The person work in D.C. and they will go to bed with anyone for the right price.
It is futile to try to tell a company not to do everything it can to make a profit. It is like telling the wind not to blow. They have responsibilities to their share holders.
I am just saying why can't we hold the politicians responsible that are the root cause of this type of behavior, that do not only enable it, but willfully participate in it. One thing that Nancy Pelosi said (even though it's application would mean her ouster) was the "drain the swamp" analogy.
0
The Companies would be the John in the situation.
The person work in D.C. and they will go to bed with anyone for the right price.
It is futile to try to tell a company not to do everything it can to make a profit. It is like telling the wind not to blow. They have responsibilities to their share holders.
I am just saying why can't we hold the politicians responsible that are the root cause of this type of behavior, that do not only enable it, but willfully participate in it. One thing that Nancy Pelosi said (even though it's application would mean her ouster) was the "drain the swamp" analogy.
Wake up SS..GE has been a slime ball company for decades, hell probably a century or more.
Leave it to you in making a lame political poke about an issue which has been in existance since before you were born, good job.
Lobbyists are what needs to be exterminated from politics..get the private industry OUT of politics and the government.
Wallstreetcappers,I made no lame political poke about the issue ...but I can see your point ..political pokes have no business in a political Forum ....
I was only agreeing with you ..after you made the poke that "GE is one of the most disgusting and sleazy companies out there" and I think that accounted for the one of reasons Obama appointing Immelt...if it wasn't ..we can debate why it wasn't.. no need for sarcasm ..that is as long as if we don't drift into the political topic of corn futures and the commodity market... not my area..
Maybe I should follow your lead and only take political pokes at lobbyist and the disgusting, sleazy and vile company's in the private industry ...and not a politician who is running our country ..
..and so I'll know in the future ....what is the cut-off date for making political comments about issue's that have been in existance since before someone was born ?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Wake up SS..GE has been a slime ball company for decades, hell probably a century or more.
Leave it to you in making a lame political poke about an issue which has been in existance since before you were born, good job.
Lobbyists are what needs to be exterminated from politics..get the private industry OUT of politics and the government.
Wallstreetcappers,I made no lame political poke about the issue ...but I can see your point ..political pokes have no business in a political Forum ....
I was only agreeing with you ..after you made the poke that "GE is one of the most disgusting and sleazy companies out there" and I think that accounted for the one of reasons Obama appointing Immelt...if it wasn't ..we can debate why it wasn't.. no need for sarcasm ..that is as long as if we don't drift into the political topic of corn futures and the commodity market... not my area..
Maybe I should follow your lead and only take political pokes at lobbyist and the disgusting, sleazy and vile company's in the private industry ...and not a politician who is running our country ..
..and so I'll know in the future ....what is the cut-off date for making political comments about issue's that have been in existance since before someone was born ?
To me you are looking ay the end result and siding with the portion of the equation which you agree with.
The real answer to the situation can me made by observing the constant through time.
Regardless of WHO is in office the results are the exact same. Decades, centuries of similar results, shuffle the politicians in and out, repub or dem, color or age or sex it matters not.
To me the fault lays with the MONEY and the provider of the money and how greed destroys.
Who has more to gain, politician "A" or corporation "A"?
I also completely disgaree with the free market theory and how we should not expect companies to do more than just make profits and provide jobs. If the only measure of importance is profits and jobs then we have no hope. Companies should be held to a HIGHER measure because the general public does not have full transparency into what that corporation is producing or HOW. The underlying concept that you and others toss out of "free market choice" is how the public can change anf influence supply is only valid if FULL transpareny exists, and we both know it definitely does NOT exist.
SS, thanks for the deflection, your comment was a poke at Obama period, as usual you take a shot at a dem on any topic and as usual it missed completely. Keep in mind I dont agree with or care for Obama, the party pokes are just short sided and of no value IMO.
0
rick,
To me you are looking ay the end result and siding with the portion of the equation which you agree with.
The real answer to the situation can me made by observing the constant through time.
Regardless of WHO is in office the results are the exact same. Decades, centuries of similar results, shuffle the politicians in and out, repub or dem, color or age or sex it matters not.
