."

"A tax inversion happens when a domestic company purchases a foreign company in a country with a lower marginal corporate tax rate than the United States and then redomiciles its headquarters in the foreign country. "

The Corporate Inversions Tax Loophole: What You Need to Know

"
The Corporate Inversions Tax Loophole: What You Need to Know"

"You want a mind-boggling loophole? Consider this: Many big American companies are opting not to bring home revenue they generate abroad -- because it will be taxed. According to some studies, more than $2 trillion is being stored abroad, and that means that more than $600 billion in taxes is not being collected."

"
Many feel that our current corporate tax rate of 35% is too high, but others, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have pointed out that because of various tax breaks and loopholes, many corporations pay far less than 35% -- and that corporations' share of the country's total tax revenue was recently just 9%, far lower than the roughly 33% it was in 1950."

10 Accounting Tricks the 1% Use to Dodge the Taxman - The Accounting Degree Review

Tax Havens, Shell Companies, Equity Swaps, Avoiding Capital Gains Tax, Evading the Estate Tax, Shell Trust Funds, Incorporating, Payments in Kind, Life-Insurance Borrowing, Real Estate Borrowing.

Yeah, now corporations are more international, and they're playing govts off each other, both within the US and outside. This happens because govts allow it to happen.

Govt's should come together to make sure that certain things are followed, but then some will exploit this for their own gains, so it'll never happen.

In the Google Irish case, the EU basically said that if you set up a tax rate, all companies must be subject to this tax rate, as opposed to Google which seems to think that 12.5% of $9 billion is zero.
This will prevent companies in the EU from moving and taking advantage. Personally I think that whatever a company earns in a country they should pay tax in the country it was earned.

Correct, the effective tax rate is much different than the marginal rate, but what if you have one of those companies that are in the highest bracket because you don't have that many loopholes?

Corporate taxes are one of the straws on the camels back. Companies have to deal with high employee costs, and Commie Care didn't help that matter any. Remember that states too have a corporate tax on top of the federal corporate tax that they have to pay.

 

[OldLady]

...libs would lose their fucking minds, call for the overthrow of the govt, call for the racist murders of whites, burn the American flag, and call for the assassination of the President - after demanding the GOP accept the outcome of the election - because they LOST and did not get their way?!

Actually, the question should be who DIDN'T see this coming?!

they've been taking lessons from RW dolts for the last eight years ...

There's only one problem with that - it's a LIE.

Everytime there's a riot, everytime there is looting, burning, attacks - it is a bunch of liberals - sometimes being bussed in, like we're seeing now - paid professional liberal agitators.

During the election it was proven the Hillary canpaign, Obama, & Soros were organizing, paying, & supporting violence against Republicans / Trump supporters.

It's a constant theme, act, by Liberals who are proving more and more they are a group of political domestic terrorists, not a political party, who would rather destroy this nation than allow anyone else run it when they lose elections.

And once agin we see, thanks to you, the same constant tactic by liberals of accusing others of doing what they are caught doing.

When you don't get your way you turn to violence, like some child who has never fully mentally / psychologically developed / matured.

And your 'leaders', as I pointed out, not only support it, not only advocate it - they have funded and organized it. And all these liberal seditious losers throwing their infantile tantrums are their brainwashed, indoctrinated 'Brown Shirts', being manipulated into dividing / destroying this country.

No, Easy. There is an active anarchist group in the northwest and the "looting" never happened and the "burning" was of trash in the street and the riots have been in the same one city, Portland. So stop making it sound worse than it is. Thousands of people are reminding Trump that they're there and he'd better remember it. That's all.

 

[OldLady]

There are idiots and hot heads on both sides.

Don't blame anyone else for the UNPRECEDENTED violent, seditious, treasonous acts the DEMOCRATS ate doing right now!

'Idiots' and 'hot-heads' are one thing. Calling for the overthrow of the govt, burning the American flag, the racist murder of whites, and the assassination of our new President - those are acts of political donestic terrorists, enemies of the state - acts people like Barry's terrorist buddy Bill Ayers used to do. Ayers has got to be loving this right now...and since it has all been linked to Hillary, Barry, and Soros they must be as well.

Calling for the overthrow of the govt,
Link? Dale Smith is foaming at the mouth about something similar in another thread. Where is this coming from?

