PDA

View Full Version : 2/3 Of U.S.Corporations Pay No Income Tax



Gayle in MD
08-14-2008, 11:10 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/representation-without-ta_n_118455.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WASHINGTON Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

The study by the Government Accountability Office released Tuesday said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies, or 66.7 percent of them, paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of large U.S. corporations _ those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts _ did not pay corporate taxes.

The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.

Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices _ amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.

"It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.

____
</div></div>

LWW
08-15-2008, 09:27 AM
You honestly don't have a clue how the US tax system works do you?

If you did you would realize what a tool you appear to be by biting on this dishonest piece of "JOURNALISM".

Oh well, they put it on the spoon ... what should I expect other than the anti capitalist moonbat set to swallow it.

LWW

Deeman3
08-15-2008, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/representation-without-ta_n_118455.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.


____
</div></div> </div></div>

Qtec
08-15-2008, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits. </div></div>

Q

eg8r
08-15-2008, 10:36 AM
The big issue here is not the % of those not paying taxes because as you can tell from this report there are plenty that are not supposed to. The big issue is really those that are supposed to pay and are not. If the IRS is not going after them then how will the problem be solved? There are only 3 options here, IRS begins investigating, Companies start paying on their own even though they know they are not being investigated, or lastly implement the Fair Tax.

First of all we already know the IRS cannot handle the work load they have already created in the first place. Secondly, very few companies will pay their taxes if they know they are not going to be investigated (big or small), lastly I don't think there is any chance of Fairtax going anywhere.

So that leaves us with one last option, the option is basically you will quit worrying about things you cannot change and begin doing something about the things you can. Now if you are really pissed off that corporations are not paying their taxes, then you do your part and quit taking all your deductions and loop holes.

It is so monotonous to hear about how everyone else is not paying their fair share of taxes (even though the whiners will never give a definition of fair), when they themselves are taking every single deduction possible, and for most they are even cheating there.

eg8r

eg8r
08-15-2008, 10:39 AM
Deeman, there are many other reasons. I think the article also mentions that S-Corps do not have to pay because they cover them in personal income taxes. this is exactly how my S-Corp works and it is perfectly legal.

The other big issue is that 72% of foreign companies in the US do not pay the correct taxes. This report is very vague and is intended to scare and make people mad, even though there are very justifiable/acceptable/legal reasons why some companies do not pay. When the GAO specifically states they are not interested in why the companies are not paying it tells me that they are not really interested in the 'whys'.

eg8r

eg8r
08-15-2008, 10:42 AM
I don't really find the report itself very biased. The numbers are the numbers. What I find biased would be the intent to point fingers at the corporations without wanting to know why. Accusations don't go very far and Gayle never did give a reason why she posted, maybe it was only to pass on the info, I don't know. I know that my personal S-Corp does not pay income taxes so I don't find any issues with the report at all.

eg8r

eg8r
08-15-2008, 10:45 AM
Q, you did not bold the most important part of that quote..."The GAO study did not investigate WHY corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes...". The part you bolded is the part for those who really do not understand the tax system and/or a corporation's tax liability.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 10:50 AM
FYI, I don't cheat on my taxes, you nut. I'm not that stupid. Also, the government doesn't subsidize my businesses. I also don't make my money off WAR!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
08-15-2008, 10:56 AM
Hey you nut, can you point out in my post where I said you do? What a goofball. Do you take everything so personal? I have long considered it was a good thing you are not the one running the business but left alone to post of a billiards forum.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 10:58 AM
Hey Ed,
Stuff it!

eg8r
08-15-2008, 11:00 AM
LOLOLOL.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 12:19 PM
Ed, your reply is mind boggling to say the least.
People are supposed to stop complaining?????
How about if enough people get concerned about these companies avoiding taxes, incorporated offshore, etc?
Isn't that your stock remedy as well, for the war, the economy....
"Don't Worry, Be Happy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nDClh9NpZw

eg8r
08-15-2008, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People are supposed to stop complaining?????</div></div>I am sorry wolfie, you just keep complaining. Oh yeah, continue taking every single tax break and deduction you can find.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 01:30 PM
And you don't?

