The truth about taxes

[P@triot]

I believer Rottweiler does understand that the rich getting richer is not what makes the poor more poor. I believe Rottweiler does understand is that you cannot help the poor by making the rich less rich. In fact you will invariably hurt the poor and dig them deeper into poverty every time you try that.

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

I think he understands it very well and I don't believe what you are saying for a minute. Did Bill Gates make the poor poorer or did his efforts, that made him one of the richest men in the world result in thousands upon thousands of good paying jobs for others, and give many of those folks a chance to become rich themselves? It is tying the concept of resouces to entitlement rather than productivity--the absurd notion that financial success should be somehow reined in or capped or punished while those who do not prepare themselves for financial success are rewarded with other people's money that creates permanent poverty.

I have been very poor in my lifetime, but I knew my destiny was in my hands and that I didn't have to stay poor. I was lucky enough to have been poor before the government got involved in that, however. Unfortunately we have been raising generations of people who think they are entitled to other people's money; that they are entitled to be taken care of if they don't get around to doing that for themselves.

The truth about taxes is that if you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it. Think about that when it comes to economic success and poverty.

 

[P@triot]

Taxation of the rich is as low as it's been in something like 80 years. Some reputable estimates of Mitt Romney's tax rate put it in the single digits in the years that he was unwilling to submit tax returns for and he's probably not unique by any means.

In other words - JN here has no facts to back up his wild and outrageous claims. That's typical of Dumbocrats - they deal in "estimates" from radical propaganda while we deal in facts.

By your logic, jobs should be falling like rain. Where are they?

They were taxed overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were regulated overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were unionized overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were demonized overseas by the Dumbocrats.

You can do you song and dance about Mitt Romney's personal wealth all you want, but payroll doesn't come out of Mitt Romney's personal bank account. It comes out of the corporate bank account - the same corporate bank account that is pulverized by the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

This post here really illustrates the difference between our facts and your wild wing-nut estimates.

 

[JoeNormal]

There are more than I would care to take the time to list here. But just a few are oppressive wage/hour laws, too high taxation with constant threats of even more taxes piled on top of that, unnecessary and unreasonable environmental requirements, barriers to development and expansion--think the Keystone Pipeline just for one. And the mandates associated with Obamacare are likely to be the largest killer of both businesses and jobs this country has ever seen.

The Keystone pipeline would be the biggest environmental disaster to befall this country even if it didn't spill a drop. And where do you think wages and hours would end up if left to a world market of starving slaves? I have some very marketable skills and I wouldn't even want to contemplate that one.

Now just a minute. You don't get to just state the pipeline would be an environmental disaster and think you can get away with just that. You have to support the statement with facts.
Have at it.
And don't cut and paste some nonsense opinion piece from a lefty blog.

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

 

[JoeNormal]

Taxation of the rich is as low as it's been in something like 80 years. Some reputable estimates of Mitt Romney's tax rate put it in the single digits in the years that he was unwilling to submit tax returns for and he's probably not unique by any means.

In other words - JN here has no facts to back up his wild and outrageous claims. That's typical of Dumbocrats - they deal in "estimates" from radical propaganda while we deal in facts.

By your logic, jobs should be falling like rain. Where are they?

They were taxed overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were regulated overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were unionized overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were demonized overseas by the Dumbocrats.

You can do you song and dance about Mitt Romney's personal wealth all you want, but payroll doesn't come out of Mitt Romney's personal bank account. It comes out of the corporate bank account - the same corporate bank account that is pulverized by the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

This post here really illustrates the difference between our facts and your wild wing-nut estimates.

Pure conservative 'religion'. Maybe you should remove the plank from your eye before you talk about other people's 'religion'.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Romney refused to make public all but one tax return?

 

[DiamondDave]

The Keystone pipeline would be the biggest environmental disaster to befall this country even if it didn't spill a drop. And where do you think wages and hours would end up if left to a world market of starving slaves? I have some very marketable skills and I wouldn't even want to contemplate that one.

Now just a minute. You don't get to just state the pipeline would be an environmental disaster and think you can get away with just that. You have to support the statement with facts.
Have at it.
And don't cut and paste some nonsense opinion piece from a lefty blog.

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

 

[JoeNormal]

Now just a minute. You don't get to just state the pipeline would be an environmental disaster and think you can get away with just that. You have to support the statement with facts.
Have at it.
And don't cut and paste some nonsense opinion piece from a lefty blog.