 

[OldLady]

There are idiots and hot heads on both sides.

Remember the calls for "revolution" if Hillary won.

The rhetoric of the campaign was heated and hurtful.

On both sides?

Rhetoric is one thing and actions are quite another. Now can you show me a video of a Tea Party person jumping up and down on a police car, or burning a flag when DumBama won the last two elections?

No they just hung him in effigy

 

[007]

Firstly, it leads to only two parties. Two parties which are controlled by the rich for the rich. This isn't democracy.

Firstly, America is NOT a "democray." America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Our Pledge of Allegiance does NOT say, "and to the DEMOCRACY, for which it stands," NO, it says, "and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands." How many times do you progs need to be told that? Democracy is nothing more than MOB RULE. Is that what you want?

Secondly, I've seen better systems working elsewhere. Systems that lead to more voice, more control for the people.

Secondly, well then if you've seen better systems working elsewhere, then by all means, MOVE THERE.

 

[Correll]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

No, they are just assholes,

 

[007]

...libs would lose their fucking minds, call for the overthrow of the govt, call for the racist murders of whites, burn the American flag, and call for the assassination of the President - after demanding the GOP accept the outcome of the election - because they LOST and did not get their way?!

Actually, the question should be who DIDN'T see this coming?!

This is who and what the demcrats really are. This is what has taken over the democrat party. Do you see obama or clinton or ANY high ranking democrat coming out and telling these people to STOP what they're doing? HELL NO! Ya know why? Because they APPROVE of it, they SUPPORT it, so just let them continue, because for the last 3 election cycles the dems have gotten their ASSES HANDED TO THEM. The dem party is a smoldering pile of left over trash and their ready for an internal civil war fighting over what's left. But they've brought this on themselves, condoning things exactly like what is going on now, but instead of seeing this and trying to stop the party bleeding, they just can't help themselves. This is who they are, a bunch of snively little whiny petulant bigoted two faced hypocritical militant intolerant anarchist sore losers... with HEAVY EMPHASIS ON LOSERS!

So fuck 'em, fuck 'em all. I hope their party implodes to the core and they never see any power again ever. Sickening America hating ass clowns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

More interesting? Possibly. What's more interesting, entertainment or politics? What's more interesting, real policies or make belief ones? Has the US sunk so low that people who are entertaining are the ones who get listened to? Those with real ideas don't?

Imagine an interview for the job of CEO of a large multi-national company, and the person who gets the job is the one who is the most entertaining. Wouldn't happen, would it?

You might have been bored by Bush, but he also might have run the country better. Think about it.

Perhaps, but I don't get to make that call. Like you, I only have one vote and I didn't use it for Trump in the primaries. I voted for our governor out of solidarity. Had I known of his lack of integrity he displayed after the primary, I would have never voted for him at all.

When people look for a President, they look for a little bit of toughness. Jeb just is't tough. George had a little bit of that, and DumBama has a strong voice even though he's really a wimp. But you have to have something that displays a hint of leadership besides words when running for President. Look at Sanders and how he spoke. Hillary is just a natural bitch and everybody knows it.

Guys like Huckabee and Ben Carson just didn't stand a chance; not because of what they said, but because of their soft spoken nature.

Yes, we have been drawn towards celebrities for quite some time now. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jessie Ventura were both Governors. Cher got into the entertainment business with her husband, Sonny Bono, who eventually became a Mayor and then US Senator. Ronald Reagan was an actor.

So ask yourself, did these people get into various government positions because of their great policy ideas?


View attachment 98218

People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.

No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.

The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.

What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.

I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.

 

[Crixus]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

You are a fucking cry baby.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But that was back in the time when the states actually meant independent states. That isn't so any more. The current system leads to some states having much less power anyway. California still has more EC votes than Wyoming. So it's mob rule just in a slightly different way.

For every electoral college vote in California, you have 711,000 people voting. For ever EC vote in Wyoming you have 195,000 people voting. So a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California by 3 1/2 times. Why should the people in Wyoming be given such power and the people in California have such little power?

Most of the time the mob wins the election. Does this cause problems?

