ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Haha still running with Russian nonsense eh? Basically a broke ass country - like Mexico but with nukes

That's what makes it so embarrassing for you guys.

I wouldn't want to admit it either if I were you.

'

Whats embarrassing is admitting y'all want to tax people more than you have. envy, greed, etc. Basically 7 sins.

Nice deflection. By the way I heard pride was one of the 7 sins, just to let you know.

I wonder how you could fix your country. Hey I've got an idea! How about applying any tax rate to the biggest 60 or so corporations that didn't pay a single dime last year? Whilst you're at it, how about not subsidising the oil industry by billions? Also, how about a progressive tax rate that doesn't make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Some of that you could consider putting in your monumentally crazy deficit, or universal healthcare (aren't you ashamed that friggin Belgium has it, but you don't?? I mean, Belgium, come on!) or shock horror education.

This would in a roundabout way reduce income inequality, a major source of civil strife, crime etc.

But first you actually have to realise how appalling the state of affairs currently are.

Only then can you actually make me happy, and decarbonise the nation. ACtually we still haven't dealt with the massive underlying corruption in your political system, where corporate lobbyists run the show.

So I have very little faith. Better let the Russians take over, I think.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Bernie went on his honeymoon is soviet Russia. Who does that?

Fucking commies, that's who. Funny thing is that I still liked Bernie, at least he was for real even though many of his ideas are stupid. But after he sold out to Queen Moloch I lost all respect for him.

Russians cant even take over Ukraine where 1/3 population is Russian - I'm not as worried about that third world country as you seem to be. Just like I'm not concerned about rag tag salfi jihadis taking over anything the right seems to be.

Corps pay tones of taxes. Everything from excise to all the employee taxes. At our compnay every dollar we pay an employee we pay about 66% in direct taxes and compliance costs e.g. workman's comp, HC and so on.

The argument for low or even no corp income taxes is sound. Some nations, even those with heavy social welfare have zero corp tax such as I believe sweden and to tax ours puts them at a competitive disadvantage in a global market place.

Besides the dividends and income a person takes out of corps is taxed at a progressive rate. So the income is always taxed eventually.

All great empires destroy themselves from within not outside forces, which we are doing moving to socialist folly, perpetual warfare, (welfare warfare state) and allowing gov to destroy social capital. Thats what I worry about.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Weren't the attacker's attribution still unknown at that time?

Only if you lived in a cave for the past decade or so.

"

faerwin wrote:

Beside, kind of hard to condemn ISIS (or cells of it) harder than declaring a war on them.

Radical Islamic Terrorism. It's not hard to say for normal people. It's also not hard to say Christians.

"

faerwin wrote:

As for Easter, it's celebrated across most faiths with christians roots, which as you know, include many different faiths. So in that sense, I don't really see anything wrong with this. Better to envelop all of them in one go than forgetting one.

Nobody ever says "Easter worshippers". And Easter is a Christian holiday, there's no way around it. Which other faiths celebrate Easter, especially in a church?

You cannot assume who's gonna revendicate the attacks. Especially in a foreign country of which you have no knowledge of the political climate.


Of course radical islamic terrorism is to be condemned as well as those attacks. However, official information was not known at the time and as such, you cannot denounce a particular group for it. You can denounce the perpetrators and that's about it.

Christians, Protestants, Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, just to name a few. I'm sure I am missing some.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

The argument for low or even no corp taxes is sound. Some nations, even those with heavy social welfare have zero corp tax such as I believe sweden and to tax ours puts them at a competitive disadvantage in a global market place.

That isn't a fair comparison. Sweden also has a higher marginal tax rate for low-income workers (roughly 10% more). And has a 70% tax for salaries over 79k.

I think those tax rates are absolutely horrific if you wanted to do anything remotely creative with your money. Especially, on low-income workers. What heck. That kind of rate would obliterate your options.

I mean its good to know there isn't a corporate tax in Sweden, but it totally misses the Elephant in the room, which is that everyone pays a ton of taxes in that country.

I'm not sure the competitive difference is as big as you might think it is, lol.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I wasn't trying to be dismissive of activist jurisprudence — which is my name for anything that isn't originalist jurisprudence. I was explaining why it is tempting to me, and hopefully came close to explaining why it's tempting to large numbers of duly elected and appointed judges around the country. Ultimately I still believe it is not the best way, but let me reiterate: my polite rejection is by no means to be interpreted as a contemptuous dismissal.

I mean... the name itself is rather dismissive, isn't it? It really implies that if you're not an originalist, your opinion doesn't have much to do with the constitution. "Pragmatist" is a slightly less loaded term, albeit perhaps a bit too euphemistic in the other direction.

I'll call them whatever it seems they want to be called. I call progressives progressives even though I don't think what they want would be progress, and I call Democrats Democrats even though the Democrat establishment actively smears populists both inside and outside its caucus. I wouldn't have any problem saying Pragmatist judges aren't being pragmatic, at least not according to a long-term perspective, if I felt such a comment was warranted. A name is just a name.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

I realize I'm kind of talking past you specifically, and kudos to you for not being part of that... thing, but I feel like establishing the larger cultural context is important here so you understand why I see "originalist" as such a loaded term.

And, in some cases at least, rightfully so. "Originalist" judges who take the law into their own hands tarnish the brand. They should realize that they can fool some people, but not everyone, and that each time they betray their stated principles there's a few more people who see them by what they do, not by what they call themselves. As I said earlier, a name is just a name.

