Did I say that? No. Your crystal ball must be broken double A. I am in favor of an honest discussion where one doesn't bring corporate taxation into a discussion about wealthy Americans. Last time I checked corporations were not individuals.
Originally Posted by angryamerican
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison
The language here is a bit over the to pragmatist. I meant exactly what I said, and asked a question. When the tax burden hits zero, is the government just supposed to step away from letting you keep your own money and into the realm of giving you money that wasn't yours in the first place?
I know you can curse, but can you answer questions?
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison
The SCOTUS sees corporations as legal "Persons" & these Persons are required by law to pay income taxes just like flesh & blood Persons. I suggest your argument is an attempt to dodge the issue with semantics. Why should these super-rich "Persons" (corporations) be able to evade the tax laws simply because they pay bribes to Congressmen & Senators as the GOP is in favor of? (I'd remind you....Every dime Exxon-Mobil doesn't pay in taxes is a dime you & I have to come up with)
Last edited by Devil505; 07-20-2010 at 06:32 AM.
"The secrecy of my job prevents me from knowing what I am doing"
I never said they should. I simply said that your statement that the Bush tax cuts helped everyone is simply a load of shit. If you did not make alot of money they did nothing for you, if you did make alot of money they saved you a small fortune. Why the fuck do you think they called them tax cuts for the rich? It is utterly and overwelmingly ridiculous to state the Bush tax cuts helped everyone equally, they didn't do a fucking thing for the poor guy.
Sure I answered it, no the govt should not be giving them money, they should not be giving the rich tax breaks either.I know you can curse, but can you answer questions?
A corporation is not a person, you are simply justifying having been shot down when you couldn't defend your point against individuals and switching boats in mid stream. :) You seem to be referencing Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad company. The court never took up the idea of "personhood" in that case, references were added by a court reporter though. ROFL
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison
I wonder how the GOP would react to a new federal incentive to get people to vote?
Suppose Obama offered 1 penny to every citizen who registers as a Republican....... & $100.00 to every citizen who registers as a Dem.
That's an across the board incentive for everyone, isn't it?
Exact same logic as the Bush tax cuts helped everyone!
"The secrecy of my job prevents me from knowing what I am doing"
Not really, but you certainly seem to believe that.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison
You also bet I'm a racist and a bunch of other unsubstantiated things.
I don't have to bet on my criticisms of you - I know you're irrational as hell.
First of all corporate personhood is not absolute, as it is a legal fiction that limits liability to the assets of the company, a mechanism to encourage investment...
Second of all, are you under some delusion that all of the individuals that work for a corporation do not pay income tax?
Third of all, Boog is right - you're just moving the goalposts all over the place; up until now - this was a discussion about income taxes, not corporate taxes.
Now that's just not true. They are independent efforts to gather revenue. What you are saying would make some kind of sense if we had a federal balanced budget amendment, but we don't.(I'd remind you....Every dime Exxon-Mobil doesn't pay in taxes is a dime you & I have to come up with)
I think I'll respond in the manner you're most likely to understand - since it's your MO; terse, accusatory, and vulgar. Three words for you: stop fucking lying.
Saying it a billion times doesn't make it true. Every tax bracket was reduced. Everyone that actually pays income taxes has seen a reduction in their tax burden. When the cuts expire, every tax bracket will go back up several percentage points.
You say something stupid and wrong once, and it can be corrected with accurate information. When you just keep on saying it after you've been corrected, you already damn well knew better.
Last edited by JayDubya; 07-20-2010 at 07:28 AM.
The Corporation – A Legal “Person”
Maybe you’ve heard that the Supreme Court ruled there should be no limits on corporate campaign contributions, finding that “the government has no business regulating political speech.” This follows from the corporation’s status as a person,
Borderland
A corporation is a business entity created under state law, which stands as an independent legal "person" apart from its shareholders and directors.
The Corporation
How many of these do you want?
Are you defending GE & Exxon-Mobil paying no tax last year?
"The secrecy of my job prevents me from knowing what I am doing"
Perhaps you should actually read Citizens United.
The term "corporate person" never once comes up in the ruling. What does come up, over and over, is that the First Amendment does not limit freedom of speech by speaker. It specifically limits Congress from interfering with speech.
Posting Permissions 
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