To me the fault lays with the MONEY and the provider of the money and how greed destroys.
Who has more to gain, politician "A" or corporation "A"?
I also completely disgaree with the free market theory and how we should not expect companies to do more than just make profits and provide jobs. If the only measure of importance is profits and jobs then we have no hope. Companies should be held to a HIGHER measure because the general public does not have full transparency into what that corporation is producing or HOW. The underlying concept that you and others toss out of "free market choice" is how the public can change anf influence supply is only valid if FULL transpareny exists, and we both know it definitely does NOT exist.
SS, thanks for the deflection, your comment was a poke at Obama period, as usual you take a shot at a dem on any topic and as usual it missed completely. Keep in mind I dont agree with or care for Obama, the party pokes are just short sided and of no value IMO.
I really don't understand the point of this stupid thread.
Here we have The queen of liberals, cdnumbers, iwhining about a corporation who apparently doesn't pay any corporate taxes, ok, but who is he whining to?
His Lord and Savior (Obungler) has fully endorsed this arrangement and additionally,GE is a GIGANTIC (D) supporter...so are you condeming your own presidents' and partys' behavior??
I really don''t understand this at all.
cdnumbers
0
I really don't understand the point of this stupid thread.
Here we have The queen of liberals, cdnumbers, iwhining about a corporation who apparently doesn't pay any corporate taxes, ok, but who is he whining to?
His Lord and Savior (Obungler) has fully endorsed this arrangement and additionally,GE is a GIGANTIC (D) supporter...so are you condeming your own presidents' and partys' behavior??
SS, thanks for the deflection, your comment was a poke at Obama period, as usual you take a shot at a dem on any topic and as usual it missed completely. Keep in mind I dont agree with or care for Obama, the party pokes are just short sided and of no value IMO.
I see ....no problem so IYO it's not short sided for someone to loose control and post the poke in post #11..............makes sense..I will take that under advisement ..
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
rick,
SS, thanks for the deflection, your comment was a poke at Obama period, as usual you take a shot at a dem on any topic and as usual it missed completely. Keep in mind I dont agree with or care for Obama, the party pokes are just short sided and of no value IMO.
I see ....no problem so IYO it's not short sided for someone to loose control and post the poke in post #11..............makes sense..I will take that under advisement ..
I think the most interesting part of the article....
"from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent
in 2009 . Yet many companies say the current level is so high it
hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals."
Read that again. Corporations' profits have increased exponentially in the last 50 years and there are many more corporations, but their share of federal tax has plummeted from 30% to 6.6%. 6.6%!!!!! Sickening.
0
I think the most interesting part of the article....
"from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent
in 2009 . Yet many companies say the current level is so high it
hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals."
Read that again. Corporations' profits have increased exponentially in the last 50 years and there are many more corporations, but their share of federal tax has plummeted from 30% to 6.6%. 6.6%!!!!! Sickening.
I think the most interesting part of the article....
"from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent
in 2009 . Yet many companies say the current level is so high it
hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals."
Read that again. Corporations' profits have increased exponentially in the last 50 years and there are many more corporations, but their share of federal tax has plummeted from 30% to 6.6%. 6.6%!!!!! Sickening.
And they all do it. And you almost can't even blame the corporation. They have fiduciary duties to shareholders to minimize taxes. It's Congress' fault for allowing themselves to be bought off.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
I think the most interesting part of the article....
"from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent
in 2009 . Yet many companies say the current level is so high it
hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals."
Read that again. Corporations' profits have increased exponentially in the last 50 years and there are many more corporations, but their share of federal tax has plummeted from 30% to 6.6%. 6.6%!!!!! Sickening.
And they all do it. And you almost can't even blame the corporation. They have fiduciary duties to shareholders to minimize taxes. It's Congress' fault for allowing themselves to be bought off.
I suppose that is where we will disagree, I think that the regulations and tax code that were written by and for these corporations is the result of a corruptible Political system, that is broken through the degradation of some of our core values.
Not all the politicians fault
A lot of the fault lies with the cowardly populace that does not stop the corruption. Pitchforks and torches should do the trick.