I'd like it if the brand of originalism would gain a reputation of practicing what it preaches. But a rebranding might be more, um, pragmatic.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

*tax stuff*

I don't particularly want to delve into your attempt to move the goalposts. Rojimbo (IIRC) was asking for things Trump did for the American people; the tax cuts helped the working and middle class substantially. This is a separate issue from whatever harm you may believe he has caused. Tax cuts are an obvious "pro" in the "pro/con" chart. Tens of millions of Americans will remember the extra refund money and appreciate it. As I said (via edit) earlier, any Democrat that mocks that will be eaten alive.

Now something like, "I know y'all like that extra refund money, and that's good, but the Republicans rammed so much pork through by attaching it to those tax cuts, it's almost like he's bribing you to look the other way..." THAT might work. Maybe.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Russians cant even take over Ukraine where 1/3 population is Russian - I'm not as worried about that third world country as you seem to be. Just like I'm not concerned about rag tag salfi jihadis taking over anything the right seems to be.

Corps pay tones of taxes. Everything from excise to all the employee taxes. At our compnay every dollar we pay an employee we pay about 66% in direct taxes and compliance costs e.g. workman's comp, HC and so on.

The argument for low or even no corp income taxes is sound. Some nations, even those with heavy social welfare have zero corp tax such as I believe sweden and to tax ours puts them at a competitive disadvantage in a global market place.

Besides the dividends and income a person takes out of corps is taxed at a progressive rate. So the income is always taxed eventually.

Your misconceptions about Sweden are misguided indeed. On average EU corporate tax rates are indeed a bit lower, in the 18% range, compared to North AMerica's 24% apparently.

But what I'm talking about is tax avoidance by Fortune 500 companies:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/

"

Big companies have long relied on strategies to reduce their tax bills. But the new tax law is making it even easier, with a new analysis finding that 60 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes on a total of $79 billion of profits earned in 2018.

The companies, which include tech giants such as Amazon and Netflix, should have paid a collective $16.4 billion in federal income taxes based on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's 21 percent corporate tax rate, according to the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Instead, these corporations received a net tax rebate of $4.3 billion. The analysis is based on the corporations' annual financial reports, which were filed earlier this year to report their 2018 results.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

The argument for low or even no corp taxes is sound. Some nations, even those with heavy social welfare have zero corp tax such as I believe sweden and to tax ours puts them at a competitive disadvantage in a global market place.

That isn't a fair comparison. Sweden also has a higher marginal tax rate for low-income workers (roughly 10% more). And has a 70% tax for salaries over 79k.

I think those tax rates are absolutely horrific if you wanted to do anything remotely creative with your money. Especially, on low-income workers. What heck. That kind of rate would obliterate your options.

I mean its good to know there isn't a corporate tax in Sweden, but it totally misses the Elephant in the room, which is that everyone pays a ton of taxes in that country.

I'm not sure the competitive difference is as big as you might think it is, lol.

Keep electing democrat's we'll get to 70% taxes on McDonald's fry cook because they run out of rich people to tax when they all leave or quit the program.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Are you seriously saying that we shouldn't have public schools?

EDIT: sorry, that's not fair, that statement is inherently unserious, as is anyone saying it. I should have said, "Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't have public schools?"

The Federal government shouldnt be involved in Public schools. It's not in the enumerated powers congress is allowed and has proven a disaster.

This is so nonsensical that I don't even know where to start with it. Like, seriously, how does one come to such a bizarre and stupid opinion? I honestly do not get it. You don't really give me anything to go off of beyond "government bad" and some crap about private schools (which is at best still a hotly debated question).

I'd like to point out that Aim_Deep did not directly answer your question. You essentially asked "Do you believe government should be involved in schools?" He answered "the federal government shouldnt be involved in public schools." This answer does not necessarily rule out the involvement of state and/or municipal government.

I also don't want the federal government involved in public schools. But I do want public schools.

We probably should ask again, though: Mr Deep, do you believe that public schools should exist in the United States, or not?

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Russians cant even take over Ukraine where 1/3 population is Russian - I'm not as worried about that third world country as you seem to be. Just like I'm not concerned about rag tag salfi jihadis taking over anything the right seems to be.

Corps pay tones of taxes. Everything from excise to all the employee taxes. At our compnay every dollar we pay an employee we pay about 66% in direct taxes and compliance costs e.g. workman's comp, HC and so on.

The argument for low or even no corp income taxes is sound. Some nations, even those with heavy social welfare have zero corp tax such as I believe sweden and to tax ours puts them at a competitive disadvantage in a global market place.

Besides the dividends and income a person takes out of corps is taxed at a progressive rate. So the income is always taxed eventually.

Your misconceptions about Sweden are misguided indeed. On average EU corporate tax rates are indeed a bit lower, in the 18% range, compared to North AMerica's 24% apparently.

But what I'm talking about is tax avoidance by Fortune 500 companies:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/

"

Big companies have long relied on strategies to reduce their tax bills. But the new tax law is making it even easier, with a new analysis finding that 60 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes on a total of $79 billion of profits earned in 2018.

The companies, which include tech giants such as Amazon and Netflix, should have paid a collective $16.4 billion in federal income taxes based on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's 21 percent corporate tax rate, according to the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Instead, these corporations received a net tax rebate of $4.3 billion. The analysis is based on the corporations' annual financial reports, which were filed earlier this year to report their 2018 results.

So these left leaning tech giants have co-opted the tax code to their benefit. What a surprise they are just as "selfish" as us meanie Republicans who want to keep our hard earned money instead of giving to to free loaders, corporations, and unaccountable bureaucrats.

Anyway that's not tax avoidance which is a crime that's using tax code. We don't have a flat tax instead there are millions of nuances in it and it's very variable. They did nothing illegal though.