Ed,
stuff it!

eg8r
08-15-2008, 01:39 PM
I take every tax break and deduction I can find. You don't see me complaining about others doing the same thing. We do see you doing that though which is why your double standard is mentioned.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 01:46 PM
I fail to see the correlation ...any tax deductions I take would be be legal, and part of the tax code.
Some American Companies, Incorporate in the Cayman's,etc. to "legally" avoid paying taxes....this loophole should be stopped.
I have no trouble with an S corp....but then I didn't go to Harvard business school as you must have??
My only deductions, out of the ordinary, are the $3k they allow me to deduct for my stock trading expertise....
But the market Gods been favoring fools the past 3 years, and I've had to pay taxes.
If you need a write off....I could sell you some of my current holdings...be glad to help

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 01:52 PM
I don't complain about what people are doing. I complain about my tax dollars going to support, subsidize, and bail out corporate fascists, who practice business in ways that hurt our country.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> take every tax break and deduction I can find. </div></div>

Then don't critisize others for doing the same thing. Double Standard?

The article was about corporations, many of whom do not pay their fair share of taxes.

Try to keep up. Stop posting BS that has nothing to do with the subject of the posts.

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 01:55 PM
You really don't get it do you?
Gayle might take every allowable deduction and tax break, and still believe the tactics corp's use to avoid taxes is questionable
You can Google "incorporating offshore to avoid taxes" and find plenty of sites...including one that knocks John Sununu (A Dem. in case you are not current)
Here's a quote from one such site:
While "tax evasion" is illegal, "tax avoidance" is not. The distinction is crucial. (splitting hairs?)

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 01:58 PM
Ed's overall posting method.

1. Take something out of context.

2. Twist meaning and make up a irrelevant lie.

3. Insult poster.

4. Repeat process over and over.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 02:14 PM
I believe you have cracked the code
It's Friday though....how does he find the time to post, when he should be filling out his time card??

wolfdancer
08-15-2008, 02:15 PM
OUCH !! that had to hurt

Gayle in MD
08-15-2008, 02:24 PM
Yeah, you can see where our tax dollars are going, right? The Ed's of the world, in the defense industry, lallygaggin' around on the computer all damned day. And then they want to whine about cutting spending.

No wonder we lost the damn war!

Wally_in_Cincy
08-15-2008, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


No wonder we lost the damn war! </div></div>

which one?

Deeman3
08-15-2008, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


No wonder we lost the damn war! </div></div>

which one? </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">The Florida Recount. </span>

pooltchr
08-15-2008, 07:39 PM
Wolf,
If you really take an honest look, you would see Ed's point. Every one of us does our taxes, and we take every deduction we can find. Corporations do the same thing. They just have teams of accountants and tax lawyers to reasearch the THOUSANDS OF PAGES of tax laws to find legal ways of getting the maximum deductions.

You can't fault the corporations for not wanting to pay more in taxes than the law requires. If you want to point a finger, point it at Washington for writing laws without thinking about the consequences.

And if you really want everyone to pay their "fair" share, you should take a look at Boortz fair tax book. It would solve a lot of problems in this country.

Steve

sack316
08-16-2008, 02:42 AM
are we doing that name association thing again? Let's see, Dorgan... Dorgan... Dorgan... ah, I remember, Abramoff!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name.
</div></div>

Ohhhh. OK.

Methinks some names and info needs to be turned over, and said companies should be investigated and held accountable for anything they owe. That is, unless per chance this has been done within the limits of the law. In which case, what are we talking about? And if that is the case, where was Ed out of line with his comparison?

Sack

LWW
08-16-2008, 10:47 AM
The simple reason most corporations don't pay tax is that they are small corporations where the owners pay tax on the income through their personal income tax filings ... but, as I said, it was an anti capitalism lie and it was on the spoon so the expected parrots used it to wash down their cracker.

LWW

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 11:36 AM
There have been many charts over the years, going all the way back to Reagan, and they're all available on the government web sites.

They PROVE that Republican tax policies, and Republican policies in general, favor the very wealthy, and hurt the Middle Class.

