Comments
61 - 70 of 70 Comments Last updated Feb 25, 2013
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Chip

Madison, WI

#61 Jan 31, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
But controlling them better requires oversight. That requires money to pay people to do it. That requires taxes. And taxes are a bad thing and to be eliminated and expenditures cut.
So how does one cut expenditures, cut taxes while controlling the system better.
And just remember the government can't defraud itself. The government is defrauded by private business recipients of those tax dollars. So lets deregulate business more.
Do you see the convolution?
The governemnt need to learn how to be more efficient and not just write checks to solve problems, business both big and small do this everyday. You seem content to just write anybody a check who says they need it.

For the record I don't think big business should be getting any tax dollars, because the government shouldn't be picking winners and loosers like Solyndra and all of the other Obama campaign contribution payback schemes. However the democrats seem to call allowing a business to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses as some sort of government money that's going to these companies.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#62 Jan 31, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know enough about how the deals were done to argue one way or the other if it was right or not. What I'm saying is that in total the amount of profits Goldman made on the deal wouldn't chage the outcome of Greece's financial problems because it is just one needle in a haystack of 30 years of bad government policy.
I might agree that what GS MADE on the deal wouldn't have made much difference. What they did I would say yes. That they made a profit off it makes it just that much more heinous.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#63 Jan 31, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
The governemnt need to learn how to be more efficient and not just write checks to solve problems, business both big and small do this everyday. You seem content to just write anybody a check who says they need it.
For the record I don't think big business should be getting any tax dollars, because the government shouldn't be picking winners and loosers like Solyndra and all of the other Obama campaign contribution payback schemes. However the democrats seem to call allowing a business to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses as some sort of government money that's going to these companies.
I'll see your Solyndra and raise you the list I posted earlier, plus this one http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/Corpor...
Democrats(?) allowing deductions for ordinary and necessary expenses as some sort of a government handout? Really? No! But then I suppose it's what is considered necessary and ordinary. When companies pay zero income taxes, get subsidies and tax refunds while still making billion in profits sorta makes ordinary and necessary expenses suspect to me.
Chip

Rockford, IL

#64 Jan 31, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll see your Solyndra and raise you the list I posted earlier, plus this one http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/Corpor...
Democrats(?) allowing deductions for ordinary and necessary expenses as some sort of a government handout? Really? No! But then I suppose it's what is considered necessary and ordinary. When companies pay zero income taxes, get subsidies and tax refunds while still making billion in profits sorta makes ordinary and necessary expenses suspect to me.
Just taking one name from the list GE. Stating that they paid no taxes is just a lie. One can only assume the rest of the article is full of half truths and lies as well.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04...

This is just another example of the left outright lying because they know the people who vote for them are too stupid to figure out the truth. Looks like you took the bait hook line and sinker.
Chip

Rockford, IL

#65 Jan 31, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>I might agree that what GS MADE on the deal wouldn't have made much difference. What they did I would say yes. That they made a profit off it makes it just that much more heinous.
I'd be willing to bet that every company that does work for our government does so with the aim of making a profit.
Chip

Rockford, IL

#66 Jan 31, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll see your Solyndra and raise you the list I posted earlier, plus this one http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/Corpor...
Democrats(?) allowing deductions for ordinary and necessary expenses as some sort of a government handout? Really? No! But then I suppose it's what is considered necessary and ordinary. When companies pay zero income taxes, get subsidies and tax refunds while still making billion in profits sorta makes ordinary and necessary expenses suspect to me.
If you want to read between the lines you will notice it says net taxes paid and not gross taxes paid. So if a company as required by law paid 110% of prior years taxes as an estimate and their income dropped below prior year, which most companies did during this time period, they would end up being overpaid in taxes at the end of the year based on their income. This in turn results in a net tax refund. However you will note they still paid taxes during the year. Do you think everyone who gets a tax refund pays no taxes or do you think its due to the fact that they paid in more during the year than what was actually owed.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#67 Jan 31, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Just taking one name from the list GE. Stating that they paid no taxes is just a lie. One can only assume the rest of the article is full of half truths and lies as well.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04...
This is just another example of the left outright lying because they know the people who vote for them are too stupid to figure out the truth. Looks like you took the bait hook line and sinker.
Read the entire article please;
"Did GE pay U.S. income taxes in 2010? Yes, it paid estimated taxes for 2010, and also made payments for previous years. Think of it as your having paid withholding taxes on your salary in 2010, and sending the IRS a check on April 15, 2010, covering your balance owed for 2009.

