Comments
101 - 120 of 183 Comments Last updated Feb 24, 2013
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Feb 19, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
"Do we need to close the tax loopholes and level the playing field, get rid of the corruption and better enforce the tax laws we have? YUP! But do we need to throw capitalism down the drain in the process? NOPE!"
I agree with that. And frankly from my point of view the vast majority of people on here that have seeming to be "bashed" capitalism have been pointing out the best they can the abuses of capitalism. Not capitalism itself.
I don't find much difference between those that appear to be bashing capitalism and the need to replace it with those who bash government and the need to replace it. Moving to eliminate either or even both is more problematic that it appears. Ideas are easy. Implementation not so much usually.
OK, we agree on that. Hey, there's a start!!

You're right too, I've made the mistake in the past of saying we need to just sweep everyone out of their cushy government jobs and replace them. In theory that would be great, but then we have to find someone to replace them. It's like firing an employee who doesn't work very hard and replacing them with someone who sucks at the job! haha

As for capitalism bashing, if someone can offer up a better alternative I'm all ears. But the simple truth is capitalism and a free market economy, if left uncorrupted, works. Socialism on the other hand has failed to live up to the promises it makes in regards to the middle class every single time. Therefore in my humble opinion we have a game plan, we just need to figure out a way to enforce the laws.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Feb 19, 2013
 
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la...
according to its 2012 annual earnings report. Facebook said it paid $2.86 billion to "the appropriate tax authorities.
So if you get a refund after filing your taxes does it mean you paid no taxes?
Another example of the left making people want to believe something that isn't true. Fortunatly for them they have stupid people out there like you that are buying the garbage they are putting out there.
It was my error to post Facebook paid no taxes. In FACT the headline of the article I linked http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la... "Facebook tax refund sparks outrage, but company did pay taxes".

So I will recant my saying they paid no taxes and admit my error. Thanks for so politely pointing out my error to me.

I still stand by the actuality that our taxation structure is not a nearly as repressive as those like you would like us all tho think.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Feb 19, 2013
 
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, we agree on that. Hey, there's a start!!
You're right too, I've made the mistake in the past of saying we need to just sweep everyone out of their cushy government jobs and replace them. In theory that would be great, but then we have to find someone to replace them. It's like firing an employee who doesn't work very hard and replacing them with someone who sucks at the job! haha
As for capitalism bashing, if someone can offer up a better alternative I'm all ears. But the simple truth is capitalism and a free market economy, if left uncorrupted, works. Socialism on the other hand has failed to live up to the promises it makes in regards to the middle class every single time. Therefore in my humble opinion we have a game plan, we just need to figure out a way to enforce the laws.
I never have and never would advocate Socialism.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Feb 19, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
It was my error to post Facebook paid no taxes. In FACT the headline of the article I linked http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la... "Facebook tax refund sparks outrage, but company did pay taxes".
So I will recant my saying they paid no taxes and admit my error. Thanks for so politely pointing out my error to me.
I still stand by the actuality that our taxation structure is not a nearly as repressive as those like you would like us all tho think.
SIB, thank you. You admitted an error and did it graciously. I'm not Chip, but I appreciate you saying what you said. While the tax system may not be nearly as repressive, it is repressive in certain areas, can we agree on that? I see your point about businesses taking advantage of the tax breaks. I also see your point about them lobbying for said tax breaks. Can we agree that both the lobbyists AND the people who are being paid to represent us, on both sides of the aisle, need to have some restraints put on them?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Feb 19, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>SIB, thank you. You admitted an error and did it graciously. I'm not Chip, but I appreciate you saying what you said. While the tax system may not be nearly as repressive, it is repressive in certain areas, can we agree on that? I see your point about businesses taking advantage of the tax breaks. I also see your point about them lobbying for said tax breaks. Can we agree that both the lobbyists AND the people who are being paid to represent us, on both sides of the aisle, need to have some restraints put on them?
Yes we can agree that the tax system is repressive in certain areas. I stand pat on it's being repressive on all those below the richest and the businesses that don't have the financial backing to take advantage of the tax breaks and loopholes that have been placed for only those able to afford them.

I stand solid on if we got rid of the free market for our legislators being up for bid we wouldn't be having these arguments. Get rid of the money and the corruption will go away. Other countries have made it strictly illegal for their representatives to be purchased and/or accept "bribes" and I don't think we are all that special that we shouldn't do the same. The laws we do have are as enforceable as tying a Great Dane to a sewing thread.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Feb 19, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we can agree that the tax system is repressive in certain areas. I stand pat on it's being repressive on all those below the richest and the businesses that don't have the financial backing to take advantage of the tax breaks and loopholes that have been placed for only those able to afford them.
I stand solid on if we got rid of the free market for our legislators being up for bid we wouldn't be having these arguments. Get rid of the money and the corruption will go away. Other countries have made it strictly illegal for their representatives to be purchased and/or accept "bribes" and I don't think we are all that special that we shouldn't do the same. The laws we do have are as enforceable as tying a Great Dane to a sewing thread.
I agree..now, how do we go about changing it? Do away with the Constitution in it's present form and start over? Or just do away with it altogether? Then we can make new laws that will suppress the bribing of our elected officials by corporations, unions, and any other lobbying group. We could then throw the lobbyists totally out of work and create a whole new class for unemployment. Of course, that would put a lot of Dems and Repubs out of work since they like to go work as lobbyists once they are done with their "careers". Or, do we fire the entire Supreme Court and start over? Or perhaps, something a little easier, how about we start enforcing the laws that are already on the books?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Feb 19, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>I agree..now, how do we go about changing it? Do away with the Constitution in it's present form and start over? Or just do away with it altogether? Then we can make new laws that will suppress the bribing of our elected officials by corporations, unions, and any other lobbying group. We could then throw the lobbyists totally out of work and create a whole new class for unemployment. Of course, that would put a lot of Dems and Repubs out of work since they like to go work as lobbyists once they are done with their "careers". Or, do we fire the entire Supreme Court and start over? Or perhaps, something a little easier, how about we start enforcing the laws that are already on the books?
There is no provision in the Constitution for lobbyists. Get rid of them, "unemploy" them I really don't care about them being unemployed. They are nothing other than lawyers, ex-congressional members, both Democrat and Republican, and policy shufflers. Not in my opinion working people. Contrivers are not working people.