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

 

[DiamondDave]

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

On the whacked out conspiracy theory of a global warming 'climatologist' freak... this does not prove it was faulty, would have ruptured, or anything along the lines that would have specifically caused IT to be an environmental nightmare

You have nothing, troll

 

[Foxfyre]

The Keystone pipeline would be the biggest environmental disaster to befall this country even if it didn't spill a drop. And where do you think wages and hours would end up if left to a world market of starving slaves? I have some very marketable skills and I wouldn't even want to contemplate that one.

Now just a minute. You don't get to just state the pipeline would be an environmental disaster and think you can get away with just that. You have to support the statement with facts.
Have at it.
And don't cut and paste some nonsense opinion piece from a lefty blog.

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

Meaning you've got nothing other than leftwing propaganda. You said the stuff shipped through that pipeline is hardly worth refining? Well, if that was the case, then there wouldn't be so many large, prosperous, productive corporations competing for a chance to do it, would there? Corporations that will be paying real taxes or real profits which is a concept that seems so difficult and elusive for those who want the rich to pay much much more. The same people seem to have a really tough time wrapping their minds around a concept of creating more tax payers as the best and most compassionate way to increase the tax base.

 

[JoeNormal]

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

On the whacked out conspiracy theory of a global warming 'climatologist' freak... this does not prove it was faulty, would have ruptured, or anything along the lines that would have specifically caused IT to be an environmental nightmare

You have nothing, troll

You are one stupid MF. I knew you wouldn't read it. The question is not whether the pipeline ruptures, it's that it would open the floodgates to the most greenhouse gas producing oil out there.

 

[JoeNormal]

Now just a minute. You don't get to just state the pipeline would be an environmental disaster and think you can get away with just that. You have to support the statement with facts.
Have at it.
And don't cut and paste some nonsense opinion piece from a lefty blog.

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

Meaning you've got nothing other than leftwing propaganda. You said the stuff shipped through that pipeline is hardly worth refining? Well, if that was the case, then there wouldn't be so many large, prosperous, productive corporations competing for a chance to do it, would there? Corporations that will be paying real taxes or real profits which is a concept that seems so difficult and elusive for those who want the rich to pay much much more. The same people seem to have a really tough time wrapping their minds around a concept of creating more tax payers as the best and most compassionate way to increase the tax base.

Oh, I'm sure it's worth refining if you're the one to reap the profits. It's just not worth putting up with if you're the ones who have to live with the environmental impact.

 

[DiamondDave]

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

On the whacked out conspiracy theory of a global warming 'climatologist' freak... this does not prove it was faulty, would have ruptured, or anything along the lines that would have specifically caused IT to be an environmental nightmare

You have nothing, troll

You are one stupid MF. I knew you wouldn't read it. The question is not whether the pipeline ruptures, it's that it would open the floodgates to the most greenhouse gas producing oil out there.

So a climate global warming alarmist stats burning oil is bad and burning more oil is worse... a guy who has been arrested and is pretty much considered one of the lead whackaloons of the environazi movement...

And you cite this as your fact and proof..

******* laughable

The burning of MORE fuels, even if it were proven as the cause of global warming (and it has not), does not mean that this pipeline causes an environmental disaster...

 

[Foxfyre]

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

Meaning you've got nothing other than leftwing propaganda. You said the stuff shipped through that pipeline is hardly worth refining? Well, if that was the case, then there wouldn't be so many large, prosperous, productive corporations competing for a chance to do it, would there? Corporations that will be paying real taxes or real profits which is a concept that seems so difficult and elusive for those who want the rich to pay much much more. The same people seem to have a really tough time wrapping their minds around a concept of creating more tax payers as the best and most compassionate way to increase the tax base.

Oh, I'm sure it's worth refining if you're the one to reap the profits. It's just not worth putting up with if you're the ones who have to live with the environmental impact.

The point is, the environmental wackos are screaming DISASTER about this enterprise as they have screamed DISASTER about EVERY energy producing effort we have come up with except for the very few and limited 'green energy' sources that require heavy government subsidies - that's taxpayer subsidies - to make them possible. And so far none of those subsidized green energy projects have proved profitable on any substantial scale.