The Government Office of Accounting is the most independent agency in our governmant. Their statistics cannot be partisan.

Instead of continuing with your propaganda, why not view the charts. Both you and Wally would see how wrong you are about the Trickle Down theory, which is probably the reason why you ignore the figures which prove you wrong.

Corporations today, do not consider the common good for our country. This is why we have lost our manufacturing industry. While the AMerican attitudes about getting what we want, regardless of the affordability, and the vast debts which AMericans hold, and our governemtns holds, are a good point, it is not feasable to point that out without also admitted that the Republican Administrations have expanded government, increased spending, and this one in particular, has acculumated dangerous debts to communist countries, as they have also wasted and lost huge amounts of money in Iraq, a war which has not provided us with any single positive result.

Our dependence on foreign oil has further endangered the way we live, and this administration has been pro more digging, pro more oil and pro more dependency, throughout.

While it is true that Jimm Carter was the only president who actually did anything to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, he also was among every other president since Nixon who knew that we had to make changes, and failed to take the political risk of actually making those changes a national priority.

WE CAN'T drill our way out of this. There are solutions, but you can bet that no Republican administration will put them forward, that's for sure! And this administration has not even adompted a viable energy plan, and their deals with big oil have been deep sixed.

Pray tell, why did they hide their meetings with big oil when they laid out their secret energy deals? Why do we not even actually have an energy policy?

Corporations, like the oil companies, show absolutely no concern for the good of our country, yet we subsidize them, while they hide every negative affect of burning their product, and actually pay scientists to lie, as the administration censors scientific studies, which WE THE PEOPLE pay for. Why is this?

Do you ever have any reasonable answers for such disgraceful practices? Do you have any clue why Walmart is trying to direct their employees to vote Republican? Is it your desire to see America become a fascist nation, where only corporate power rules the day?

Why is it that only money for hungry children bothers you, yet Americans who have been dealt some medical or natural disaster, like losing their jobs, or dying of cancer, is sicialism, but redistributing tax dollars to billion dollar corporations, is just fine with you?

What can be said of a party which redefines hunger, as Food Challenged? Defines an invasion of a country which is not threst to us, as a War On Terror? Defines corruption, as Ethically Challenged? Defines all those who were against what turned out to be a huge mistake, invading Iraq, as terrorist lovers?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile2.html </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is the central paradox of our time: While the defense of American freedom seems to demand that U.S. troops fight in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the exercise of that freedom at home undermines the nation's capacity to fight. A grand bazaar provides an inadequate basis upon which to erect a vast empire.

Meanwhile, a stubborn insistence on staying the course militarily ends up jeopardizing freedom at home. With Americans, even in war time, refusing to curb their appetites, the Long War aggravates the economic contradictions that continue to produce debt and dependency. Moreover, a state of perpetual national security emergency aggravates the disorders afflicting our political system, allowing the executive branch to accrue ever more authority at the expense of the Congress and disfiguring the Constitution. In this sense, the Long War is both self- defeating and irrational.

Niebuhr once wrote, "One of the most pathetic aspects of human history is that every civilization expresses itself most pretentiously, compounds its partial and universal values most convincingly, and claims immortality for its finite existence at the very moment when the decay which leads to death has already begun." Future generations of historians may well cite Niebuhr's dictum as a concise explanation of the folly that propelled the United States into its Long War.

In an immediate sense, it is the soldier who bears the burden of such folly. U.S. troops in battle dress and body armor, whom Americans profess to admire and support, pay the price for the nation's collective refusal to confront our domestic dysfunction. In many ways, the condition of the military today offers the most urgent expression of that dysfunction. Seven years into its confrontation with radical Islam, the United States finds itself with too much war for too few warriors and with no prospect of producing the additional soldiers needed to close the gap. In effect, Americans now confront a looming military crisis to go along with the economic and political crises that they have labored so earnestly to ignore.

The Iraq War deserves our attention as the clearest manifestation of these three crises, demonstrating the extent to which they are inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing. That war was always unnecessary. Except in the eyes of the deluded and the disingenuous, it has long since become a fool's errand. Of perhaps even greater significance, it is both counterproductive and unsustainable.