Will GE ultimately pay U.S. income taxes for 2010? After much to-ing and fro-ing -- the company says it hasn't completed its 2010 tax return -- GE now says that it will pay tax.(For more on GE's tax strategies, see GE's taxes: A case study)"

and

"The Times' own headline writers got that impression too. "GE Turns the Tax Man Away Empty-Handed," read the headline on early editions, including the Times' Washington edition, the version that politicians and the DC-based news media and commentariat see. "GE's Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether," was the original head on nytimes.com , the version the blogosphere reads.....
GE made a muddled situation worse by putting complicated, technical, and lawyerly rebuttals on its website, tweeting them, tripping over itself, and then proving unable to explain itself in public exchanges with the likes of Henry Blodget, proprietor of the widely followed Business Insider blog. Or in conversations with reporters."

Pretty much takes care of the "left's outright lying" and my "taking the bait hook line and sinker".

GE hasn't even finished filing it's taxes as of April 2011.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#68 Jan 31, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be willing to bet that every company that does work for our government does so with the aim of making a profit.
Your dancing around the point does not negate it.
Chip

Rockford, IL

#69 Jan 31, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the entire article please;
"Did GE pay U.S. income taxes in 2010? Yes, it paid estimated taxes for 2010, and also made payments for previous years. Think of it as your having paid withholding taxes on your salary in 2010, and sending the IRS a check on April 15, 2010, covering your balance owed for 2009.
Will GE ultimately pay U.S. income taxes for 2010? After much to-ing and fro-ing -- the company says it hasn't completed its 2010 tax return -- GE now says that it will pay tax.(For more on GE's tax strategies, see GE's taxes: A case study)"
and
"The Times' own headline writers got that impression too. "GE Turns the Tax Man Away Empty-Handed," read the headline on early editions, including the Times' Washington edition, the version that politicians and the DC-based news media and commentariat see. "GE's Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether," was the original head on nytimes.com , the version the blogosphere reads.....
GE made a muddled situation worse by putting complicated, technical, and lawyerly rebuttals on its website, tweeting them, tripping over itself, and then proving unable to explain itself in public exchanges with the likes of Henry Blodget, proprietor of the widely followed Business Insider blog. Or in conversations with reporters."
Pretty much takes care of the "left's outright lying" and my "taking the bait hook line and sinker".
GE hasn't even finished filing it's taxes as of April 2011.
You posted a link that says GE did not pay any taxes while making an argument about how all the corporations are getting these big tax brakes. I responded with an article saying that was not accurate. What's your point by posting that I was correct?
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#71 Feb 25, 2013
Sassy wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2013/01/28/roxanne-rubin_n_256 6297.html
You don't think other Republicans and Democrats did the samething and got away with it voting twice.

A Minnesota college student got caught doing the samething in college/Minnesota and used an absentee ballot at home in St Louis.

http://www.wctrib.com/content/records-1142

Voter ID isn't the total answer but it will help. A routine id check should be implemented if nothing else including current utility bills and/or drivers license/st id to prevent & catch people who move and try to vote in multiple locations. The problem is you MIGHT catch some people but do you throw out their votes? Especially on a machine with no paper trail? Voter fraud prevention is the goal, NOT prosecuting a fraud and letting their vote stand.

A voter id with a unique number should be used every election. Not only would it track who voted you could track their vote down with numbers only and disqualify it IF they voted fraudulently. Example: If voter 1313 was the 100th person to vote that day you could throw out vote 100 just using numbers. I wouldn't be worrying about names if they are already accussed of voter fraud.

Voters especially need to be tracked to PREVENT voter fraud.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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 Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 4 hr kookierecluse 11
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 4 hr kookierecluse 936
Meet The Press 7 hr Go Blue Forever 3
why war with isis? Fri Colonel Sanders 15
Plafkin Brothers-McDonalds, Home of the Famous ... (Jun '13) Fri Colonel Sanders 9
The cheerleaders with their tight skirts are v... Aug 28 Phil 1
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) Aug 28 Buffalo Bull 1,326
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••