The Canadians are going to produce that very much needed oil from the tar sands whether you approve or not or whether the Keystone Pipeline is completed or not. And the way I read environmental practicality, building the pipeline is much more sound and will have less negative environmental impact than will shipping it any other way. So I would think the environmental wackos would be pushing for that pipeline instead of thinking blocking it will save the environment.

The fact remains that we should be encouraging activity that will produce more tax payers and more affluence. Affluent people have the luxury of demanding clean air, clean water, clean soil, aesthetic beauty. People who are focused only on where their next meal is coming from don't have the luxury of giving a sh*t about much of anything else.

And the facts--supported by scientists I know--as rebuttal to your source - pay attention to the last three items on the list as an environmentally conscious Canada's efforts to minimalize the environmental impact could produce technology that everybody in the world could use:

Facts and stats

•There are 173 billion barrels of oil in the oil sands proven to be recoverable with today’s technology.

•Oil sands are contained in three major areas of northeastern Alberta beneath about 140,000 square kilometres, with approximately 500 square kilometres of land disturbed by oil sands surface mining activity.

•Approximately 80 per cent of recoverable oil sands is through in-situ production, with less than 20 per cent recoverable by mining.

•In March 2008, the Alberta government issued its first reclamation certificate to Syncrude Canada Ltd. for the 104-hectare parcel of land known as Gateway Hill approximately 35 kilometres north of Fort McMurray

•There are 91 active oil sands projects in Alberta. Of these, five are mining projects; the remaining projects use various in-situ (in place) recovery methods.

•In 2007, Alberta exported about 1.34 million barrels per day of crude oil to the U.S., supplying 13 per cent of their crude oil import.

•Every dollar invested in the oil sands creates about $9 worth of economic activity; with one-third of that economic value generated outside Alberta - in Canada, the U.S. and around the world.

•One in 13 jobs in Alberta is directly related to energy.


•Oil sands make up about five per cent of Canada’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and less than one-tenth of one per cent of the world’s emissions.

•A $2 billion investment to advance steel-in-the-ground carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects is expected to reduce emissions by five million tonnes in annual reductions by 2015. That's the equivalent of taking one million vehicles, or one third of all registered vehicles, off of Alberta roads.

•The Government of Alberta and private industry have each invested more than $1 billion in oil sands research. Combined efforts will continue to bring science solutions that reduce the environmental footprint of oil sands development and increase economic recoveries.
Tar sands

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

Sorry Joe, other than this man-made theory to create an "end of the world apocalypse" through global warming, you have provided nothing to prove that oil pipelines are highly susceptible to ruptures and an environmental hazard. Meanwhile, I am enjoying another cold winter snowfall along with a majority of the east coast while reading about your views of global warming.

 

[JoeNormal]

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

Sorry Joe, other than this man-made theory to create an "end of the world apocalypse" through global warming, you have provided nothing to prove that oil pipelines are highly susceptible to ruptures and an environmental hazard. Meanwhile, I am enjoying another cold winter snowfall along with a majority of the east coast while reading about your views of global warming.

Did you read the link?

 

[P@triot]

Taxation of the rich is as low as it's been in something like 80 years. Some reputable estimates of Mitt Romney's tax rate put it in the single digits in the years that he was unwilling to submit tax returns for and he's probably not unique by any means.

In other words - JN here has no facts to back up his wild and outrageous claims. That's typical of Dumbocrats - they deal in "estimates" from radical propaganda while we deal in facts.

By your logic, jobs should be falling like rain. Where are they?

They were taxed overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were regulated overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were unionized overseas by the Dumbocrats. They were demonized overseas by the Dumbocrats.

You can do you song and dance about Mitt Romney's personal wealth all you want, but payroll doesn't come out of Mitt Romney's personal bank account. It comes out of the corporate bank account - the same corporate bank account that is pulverized by the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

This post here really illustrates the difference between our facts and your wild wing-nut estimates.

Pure conservative 'religion'. Maybe you should remove the plank from your eye before you talk about other people's 'religion'.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Romney refused to make public all but one tax return?

See my point? I like FACTS. You like what people "think" and what they "estimate".

I have no idea why Mitt Romney refused certain tax reforms. My GUESS (and it is only a GUESS) is that he had suffered enough attacks by you lazy communists, and he didn't want to give you any more fuel for the fire. But that is a wild guess. I don't know the man. I have no idea what his reasons were.

Are you ready to talk facts yet? Like the FACT that payroll doesn't come out of Mitt Romney's personal bank account and the FACT that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world? Nah - you don't want to talk about that, do you?

 

[Foxfyre]

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

Sorry Joe, other than this man-made theory to create an "end of the world apocalypse" through global warming, you have provided nothing to prove that oil pipelines are highly susceptible to ruptures and an environmental hazard. Meanwhile, I am enjoying another cold winter snowfall along with a majority of the east coast while reading about your views of global warming.

He isn't opposing the pipeline because it might rupture. He thinks if we close down the pipeline, Canada won't extract all that evil tar sand oil. Of course it will anyway and will be shipping by far more environmentally hazardous means than the pipeline will be. But some are short sighted in that way.

I say bring it on. We need the jobs. We need the oil. And we need a regenerated tax base.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Meaning you've got nothing other than leftwing propaganda. You said the stuff shipped through that pipeline is hardly worth refining? Well, if that was the case, then there wouldn't be so many large, prosperous, productive corporations competing for a chance to do it, would there? Corporations that will be paying real taxes or real profits which is a concept that seems so difficult and elusive for those who want the rich to pay much much more. The same people seem to have a really tough time wrapping their minds around a concept of creating more tax payers as the best and most compassionate way to increase the tax base.

Oh, I'm sure it's worth refining if you're the one to reap the profits. It's just not worth putting up with if you're the ones who have to live with the environmental impact.

The point is, the environmental wackos are screaming DISASTER about this enterprise as they have screamed DISASTER about EVERY energy producing effort we have come up with except for the very few and limited 'green energy' sources that require heavy government subsidies - that's taxpayer subsidies - to make them possible. And so far none of those subsidized green energy projects have proved profitable on any substantial scale.

That is very true. Fact is green energy, such as solar and wind power, are drastically inferior to meeting the power grid demands of our nation's energy consumption. Nuclear is still the only proven reliable source that can be found to replace coal and oil. However the environmentalists will never be satisfied, and is as much a hindrance to this country as the liberals claim the tea party movement to be. When green funding was used to try and utilize wind power technology, these same environmentalists complained how the blades were responsible for killing migrating birds. It will never end with them, as nothing will be enough to satisfy every excuse.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Here's something for you to read. Of course you won't. It's 10 screens long and even though it breaks down the numbers, you'd prefer something so easily digested that you could consider it heresay. I guess you're just condenmed to remain blind. If only that would make you happy.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American

Sorry Joe, other than this man-made theory to create an "end of the world apocalypse" through global warming, you have provided nothing to prove that oil pipelines are highly susceptible to ruptures and an environmental hazard. Meanwhile, I am enjoying another cold winter snowfall along with a majority of the east coast while reading about your views of global warming.

Did you read the link?

I did and posted a credible rebuttal as well as tying it to the OP.

 

[P@triot]

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

Meaning you've got nothing other than leftwing propaganda. You said the stuff shipped through that pipeline is hardly worth refining? Well, if that was the case, then there wouldn't be so many large, prosperous, productive corporations competing for a chance to do it, would there? Corporations that will be paying real taxes or real profits which is a concept that seems so difficult and elusive for those who want the rich to pay much much more. The same people seem to have a really tough time wrapping their minds around a concept of creating more tax payers as the best and most compassionate way to increase the tax base.

Oh, I'm sure it's worth refining if you're the one to reap the profits. It's just not worth putting up with if you're the ones who have to live with the environmental impact.

Joe - you've literally gone off of the reservation here. What is going to happen to the environment due to oil flowing through an enclosed pipeline?

As Foxfyre already pointed out (brilliantly I might add), trucking that stuff would cause about 10 billion times the emissions (considering there are NO emissions from an enclosed, stationary pipe... )

By the way - aren't you guys the one's always complaining that the GOP is the party of "no"? Well, here were are saying YES and you're literally making stuff up just to block it because it will create jobs and wealth - two things the "I have no choice but to live off of government" Dumbocrats do not want to see.

 

[bripat9643]

I've stated the facts a number of times in the past and I don't think it made a bit of difference to the people like you who've already made up their minds.

You, nor anyone else, has stated any actual fact that proves the pipeline would actually be a natural 'disaster', environmental 'disaster' or anything of the sort.. you posted opinion, fanciful speculation, and pure unabashed bullshit

Is Scientific American a lefty blog?

Yes, it is. Scientific has been biased towards the left for decades. Anything it has to say on the subject of global warming is just more propaganda.