0
Wall,
I suppose that is where we will disagree, I think that the regulations and tax code that were written by and for these corporations is the result of a corruptible Political system, that is broken through the degradation of some of our core values.
Not all the politicians fault
A lot of the fault lies with the cowardly populace that does not stop the corruption. Pitchforks and torches should do the trick.
exactly someday people are going to wake up from the brain fog they are in and realize that these giant corporations have totally destroyed our country while making massive profits that are so large its actually hard to grasp. They will then realize it wasnt the little guy trying to get a small slice of a pie, but the giant leeches who just didnt pay their fair share like all of us have been doing year in and year out.
Its easy to make tons of cash, when you dont pay anything in taxes.
The rich get richer, while the little guy pays for them. Its been like this since mans been on the planet and will be like that until the day man isnt here anymore.
how do you feel about microsofts profits?
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
exactly someday people are going to wake up from the brain fog they are in and realize that these giant corporations have totally destroyed our country while making massive profits that are so large its actually hard to grasp. They will then realize it wasnt the little guy trying to get a small slice of a pie, but the giant leeches who just didnt pay their fair share like all of us have been doing year in and year out.
Its easy to make tons of cash, when you dont pay anything in taxes.
The rich get richer, while the little guy pays for them. Its been like this since mans been on the planet and will be like that until the day man isnt here anymore.
jobs arent created when earnings are stolen from job creators. governments dont create jobs. they simply transfer income and wealth from private taxpayer citizens to political friends
What I mean is that during his time office there was strong economic
growth, and as a result the economy under his administration created over 20
million jobs.....
This was caused by taxing the wealthy and lowering the amount of Americans living in poverty, as well low inflation rates, high ownership, etc....
You're arguing a technicality....
0
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
jobs arent created when earnings are stolen from job creators. governments dont create jobs. they simply transfer income and wealth from private taxpayer citizens to political friends
What I mean is that during his time office there was strong economic
growth, and as a result the economy under his administration created over 20
million jobs.....
This was caused by taxing the wealthy and lowering the amount of Americans living in poverty, as well low inflation rates, high ownership, etc....
I think the most interesting part of the article....
"from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent
in 2009 . Yet many companies say the current level is so high it
hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals."
Read that again. Corporations' profits have increased exponentially in the last 50 years and there are many more corporations, but their share of federal tax has plummeted from 30% to 6.6%. 6.6%!!!!! Sickening.
dedpeche2: 100% spot on.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
I think the most interesting part of the article....
"from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent
in 2009 . Yet many companies say the current level is so high it
hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals."
Read that again. Corporations' profits have increased exponentially in the last 50 years and there are many more corporations, but their share of federal tax has plummeted from 30% to 6.6%. 6.6%!!!!! Sickening.
Ok SS, I guess you are just prone to deflection and jabs, lets break down the thread sequence.
CD makes a thread about GE and taxes, you wait all of 12 minutes to not only take a swipe at CD (which you have been asked to avoid) but turn a thread about GE and their century long tax cheating into a swipe at Obama having Jeffy be in some political panel.
Tell me exactly why you needed to do those things when it has nothing to do with the topic and was bashing CD to boot?
I think you are doing a disservice to a good topic and a good forum when you often resort to these tactics.
0
Ok SS, I guess you are just prone to deflection and jabs, lets break down the thread sequence.
CD makes a thread about GE and taxes, you wait all of 12 minutes to not only take a swipe at CD (which you have been asked to avoid) but turn a thread about GE and their century long tax cheating into a swipe at Obama having Jeffy be in some political panel.
Tell me exactly why you needed to do those things when it has nothing to do with the topic and was bashing CD to boot?
I think you are doing a disservice to a good topic and a good forum when you often resort to these tactics.
Ok SS, I guess you are just prone to deflection and jabs, lets break down the thread sequence.
CD makes a thread about GE and taxes, you wait all of 12 minutes to not only take a swipe at CD (which you have been asked to avoid) but turn a thread about GE and their century long tax cheating into a swipe at Obama having Jeffy be in some political panel.
Tell me exactly why you needed to do those things when it has nothing to do with the topic and was bashing CD to boot?