Yet ironically Iraq may yet prove to be the source of our salvation. For the United States, the ongoing war makes plain the imperative of putting America's house in order. Iraq has revealed the futility of counting on military power to sustain our habits of profligacy. The day of reckoning approaches. Expending the lives of more American soldiers in hopes of deferring that day is profoundly wrong. History will not judge kindly a people who find nothing amiss in the prospect of endless armed conflict so long as they themselves are spared the effects. Nor will it view with favor an electorate that delivers political power into the hands of leaders unable to envision any alternative to perpetual war.

Rather than insisting that the world accommodate the United States, Americans need to reassert control over their own destiny, ending their condition of dependency and abandoning their imperial delusions. Of perhaps even greater difficulty, the combination of economic, political, and military crisis summons Americans to reexamine exactly what freedom entails. Soldiers cannot accomplish these tasks, nor should we expect politicians to do so. The onus of responsibility falls squarely on citizens.

</div></div>

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-16-2008, 12:01 PM
here's how the trickle down theory works...
I save up and buy that 23" tv that I wanted, and the profits from similar sales allows the people who work in the store to buy a nice used 10 yr old Ford, and the used car people can then afford a down payment on a run down house...and so on...until all the money ends up in the hands of the guy that owns the tv factory...
I might be wrong...this might be the surge theory of economics

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2008, 12:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


WE CAN'T drill our way out of this. </div></div>

Then why should we bother drilling on the 68 million acres under lease? What's the use?

Gayle in MD
08-16-2008, 12:23 PM
We have to bridge our way into a huge transition if we are going to get out of this mess with foreign oil dependence. We do need more refineries, and we do need to increase our oil production, and natural gas production, in particular, but the goal must be away from oil, not to hide all the problems, and national security issues that are related to it.

Have you visited T. Boone Pickens web site?

http://www.pickensplan.com

This is my big gripe with the Bush administration. While all the other administrations have failed also to address our problems, realistically, with oil dependence, this one has been outrageous in their efforts to keep us dependent, even created a war, which to say the least, was certainly based to some degree on our foreign oil dependence.

The future of our country depends on addressing the truth about oil, and the American way of accumulating debts which we cannot afford, from the governemtn, to the AMerican household. If we don't do that, it won't matter who the hell is president.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-16-2008, 12:34 PM
Gayle, makes sense to me....but you'll be "knocked" here for writing that, as some here have bought into the " we drill, we fill" theory thinking that will solve all our energy problems.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-16-2008, 12:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have to bridge our way into a huge transition if we are going to get out of this mess with foreign oil dependence. We do need more refineries, and we do need to increase our oil production, and natural gas production, in particular, but the goal must be away from oil, not to hide all the problems, and national security issues that are related to it.

</div></div>

For once we agree.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Have you visited T. Boone Pickens web site?

http://www.pickensplan.com

</div></div>

He's heavily invested in wind and natural gas. Doesn't that make him a fascist pig?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

This is my big gripe with the Bush administration. While all the other administrations have failed also to address our problems, realistically, with oil dependence, this one has been outrageous in their efforts to keep us dependent, </div></div>

When oil was so cheap there was no profit motive in investing in new technologies. Frankly, if there is no profit in it nobody is going to do it on a totally altruistic basis. You might say the Feds should have spent billions on it but that would have just increased the debt which you seem to be so concerened about.

Now that oil is where it is, there will be all kinds of companies beginning to produce energy from new technologies. There will be a transition period though, and the fact is we are never going to be totally off oil. Not in this century anyway.

I say we drill in ANWR and other places where the oil is readily accessible and keep the money and the jobs in this country.

Gayle in MD
08-17-2008, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I say we drill in ANWR and other places where the oil is readily accessible and keep the money and the jobs in this country. </div></div>

Drilling there won't reduce the price of oil for many years, and the reduction in price, is scant.

Mr. Pickens, is already a multi billionaire, who has been trying to get our country free of foreign oil for over two decades. He's over eighty years old, and my take on him was that he is a straight shooter, who has the same kinds of concerns about his country, and the future of his children and grandchildren, as I have.