The one thing it does do is allow the rich to completely take over. The Founding Fathers intended a system which gave power to the people. They wanted to do away with a monarch having total control over things, and put this in the hands of the people. Well something went wrong in their calculations. The people aren't in control any more, this is the biggest problem. The system is so easily open to abuse, it's ridiculous. The people don't have a say in who will be their president, they don't have a say in how their Congress will act, the rich decide. And this is why it needs to change.

Things have change. I understand that now the conservatives have seen that the system unfairly represents them, and gives them a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had, but it's unfair, and a person of principles would see that what the founders wanted no longer exists anyway.

Perhaps, but getting rid of the College would drive that even further away from what they wanted.

You did stumble on a good point though, and that is states don't have the power that they used to. If anything is to change, that should be the first target. Remember too that a Presidents decision or policy can affect states differently. So it's imperative that they do have some advantage over larger states with larger populations. It's equitable that they do so.

The rich have not taken over. If that were the case, their taxes would be much lower. If that were the case, they wouldn't be paying over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that were the case, Hillary would have been the winner since she outspent Trump by over a two-to-one margin. If that were the case, corporations would not have to suffer the tens of thousands federal regulations they have to abide by.

The system we have is fine, it's just that you lost this round. But you had eight years of Obama and don't want to give anybody else a turn. Talk about a monarchy. I also believe that people are starting to see the man behind the curtain. The Democrat party is trying to make whites a minority in this country since the first time of our founding. This is because minorities vote Democrat most of the time, and making whites a minority will be a monarchy since we would then be a single-party government for the rest of our time.

Well, whatever the Founding Fathers wanted, it doesn't exist and can't exist. This is 200 something years after they devised a system and it's clearly not working. Perhaps it's time for something else. Most people want to believe that they have an equal say in their country, wouldn't you say? Instead there is a system which treats people unequally. Is that what the modern USA wants to be about?

Yes, states have lost a lot of power. Why? Well it's probably down to collective greed. People wanted to be the best, they want to go around the world kicking ass and all that stuff, you need a strong federal govt for that. The US with strong states and a weaker federal govt is one that plays less of a part in the world. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

However if the president's power were much reduced, then I think people wouldn't care so much about the presidential election, but they do. People are more likely to know who the president is than their own state representatives.

The rich HAVE taken over. The tax rate for the rich is what? In Trump's case in the last 20 years it seems to be at about -$900,000,000 dollars. He's not paid federal taxes, I'd wonder if he's paid state taxes, and it seems he's been given a lot of money. The actual tax rate for the rich and the reality of what they pay are two very different things. Why do you think Trump refused to release his tax returns? It's not hard to imagine, is it?

"The rich" pay so much because they'll put people in over $100,000 in there as "the rich", but when you get to the top earners, the top 0.1%, the real people who do the real controlling, then what do you get? Oh, wait, we won't be able to find out those statistics, will we?

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

"
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes"

"the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)."

So, they pay 45%, and yet probably make something like 80% of the money. But this is the top 1%.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

"In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues"

So, the rich have managed to get corporate income tax down from between 25% and 33% to 10%. Oh, yeah, the rich aren't running things.

Yes, they're paying a lot of tax, perhaps in ways they can't manage to get out of. It depends on how the govt sees that they're paying the tax. I mean, if a businessman takes into account their business, and other things, are they paying this tax or is their business paying this tax?

All in all we know a lot of rich people are getting out of paying their fair share of taxes. Pharma companies are a classic example. They get rich off of the US govt spending money on medical research that the Pharma companies deem too risky, ie a high chance that the research won't produce anything. But when it does they make billions from it, and yet manage to get out of paying a lot of the taxes that go to fund the research, let alone the infrastructure they use.

Also the US system is set up, and the EU govt has recently and famously stopped this against Google, is that companies can threaten to move to another part of the country in order to get states or cities to pay them huge sums of money, whereas smaller businesses won't be able to get this money. Another example of the rich being in charge.

I lost this time, I was always going to lose, seeing as I don't support the main two parties. There's no chance for change, for a third party to come up. That's why I prefer a system which allows other parties. I did a test a few days back and the candidate that was closest to me was a third party and came in at 47%, ie, 53% I didn't agree with her. Wonderful.

Oh please, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Reagan realized that you need to make it profitable for companies to stay in the US.