There is provision in the Constitution to impeach/fire members of the Supreme Court. Because they are appointed for life does not mean they are immune from being dismissed for judicial misconduct. In my opinion, as well as many others, that includes redefining natural definitions for fictional definitions. Such as persons and speech. I have seen "money talk" but have never heard it talk. I have been in hospital nurseries and never seen a corporation in a bassinet. A corporation is fiction of law.

More importantly the purview of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality or lack thereof of the complex put before them. Not to legislate.

But Congress has to move on impeachment and with the Congress weighted the way it is in philosophical favor of such a ludicrous ruling it's not likely to happen.

Many of the laws that are on the books need to be overturned.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Feb 20, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no provision in the Constitution for lobbyists. Get rid of them, "unemploy" them I really don't care about them being unemployed. They are nothing other than lawyers, ex-congressional members, both Democrat and Republican, and policy shufflers. Not in my opinion working people. Contrivers are not working people.
There is provision in the Constitution to impeach/fire members of the Supreme Court. Because they are appointed for life does not mean they are immune from being dismissed for judicial misconduct. In my opinion, as well as many others, that includes redefining natural definitions for fictional definitions. Such as persons and speech. I have seen "money talk" but have never heard it talk. I have been in hospital nurseries and never seen a corporation in a bassinet. A corporation is fiction of law.
More importantly the purview of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality or lack thereof of the complex put before them. Not to legislate.
But Congress has to move on impeachment and with the Congress weighted the way it is in philosophical favor of such a ludicrous ruling it's not likely to happen.
Many of the laws that are on the books need to be overturned.
And you and I both know those laws will NOT be overturned (I'm sure we don't agree on all the laws that need to be overturned)until someone brings a challenge to those laws. So, what's the solution?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Feb 20, 2013
 
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And you and I both know those laws will NOT be overturned (I'm sure we don't agree on all the laws that need to be overturned)until someone brings a challenge to those laws. So, what's the solution?
I've said it SO many times before and I really don't feel like getting into the length of the explanation again. Get the campaign financing away from the richest and make the representatives obligated to the People again.
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Feb 20, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I've said it SO many times before and I really don't feel like getting into the length of the explanation again. Get the campaign financing away from the richest and make the representatives obligated to the People again.
The question really is, how do you stop someone from advocating for a particular candidate without taking away their freedom of speech?
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
Feb 20, 2013
 
Speech is not money o wise one.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
Feb 20, 2013
 
or conversely money is not speech unless you're a Teabagger, then anything applies whenever it suits you.
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
Feb 20, 2013
 
pipedream wrote:
Speech is not money o wise one.
Sorry moron, I was under the impression that the media charges money to advertise, you should let everyone know how you get it for free.
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Feb 20, 2013
 
Unless you assume people are using charades to promote a candidate, and not speaking then I guess you would be correct.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Feb 20, 2013
 
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry moron, I was under the impression that the media charges money to advertise, you should let everyone know how you get it for free.
Yes indeed, the media does charge LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of money for candidates and politicians to advertise themselves. And where do you think this money comes from o wise one?
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Feb 20, 2013
 
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes indeed, the media does charge LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of money for candidates and politicians to advertise themselves. And where do you think this money comes from o wise one?
So you now understand that money equates to someone's ability exercise their freedom of speech. Why don't you go back and read your original moron comment about speech and money.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Feb 20, 2013
 
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
So you now understand that money equates to someone's ability exercise their freedom of speech. Why don't you go back and read your original moron comment about speech and money.
You are dense enough I doubt you see light.

Stay on that merry-go-round and keep spinning. I really think the extent of your motives here is attention. Must be your video games aren't doing enough for you?
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Feb 20, 2013
 
and yes Chip, I'm grinning because of you. Good job. Like it when you Teabaggers show the world how dense and foolish you are. Keep it up.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Feb 20, 2013
 
pipedream wrote:
or conversely money is not speech unless you're a Teabagger, then anything applies whenever it suits you.
So, all those record setting campaign donations Obama received were not free speech? That only applies to Republicans? Great to know! I guess all your welfare money went to Obama then? You certainly got what you paid for....someone who refuses to be accountable for his actions, rather like you.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Feb 20, 2013
 
pipedream wrote:
and yes Chip, I'm grinning because of you. Good job. Like it when you Teabaggers show the world how dense and foolish you are. Keep it up.
How is that free Obama phone working out?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••