The reason why we haven't faced this crises, and solved it in advance, can be laid at the feet of our corporate fascist styled government, which is controlled by wealthy corporate power, and elitists. The failure of our government to regulate corporate power, and businesses, (Republican De-REgulation, starting with Reagan)in the interest of all Americans, instead of just the wealthy fascists who pay off the politicians.

Bush's economic policies,were solely in the interest of the corporate bottom line, only, put the health of Americans at risk, along with their jobs, and their futures, and the future of all of our children.

We would have more meaningful investments for the common good, also, if our patent laws were strengthened.

If we don't address the corporate corruption, we can just hang it up. Right now over half of the Representatives who have left positions on the Hill in the last five years, are now lobbyists for corporate interests, and foreign countries.

When the Bush Administration crashed into the White House, the #'s of K. Street Lobbyists more than quadrupled.



Gayle in Md.

sack316
08-17-2008, 09:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Drilling there won't reduce the price of oil for many years, and the reduction in price, is scant.
</div></div>

I think I have actually grown sick of hearing that statement. Not because of much to do with the statement itself, but more the way it gets thrown around (btw, don't mean just you Gayle, I mean in general). Saying stuff like "the effects of drilling won't make an impact for many years" and phrases of the like just get tossed out there... as if any alternatives are right there readily available to roll out RIGHT NOW with a significant impact. It's not! Please remember I am a supporter of any and all means of producing energy... which includes drilling here as well as exploring alternatives but...

How long would it take to finance, build, and develop wind power to the point where it can make a significant impact on our energy costs?

How long would it take to just get the paperwork through to build more nuclear power plants?

How long before we find and develop a viable source of ethanol, that won't at the same time take up a huge chunk of our food supply?

Add in whatever alternative means you want, and ask the question "how long" and I'd bet any and all of them---to make a significant impact--- would also be at least "several years" as well.

We complain about our dependence on foreign oil... but some people's answer seems to be to keep depending on it for a while longer as we seek out other measures. That just makes no sense to me. For some reason I have the crazy idea that changing nothing, changes nothing. But maybe that's just me?

Sack

LWW
08-18-2008, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I say we drill in ANWR and other places where the oil is readily accessible and keep the money and the jobs in this country. </div></div>

Drilling there won't reduce the price of oil for many years, and the reduction in price, is scant.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
I know they put it on the spoon for you sweetheart, but have you ever bothered to investigate whether it's true or not?

If you had, you would realize it isn't.

LWW

wolfdancer
08-18-2008, 10:29 PM
Quote Gayle:
"Drilling there won't reduce the price of oil for many years, and the reduction in price, is scant."
Quote lww:
"I know they put it on the spoon for you sweetheart, but have you ever bothered to investigate whether it's true or not?

If you had, you would realize it isn't."

I have read where Gayle is correct...but perhaps you could enlighten us, on your secret source ???
For the record, to augment what I had previously read, I Googled:
"will drilling in ANWR lower the price of oil?"
When you make a post that tries to belittle someone, you should provide some info to back it up...or just apologize, then STFU

Gayle in MD
08-19-2008, 05:49 AM
Sack,
You might check out my other thread, where I give you the figures from the government studies which prove that opening up more drilling off the coast, and Alaska would take years and years, with scan price reduction.

It doesn't matter how many fields are offered to big oil, if they refuse to build enough refineries here to get the oil into the pipes!

I think there are a number of alternatives, that would be far better, like, for example, more public buses, and creating more jobs, through more high speed above ground, trains, and actually, it's best if the prices stay high, IMO. Cheap oil is what got us into this mess, and allowed our government to continue with their irresponsible policies which ignored the threats of continued foreign oil dependence.