I think you are doing a disservice to a good topic and a good forum when you often resort to these tactics.
What cheating of taxes?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Ok SS, I guess you are just prone to deflection and jabs, lets break down the thread sequence.
CD makes a thread about GE and taxes, you wait all of 12 minutes to not only take a swipe at CD (which you have been asked to avoid) but turn a thread about GE and their century long tax cheating into a swipe at Obama having Jeffy be in some political panel.
Tell me exactly why you needed to do those things when it has nothing to do with the topic and was bashing CD to boot?
I think you are doing a disservice to a good topic and a good forum when you often resort to these tactics.
offshore hiding and shuffling of revenues, that is pure cheating.
A normal citizen does that, the IRS smacks the hell out of them, a corporation does it and everyone gets bonuses an accolades.
Go figure..also GE is a monster corp, I am sure they also play the export production/import finished good shuffle which is also pure cheating. Not corporate cheating but social and tax cheating.
0
rooster,
offshore hiding and shuffling of revenues, that is pure cheating.
A normal citizen does that, the IRS smacks the hell out of them, a corporation does it and everyone gets bonuses an accolades.
Go figure..also GE is a monster corp, I am sure they also play the export production/import finished good shuffle which is also pure cheating. Not corporate cheating but social and tax cheating.
What I mean is that during his time office there was strong economic growth, and as a result the economy under his administration created over 20 million jobs.....
This was caused by taxing the wealthy and lowering the amount of Americans living in poverty, as well low inflation rates, high ownership, etc....
You're arguing a technicality....
You mean the time period that the Reps held the Senate and House?...And towards the end of his reighn when the dems pushed for lending practices that built up Fanny and Freddy yet tore down our economy as we knew it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
What I mean is that during his time office there was strong economic growth, and as a result the economy under his administration created over 20 million jobs.....
This was caused by taxing the wealthy and lowering the amount of Americans living in poverty, as well low inflation rates, high ownership, etc....
You're arguing a technicality....
You mean the time period that the Reps held the Senate and House?...And towards the end of his reighn when the dems pushed for lending practices that built up Fanny and Freddy yet tore down our economy as we knew it.
I really don't understand the point of this stupid thread.
Here we have The queen of liberals, cdnumbers, iwhining about a corporation who apparently doesn't pay any corporate taxes, ok, but who is he whining to?
His Lord and Savior (Obungler) has fully endorsed this arrangement and additionally,GE is a GIGANTIC (D) supporter...so are you condeming your own presidents' and partys' behavior??
I really don''t understand this at all.
cdnumbers
Hey dickie, why dont you go play in your make believe mma land and leave the real politics to the big boys. First off genius, just because i voted for Obama doesnt make me some total liberal guy. I vote repulbican and i vote democrat. I vote for the person not the party and had the republicans picked a better vp i would have voted fo McCain. So now with that said go and fuck yourself punk.
Heres a news falsh the story i posted isnt about me, so posts something useful about the story or keep your vile mouth shut.
0
Quote Originally Posted by RichardA:
I really don't understand the point of this stupid thread.
Here we have The queen of liberals, cdnumbers, iwhining about a corporation who apparently doesn't pay any corporate taxes, ok, but who is he whining to?
His Lord and Savior (Obungler) has fully endorsed this arrangement and additionally,GE is a GIGANTIC (D) supporter...so are you condeming your own presidents' and partys' behavior??
I really don''t understand this at all.
cdnumbers
Hey dickie, why dont you go play in your make believe mma land and leave the real politics to the big boys. First off genius, just because i voted for Obama doesnt make me some total liberal guy. I vote repulbican and i vote democrat. I vote for the person not the party and had the republicans picked a better vp i would have voted fo McCain. So now with that said go and fuck yourself punk.
Heres a news falsh the story i posted isnt about me, so posts something useful about the story or keep your vile mouth shut.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
rick
someday people are going to wake up from the brain fog they are in and realize that these giant corporations have totally destroyed our country while making massive profits that are so large its actually hard to grasp. They will then realize it wasnt the little guy trying to get a small slice of a pie, but the giant leeches who just didnt pay their fair share like all of us have been doing year in and year out.
Hot Forum Topics