Yes, corporations paid more in the past, but that was only because they had nowhere else to go. Travel was risky as we didn't have satellites in the sky to warn us of dangerous weather, our communications were primitive at best, and company owners needed to be near their top executives for meetings, management and planning.

Today is a different world. A CEO can run a company from the bathroom of his home with a simple cell phone. He doesn't need to travel back to the US to manage his investments. He can also do all that over the phone. Meetings are setup over the internet instead of in person. That makes it easier to have companies overseas and still have personal contact with valuable executives.

Because of our technological advancements, we need to cater to our job creators more than ever. They can leave and take jobs with them at the drop of a hat. If that's not feasible, they can invest in automation to replace workers that do monkey jobs.

The US has a higher corporate tax rate than other countries, slightly higher than France's. There are 8 1/2 countries with corporation tax higher or as high as the US's. Greece being higher in the first year and then lower after that.

Then again the US might have such high corporate tax because of the loopholes that effectively reduce the amount large companies end up spending.

These 4 Corporate Tax Loopholes Are Mind-Boggling -- The Motley Fool

"One particularly egregious corporate loophole effectively rewards companies for wrongdoing. When companies get sued, they're allowed to deduct the amounts they have to pay in damages to compensate their victims against their taxable income. In effect, this forces taxpayers to share in the financial fallout of their actions."

"some companies are getting a killer tax break through a method commonly known as tax inversion deals."

"A tax inversion happens when a domestic company purchases a foreign company in a country with a lower marginal corporate tax rate than the United States and then redomiciles its headquarters in the foreign country. "

The Corporate Inversions Tax Loophole: What You Need to Know

"
The Corporate Inversions Tax Loophole: What You Need to Know"

"You want a mind-boggling loophole? Consider this: Many big American companies are opting not to bring home revenue they generate abroad -- because it will be taxed. According to some studies, more than $2 trillion is being stored abroad, and that means that more than $600 billion in taxes is not being collected."

"
Many feel that our current corporate tax rate of 35% is too high, but others, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have pointed out that because of various tax breaks and loopholes, many corporations pay far less than 35% -- and that corporations' share of the country's total tax revenue was recently just 9%, far lower than the roughly 33% it was in 1950."

10 Accounting Tricks the 1% Use to Dodge the Taxman - The Accounting Degree Review

Tax Havens, Shell Companies, Equity Swaps, Avoiding Capital Gains Tax, Evading the Estate Tax, Shell Trust Funds, Incorporating, Payments in Kind, Life-Insurance Borrowing, Real Estate Borrowing.

Yeah, now corporations are more international, and they're playing govts off each other, both within the US and outside. This happens because govts allow it to happen.

Govt's should come together to make sure that certain things are followed, but then some will exploit this for their own gains, so it'll never happen.

In the Google Irish case, the EU basically said that if you set up a tax rate, all companies must be subject to this tax rate, as opposed to Google which seems to think that 12.5% of $9 billion is zero.
This will prevent companies in the EU from moving and taking advantage. Personally I think that whatever a company earns in a country they should pay tax in the country it was earned.

Correct, the effective tax rate is much different than the marginal rate, but what if you have one of those companies that are in the highest bracket because you don't have that many loopholes?

Corporate taxes are one of the straws on the camels back. Companies have to deal with high employee costs, and Commie Care didn't help that matter any. Remember that states too have a corporate tax on top of the federal corporate tax that they have to pay.

The whole problem is there's one tax system for us, the people, and one tax system for them, the rich. They use lawyers to get their way, they make loopholes in the system, the lubricate the politicians in various ways in order to get what they want. We all know this. The Trump supporters were shouting it out that Hillary was part of the system, Trump is the damn system, the lubricator, and they thought they'd get change. Suckers.

When do the people get a say? They don't. And they don't because they spend their whole time following the politicians who tell them what to do.

I had a manager who was a 'Nam Vet and he had two young girls, a dog, a shitty car, his wife had run away with some other guy, he was on food stamps and was probably stealing from the place we worked in. He could get Coca Cola free all day long, as much as he wanted at work. But he went and bought Pepsi. I asked him why. He said it was because Pepsi was the drink of the poorer people. I mean, come on.