Check out my other thread, with the statistics on these BS McCain/Bush statements about opening up more drilling areas.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-19-2008, 08:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You really don't get it do you?
Gayle might take every allowable deduction and tax break, and still believe the tactics corp's use to avoid taxes is questionable</div></div>Oh, I get it lap dog. She chastises other corporations for taking legal advantage of the tax code but it is ok for her.

eg8r

eg8r
08-19-2008, 08:08 AM
LOL, nope we win that one ever single time they try to recount. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-19-2008, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then don't critisize others for doing the same thing. Double Standard?</div></div>You are, frankly, getting dumber by the minute. Are you too dumb to understand what a double standard is? You have already proven you do not understand the word hypocrisy. If you really need it to be explained to you let me know.

eg8r

eg8r
08-19-2008, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They PROVE that Republican tax policies, and Republican policies in general, favor the very wealthy, and hurt the Middle Class.
</div></div>Gayle you are on of the few on this board that takes advantage of these loopholes. If you had any credibility you quit taking advantage of them while you are bad mouthing the hand that has fed you. Then again, you are the one reading all the books and playing on the web. It is your husband that is doing the actual work.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-19-2008, 08:23 AM
you really don't get it, probably because there are some ethics involved....best for you to drop the subject then and move on
Lap dog?...you sound like one of them ****s that can't stand their decision being questioned.
First sign one has lost an argument...they resort to name calling.

eg8r
08-19-2008, 08:26 AM
LOL, go back to resting lap dog.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-19-2008, 08:35 AM
Hey, "sweetheart" if you ain't got nothing to back up your side of the discussion...nothing but your big mouth, and your overblown ego...then stuff it.
"sweetheart"....tells me you are some kind a condescending f**k, that thinks you are so fu*king clever....
If you want to have an adult conversation with Gayle...then treat her as an equal...and get your silly a*s down, off the fuc*ing pedestal

sack316
08-19-2008, 11:03 AM
I like to call people "sweet pea" when I'm being condescending. Just a note on me for future reference.

In the end, I hope we are all right (on the energy thing) and I hope we all get the opportunity to see what we think will work at least get tried. And then, maybe then, we will be out of this mess and we can hopefully argue about who's method did better. I'd feel much better of our arguments were based on that rather than the current one.

Sack

wolfdancer
08-19-2008, 11:49 AM
I was only trying to politely point out that his use of the word was not politically correct.

eg8r
08-19-2008, 01:47 PM
Watch out LWW, gayle's ankle biter is coming after you. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 07:12 AM
LOL, and you've proven, over and over, that you're incapable of a debate. You've proven lots of other things about yourself, too, but was won't go into that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle you are on of the few on this board that takes advantage of these loopholes. <span style="color: #000066">LMAO!, Ed, I don't hide my money in the Carribbean, nor do I hire illegal Aliens, or outsource jobs, or pay lobbyists. You always muddy up the waters, it's your only method of posting. </span> If you had any credibility you quit taking advantage of them while you are bad mouthing the hand that has fed you. <span style="color: #000066">The hand that feeds me is at the end of my arm. One thing for sure, my income has nothing to do with working in an industry that kills people. </span> Then again, you are the one reading all the books <span style="color: #000066">Yep, a habit that you've surely never subsrcibed to! </span> and playing on the web. <span style="color: #000066">And atleast I do that on my own time, unlike you, who is ripping off your employers when you do it. </span> It is your husband that is doing the actual work. <span style="color: #000066"> </span>

eg8r
</div></div>
<span style="color: #000066">Gee Ed, when did you move into my house? I'd swear I haven't ever seen you around here! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif I just play around all day, and let the butler and the maid do all the work. Some days I just sit on my satin pillow, and eat bon bons all day, while my illegal aliens are landscaping the gardens, hauling dirt, pulling weeds, cleaning the house, doing the bookwork, paying the bills, doing the shopping, preparing the meals, washing the clothes, Powerwashing the house, answering the business phones, and just generally making my life a bowl of cherries. Eat your heart out, buddy. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

sack316
08-20-2008, 07:35 AM
lol, that got my day started with a good chuckle. Thanks Gayle, I'm not much of a morning person and I needed that. Oh, and by the way I've decided I'm moving in with you now /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

eg8r
08-20-2008, 08:59 AM
Well, before you do that, remember her post about stale old sperm... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 09:01 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

sack316
08-20-2008, 07:48 PM
eh, would be no different that sleeping on my couch anyway eg8r /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack