Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Reason

Johnstown, NY

#222 Jul 31, 2012
Reason is Praxis33 wrote:
Go away Praxis, we all know its you.
You never pass up an opportunity to display your ignorance, do you?
Reason is Praxis33

Pittsfield, MA

#223 Jul 31, 2012
You never pass up the opportunity to distract from the fact you are praxis33
Obama and GE

Boston, MA

#224 Jul 31, 2012
Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Thirty Of America's Most Profitable Companies Paid 'Less Than Zero' In Income Taxes In Last 3 Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/majo...
And one of those companies was GE. Did the Huff mention anything included in this attached article?
http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2011/0...
Obama and GE

Boston, MA

#225 Jul 31, 2012
Obama and GE wrote:
<quoted text>
And one of those companies was GE. Did the Huff mention anything included in this attached article?
http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2011/0...
did the Huff mention that the DEMS did nothing about it when they had the super-majority the first 2 years of Obama? Why do you suppose that is??
Just Facts

Framingham, MA

#226 Jul 31, 2012
It is easy to demonize businesses and corporations, not that they do nothing wrong, but a simple course in economics would help people understand all the pieces and parts, and hopefully help them understand the lies that continue to be spread from people that believe businesses, corporations, and wealthy people are inherently evil or just need something or someone to blame. Let’s talk about some common economic concepts…

When you have a business, there are regulations regarding taxes on the business. If you are a sole proprietor or a partnership, the business assets and personal assets are the same and if you get sued, you can lose your personal assets as well as business assets, so many people incorporate their business to protect their personal assets. It is a completely legal and justifiable thing to do, and will continue to become more and more common because we have a tort system that rewards anyone that wants to sue anyone for the most ridiculous reasons.

Within the regulations for the business, incentives (deductions, depreciation, etc.) were written into the tax codes for encouraging certain behavior by the businesses. Examples of these incentives are constructing a building, installing new machinery or equipment, purchasing vehicles for transporting goods, providing training programs, hiring people, etc.

Many of these things might be done in the future anyway, but these tax incentives will many times cause a business to move forward faster, using the tax savings to fund the purchases or other programs. Hundreds of these incentives exist for many different reasons, and creates a very complex web of rules for businesses to decipher and function within, but the end results are that these businesses purchase more and hire more people than would be without the incentives.

In this way, the government can help our businesses, and the tax incentives for the business are offset by the OTHER TAXES that are ultimately collected by the government. These taxes will be a combination of payroll, gas, licensing, sales, road use,etc. The more people working, the more taxes paid for various things, and the government ultimately ends up receiving more taxes than was given up for the incentives to the business. THIS IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK…
Smarten up

Leominster, MA

#227 Jul 31, 2012
Just Facts wrote:
It is easy to demonize businesses and corporations, not that they do nothing wrong, but a simple course in economics would help people understand all the pieces and parts, and hopefully help them understand the lies that continue to be spread from people that believe businesses, corporations, and wealthy people are inherently evil or just need something or someone to blame. Let’s talk about some common economic concepts…
When you have a business, there are regulations regarding taxes on the business. If you are a sole proprietor or a partnership, the business assets and personal assets are the same and if you get sued, you can lose your personal assets as well as business assets, so many people incorporate their business to protect their personal assets. It is a completely legal and justifiable thing to do, and will continue to become more and more common because we have a tort system that rewards anyone that wants to sue anyone for the most ridiculous reasons.
Within the regulations for the business, incentives (deductions, depreciation, etc.) were written into the tax codes for encouraging certain behavior by the businesses. Examples of these incentives are constructing a building, installing new machinery or equipment, purchasing vehicles for transporting goods, providing training programs, hiring people, etc.
Many of these things might be done in the future anyway, but these tax incentives will many times cause a business to move forward faster, using the tax savings to fund the purchases or other programs. Hundreds of these incentives exist for many different reasons, and creates a very complex web of rules for businesses to decipher and function within, but the end results are that these businesses purchase more and hire more people than would be without the incentives.
In this way, the government can help our businesses, and the tax incentives for the business are offset by the OTHER TAXES that are ultimately collected by the government. These taxes will be a combination of payroll, gas, licensing, sales, road use,etc. The more people working, the more taxes paid for various things, and the government ultimately ends up receiving more taxes than was given up for the incentives to the business. THIS IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK…
You freakin idiot! That's not how the world works at all. If you have any self respect you live in your moms basement and when she opens the door to bring milk and cookies you you have to yell things like "NOT NOW MOM I"M GETTING BONED BY GOMEZ!!!! Then you take a stroll down to the welfare office and stop by a convenience store to buy a bag of chips and ring dings with food stamps.

I don't think you know anything and you might be a cop!!!!!!!
Painfully obvious

Fitchburg, MA

#228 Jul 31, 2012
Obama and GE wrote:
<quoted text>
did the Huff mention that the DEMS did nothing about it when they had the super-majority the first 2 years of Obama? Why do you suppose that is??
Oh who knows, you could be lying like when you say "DEMS did nothing about it when they had the super-majority the first 2 years of Obama", that's a lie, plain and simple, but you and the rest of your whining fabricating liars all fall right in line believing it!

Try, approx. 36 days Majority. If you can start with that, honest thinking people might take you seriously, otherwise, you're a crackpot Liar just like Romney and the rest!
Painfully obvious

Fitchburg, MA

#229 Jul 31, 2012
And sionce this is a Senatorial thread...

"Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is in the midst of a tough re-election fight, and he's eager to put his best foot forward. Unfortunately for him, there have been a series of incidents -- talking up imaginary phone calls, denying the existence of oil company subsidies he's voted for, "kings and queens" -- that have thrown Brown off track.

Unfortunately for the Republican incumbent, the hits just keep on coming. We learned yesterday, for example, that Brown's "Let America be America" video (which is built on a rather ridiculous lie) is filled with stock footage of Europeans. Oops.

Making matters worse are new revelations about one of Brown's few legislative accomplishments.

It was a rare show of bipartisanship -- President Barack Obama, flanked by Democrats and Republicans in April, signing into law a bill that would ban insider trading on Capitol Hill. The measure, known as the STOCK Act, had passed the House and Senate at warp speed.

Lawmakers proclaimed that the bill, officially called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, would restore trust in government.... But CNN uncovered that the law that members of Congress thought they voted for earlier this year isn't exactly as advertised. A loophole could still allow family members of some lawmakers to profit from inside information.

The point of the bill is to prevent insider trading among lawmakers. It wasn't as strong a bill as it could have been, but overall, the STOCK Act was a step worth taking.

But it turns out, there's a workaround: lawmakers' spouses are exempt. A member of Congress could get inside information, have his or her spouse make investments based on this information, and it would be legal, even under the new law.

Scott Brown ostensibly wrote the legislation, but he now says he didn't know about the loophole. Worse, there's evidence to the contrary.

Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, the only Republican senator to attend the White House signing ceremony, said he was "obviously very concerned."

"Say I find out some information, I tell my wife and she goes and trades on it, what's the difference?" Brown told CNN.

Good question. The answers is, as a practical matter, there is no difference. Brown's STOCK Act appears to have left some ambiguity, which lawmakers will now exploit.

OK, so maybe the Republican senator was just clumsy. Perhaps someone changed his proposal when he wasn't looking. Maybe Brown opposed the loophole but he lost some control over the direction of the legislation. He could be blamed for incompetent policymaking, which is hardly encouraging, but it's forgivable.

The problem, however, was flagged by David at Blue Mass Group: Brown knew all along that the STOCK Act wouldn't cover spouses' investments. In fact, Brown's office circulated a memo in November, specifically addressing this point. From Q&A in the memo:

Q: Does the Senate STOCK Act cover the spouses of members?

A: No. Spouses of members are outside the scope of the Senate STOCK Act.

So, the GOP senator is now "very concerned" that his major legislative accomplishment does exactly what he said it would do.

Do you ever get the feeling that maybe Scott Brown is in over his head?"
Steve Benen

Scott Brown is a phoney, he's a phony Conservative, a phoney Bipartisan, a phoney regular guy and a phony competent Senator!
Painfully is Praxis33

Pittsfield, MA

#230 Jul 31, 2012
That is what is painfully obvious
Obama and GE

Boston, MA

#231 Jul 31, 2012
Painfully obvious wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh who knows, you could be lying like when you say "DEMS did nothing about it when they had the super-majority the first 2 years of Obama", that's a lie, plain and simple, but you and the rest of your whining fabricating liars all fall right in line believing it!
Try, approx. 36 days Majority. If you can start with that, honest thinking people might take you seriously, otherwise, you're a crackpot Liar just like Romney and the rest!
Are you for real? 36 DAYS of super majority????????? Apparently, you don't even know what that means. Let me educate you: They had the House, the Senate, and the presidency. They had two years and that is a fact. How else do you think they rammed Obamacare through? They also had control of the House of reps the last 2 years of Bush. So, if it's a lie, what did they do? I'll wait for the name-calling now. Seems that's all you have and it's typical.
Just Facts

Framingham, MA

#232 Jul 31, 2012
In addition to the other things that businesses must be responsible for, an employer must pay 50% of the taxation for an employee’s Social Security retirement funding, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation insurance, benefits, and payroll. It has been recently documented that the average small business must pay $ 7,000 to $ 10,000 above an employee’s wages in order to meet current governmental requirements. Thousands of pages of new regulations are being created by our current government, and businesses have to use valuable resources in trying to meet these new regulations, in addition to the existing regulations.
People that haven’t been in business have been led to believe that these “loopholes” have no value, but each of these incentives were designed by our politicians and put in place to encourage businesses to act in a given way. So when someone starts criticizing businesses for taking advantage of tax incentives, please remember that there will be consequences that will occur as a result of the removal of those “loopholes”.
Non-business people have access to tax incentives or “loopholes” too. How many of you own homes with mortgages? What will happen to your taxes if that deduction for home mortgage interest is removed? How many of you have children? What will happen to your taxes if the child credit disappears? You and I will have to give that $ 1,000 to Uncle Sam. What about those of you going to college and have student loans? Taxpayers in many different tax categories have “loopholes” available to them. Even people that are considered lower middle class or lower class. This particular group will be hit the hardest if the “loopholes” are removed.
We currently have a president and an administration that has perfected the art of creating division and playing us against each other. The non-wealthy against the wealthy, the non-business owner against the business owner, the Democrats against the Republicans, the Blacks against the Whites, etc. We have seen more division created between Americans during this administration than at any other time that I can remember, and Obama has plans for it to continue as far as the eye can see. THIS HAS TO STOP!!
MADCOW

Boston, MA

#233 Jul 31, 2012
Painfully obvious wrote:
And sionce this is a Senatorial thread...
"Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is in the midst of a tough re-election fight, and he's eager to put his best foot forward. Unfortunately for him, there have been a series of incidents -- talking up imaginary phone calls, denying the existence of oil company subsidies he's voted for, "kings and queens" -- that have thrown Brown off track.
Unfortunately for the Republican incumbent, the hits just keep on coming. We learned yesterday, for example, that Brown's "Let America be America" video (which is built on a rather ridiculous lie) is filled with stock footage of Europeans. Oops.
Making matters worse are new revelations about one of Brown's few legislative accomplishments.
It was a rare show of bipartisanship -- President Barack Obama, flanked by Democrats and Republicans in April, signing into law a bill that would ban insider trading on Capitol Hill. The measure, known as the STOCK Act, had passed the House and Senate at warp speed.
Lawmakers proclaimed that the bill, officially called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, would restore trust in government.... But CNN uncovered that the law that members of Congress thought they voted for earlier this year isn't exactly as advertised. A loophole could still allow family members of some lawmakers to profit from inside information.
The point of the bill is to prevent insider trading among lawmakers. It wasn't as strong a bill as it could have been, but overall, the STOCK Act was a step worth taking.
But it turns out, there's a workaround: lawmakers' spouses are exempt. A member of Congress could get inside information, have his or her spouse make investments based on this information, and it would be legal, even under the new law.
Scott Brown ostensibly wrote the legislation, but he now says he didn't know about the loophole. Worse, there's evidence to the contrary.
Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, the only Republican senator to attend the White House signing ceremony, said he was "obviously very concerned."
"Say I find out some information, I tell my wife and she goes and trades on it, what's the difference?" Brown told CNN.
Good question. The answers is, as a practical matter, there is no difference. Brown's STOCK Act appears to have left some ambiguity, which lawmakers will now exploit.
OK, so maybe the Republican senator was just clumsy. Perhaps someone changed his proposal when he wasn't looking. Maybe Brown opposed the loophole but he lost some control over the direction of the legislation. He could be blamed for incompetent policymaking, which is hardly encouraging, but it's forgivable.
The problem, however, was flagged by David at Blue Mass Group: Brown knew all along that the STOCK Act wouldn't cover spouses' investments. In fact, Brown's office circulated a memo in November, specifically addressing this point. From Q&A in the memo:
Q: Does the Senate STOCK Act cover the spouses of members?
A: No. Spouses of members are outside the scope of the Senate STOCK Act.
So, the GOP senator is now "very concerned" that his major legislative accomplishment does exactly what he said it would do.
Do you ever get the feeling that maybe Scott Brown is in over his head?"
Steve Benen
Scott Brown is a phoney, he's a phony Conservative, a phoney Bipartisan, a phoney regular guy and a phony competent Senator!
Wow cut and pasted right from Rachel Maddow! Now I know it's a bunch of BS. Talk about a liar. Rachel Maddow??? TOOOO FUNNY! lmfao!!! Thanks for the chuckle.
Bob

AOL

#234 Jul 31, 2012
I would vote for Charles Manson.
Before I'd vote for Chief I a liar Warren.
A/K/A/ The big chief.
Painfully obvious

Fitchburg, MA

#235 Jul 31, 2012
MADCOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow cut and pasted right from Rachel Maddow! Now I know it's a bunch of BS. Talk about a liar. Rachel Maddow??? TOOOO FUNNY! lmfao!!! Thanks for the chuckle.
Of course, try and kill the messenger, too bad, so sad. That's all you have.

Care to show anything in that post that is not true?

Otherwise it stands regardless of your problems with factual reporting of actual events. We know it doesn't fit into your delusional fabricated reality BUT THOSE THINGS ALL ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN!!

C'mon brave and tough name calling messenger killer, prove just one non factual sentence in that whole post!!!!

You can't, and so instead come up with trying to discredit the messenger, you're pathetic, shove off until you can refute even one thing in that post!!!
Painfully obvious

Fitchburg, MA

#236 Jul 31, 2012
Obama and GE wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for real? 36 DAYS of super majority????????? Apparently, you don't even know what that means. Let me educate you: They had the House, the Senate, and the presidency. They had two years and that is a fact. How else do you think they rammed Obamacare through? They also had control of the House of reps the last 2 years of Bush. So, if it's a lie, what did they do? I'll wait for the name-calling now. Seems that's all you have and it's typical.
It's real cute you try and post all tough and smart like...

"Apparently, you don't even know what that means. Let me educate you: They had the House, the Senate, and the presidency. They had two years and that is a fact."

It's NOT FACTUAL meat head. Al Franken did not take his seat when he was supposed to, he was stonewalled by Republicans. He was seated in July LIAR!!!!!!!! And supposedly EDUCATING ME!!!!!!!! Dunce!

"Franken will be seated next week, following the July 4 holiday" in 2009, 8 months after the election.

When did ted Kennedy die oh genius educator???

"Aug 28, 2009 – Edward Kennedy, the patriarch of the first family of Democratic politics, died late Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts."

Can you count working days there smart guy?????? You're one and only question to answer, how many days is that???????

Scott Brown won that vacated seat, NO MAJORITY in the Senate!!!!!!

Check mate douche!

Now go slither onto some other town board idiot fabricator!
Painfully obvious

Fitchburg, MA

#237 Jul 31, 2012
Here's how smart you are...

"Obama and GE
Somerville, MA"

"MADCOW
Somerville, MA"

Gee, wonder if they are both you?

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah aha, f-ing idiot.
Painfully is Praxis33

Pittsfield, MA

#238 Jul 31, 2012
Just ignore painfully obvious.

Painfully obvious he is praxis33 trying a new name.
Somerville

Boston, MA

#239 Jul 31, 2012
Painfully obvious wrote:
Here's how smart you are...
"Obama and GE
Somerville, MA"
"MADCOW
Somerville, MA"
Gee, wonder if they are both you?
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah aha, f-ing idiot.
Yes they are both me. I wasn't trying to hide my identity. I just change the title to match what I'm going to write about. You sure proved my point about the name-calling though! Hmm who's the idiot now?
Painfully is Praxis33

Pittsfield, MA

#240 Jul 31, 2012
Somerville,
Painfully Obvious is an internet troll named Praxis33 from north adams, MA.

He is an avowed leftist, and god knows what else.

Praxis33

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#241 Jul 31, 2012
Painfully is Praxis33 wrote:
Somerville,
Painfully Obvious is an internet troll named Praxis33 from north adams, MA.
He is an avowed leftist, and god knows what else.
Look, it's "To Catch a Praxis" up to his old lying tricks.

I am not "Painfully Obvious," and why you're trying to hijack a thread with your juvenile nonsense shows just how desperate for attention you are.

Well, stupid people get lonely easily. They don't have the brain power to even talk to themselves.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Acton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Billerica weighs smaller lot sizes to attract h... May 2 hammerhead 1
News Did Acton Actually Get an Earthquake? Feb '16 too 1
News Small Earthquake Reported Near Acton Feb '16 storm 2day Acton ... 1
News Rape charges dropped in Westford beach case (Sep '09) Feb '16 Cc employee 39
News Lowell man arrested after long car chase (Sep '09) Feb '16 Stephen Picardi 9
News Veteran legislators offer advice to winner of T... Feb '16 Mingo 8
News Acton Weather: Will the Snow Melt? Feb '16 peep 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Acton Mortgages