He was advertised to death, he bought into the advertising. People buy substandard food from McDonalds, Burger King, KFC etc when they could get better food from somewhere else, but they choose what they are advertised because they're easily manipulated. And the same is said of politics. Every 4 years the cost of the elections in the US rises. This year they reckon the rise isn't the much because Trump spent less because he harnessed the media to do the job for free. But it's all the same. People will believe anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

You are a fucking cry baby.

Wow, insults.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Firstly, it leads to only two parties. Two parties which are controlled by the rich for the rich. This isn't democracy.

Firstly, America is NOT a "democray." America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Our Pledge of Allegiance does NOT say, "and to the DEMOCRACY, for which it stands," NO, it says, "and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands." How many times do you progs need to be told that? Democracy is nothing more than MOB RULE. Is that what you want?

Secondly, I've seen better systems working elsewhere. Systems that lead to more voice, more control for the people.

Secondly, well then if you've seen better systems working elsewhere, then by all means, MOVE THERE.

That's like saying bread isn't food, it's bread.

Democracy is when people go out and elect their leaders. There are different levels of democracy, from pure democracy, like referenda, and there's democracy where people go and choose the people to make those decisions for them. The US is the latter.

A Republic merely means that the leader isn't a monarch. A democracy means that the leaders are elected by the people. Two different things. You can be a republic and a democracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

No, they are just assholes,

And maybe everyone is an asshole.

 

[Crixus]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

You are a fucking cry baby.

Wow, insults.

Not really. I would bet a ton libs hated the EC when Bambams won huh? Clinton to? Bet if one searched past elections where their side lost the losing side wanted to do away with the EC. Sorry, it's bad enough as is, can't imagine how fucked it would be if California and New York got to decide who the president is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.

No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.

The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.

What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.

I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.

People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.

Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.

A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.

 

[Correll]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

No, they are just assholes,

And maybe everyone is an asshole.

NOpe. And the libs have become completely dominated by them.

 

[Correll]

People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.

No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.

The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.

What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.

I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.

People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.

Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.

A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.

I think you are both being unfair to people who vote for celebrities.

Celebrities have name recognition. That gets them their Voice to be HEard.

They tend to be comfortable talking in front of large audiences, and with TV. Two much needed skills.


They tend to be rich, and to have rich friends.


My understanding is that Arnold ran a good campaign with decent issues.

 

[easyt65]

...libs would lose their fucking minds, call for the overthrow of the govt, call for the racist murders of whites, burn the American flag, and call for the assassination of the President - after demanding the GOP accept the outcome of the election - because they LOST and did not get their way?!

Actually, the question should be who DIDN'T see this coming?!

they've been taking lessons from RW dolts for the last eight years ...

There's only one problem with that - it's a LIE.

Everytime there's a riot, everytime there is looting, burning, attacks - it is a bunch of liberals - sometimes being bussed in, like we're seeing now - paid professional liberal agitators.

During the election it was proven the Hillary canpaign, Obama, & Soros were organizing, paying, & supporting violence against Republicans / Trump supporters.

It's a constant theme, act, by Liberals who are proving more and more they are a group of political domestic terrorists, not a political party, who would rather destroy this nation than allow anyone else run it when they lose elections.

And once agin we see, thanks to you, the same constant tactic by liberals of accusing others of doing what they are caught doing.

When you don't get your way you turn to violence, like some child who has never fully mentally / psychologically developed / matured.

And your 'leaders', as I pointed out, not only support it, not only advocate it - they have funded and organized it. And all these liberal seditious losers throwing their infantile tantrums are their brainwashed, indoctrinated 'Brown Shirts', being manipulated into dividing / destroying this country.

No, Easy. There is an active anarchist group in the northwest and the "looting" never happened and the "burning" was of trash in the street and the riots have been in the same one city, Portland. So stop making it sound worse than it is. Thousands of people are reminding Trump that they're there and he'd better remember it. That's all.

Dear OL, I am not just talking about Portland. I am talking about Portland, Baltimore, and other cities where these POSes do not get their way, where professional aggitators are bussed in, where there is rioting, looting, burning, racist attacks...and now racist, seditious, treasonous acts are being perpetrated...where the DNC leadership has been exposed as helping organize, finance, and facilitate them / it.

Wake up & see / accept the big picture.