Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 182
Thanks Tree128Thanks

Thread: Donald Trump Goes Full Fredo

  1. #151
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3020

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    You missed the point of my comment.

    President Trump has not even been charged with a crime - let alone convicted of one like I said. Where as Jeffrey Dahmer was a convicted serial killer and cannibal. So your comparison was ridiculous to say the least, as it's way more obvious in Dhamer's case.

    Also: I'm not missing anything. You just seem unable to accept that not everyone shares your point of view about the President without attributing some negative stereotype to them. And judging by your logic here and the comparisons you are using - I can understand why - because your view of the President borders on - and I'll be gentle - the extreme.
    I didn't say anything about crime, so I don't know why you're talking about crime.

    Both Trump and Dahmer are obviously awful people. It is equally obvious to me they are both awful people.

    By definition, my view of Trump as a seriously fucked up person, is not "extreme", because, by definition, that would indicate that I'm some sort of outlier, a fringe element.

    However, as I have pointed out, this is actually a majority, mainstream opinion. So not extreme. By definition.

  2. #152
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3020

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    hmmm...



    I'm not a bumper sticker guy, but I'd get a kick out of this one.
    Hilarious, but how are you going to get stupid people on board with bumper stickers like that?
    Thanks from StanStill

  3. #153
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    52,452
    Thanks
    2818

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    If it raises the deficit, you bet. We don't need more deficit spending to stimulate the economy at the moment--things are going well. The time for deficit spending is when we're in a recession, which hasn't been the case for some time. First, your statement is inaccurate. Second, Obama was spending in order to stimulate a deeply troubled economy that might literally have collapsed without help. Timing is everything.

    When the GOP come back this year (or, more likely, next) and says "Oh my God! The DEFICIT!" and insists on slashing entitlements while continuing to raise the defense budget, we'll see the real purpose in their self-contradictory tax "reform."

    Why aren't you outraged that your tax breaks are temporary while those with much more get to keep theirs forever? Tax breaks for wealthy people are not stimulative.
    Its a tax break for corporations. Can you name one person that’s a corporation that is benefiting by this tax break? By the way the tax was 35% and it went down to 21%. 35% is an extremely high burden on a corporation. Tell me why a corporation would want to do business in America at that rate if they could do it in China for a lot less?

  4. #154
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,662
    Thanks
    34295

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Its a tax break for corporations. Can you name one person that’s a corporation that is benefiting by this tax break?
    Corporations have shareholders who have rights to the profits of the corporation. They are the beneficiaries. Remember, "corporations are people, my friends!" Don't be coy. If you didn't understand that, you wouldn't have the wit to post here.
    By the way the tax was 35% and it went down to 21%. 35% is an extremely high burden on a corporation. Tell me why a corporation would want to do business in America at that rate if they could do it in China for a lot less?
    I don't have a problem with lowering corporate tax rates, but they need to be matched with steeper rates for the wealthy people who own the lion's share of ... shares.

    When I was a kid, my Republican parents frequently complained about what they called "double taxation," the idea that money earned through a corporation was taxed first as corporate income and again as personal income. I have no problem with reductions in the corporate rate, but this is a tax cut for wealthy people financed via larger deficits. That makes no sense at all.
    Thanks from Dittohead not!

  5. #155
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    52,452
    Thanks
    2818

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Corporations have shareholders who have rights to the profits of the corporation. They are the beneficiaries. Remember, "corporations are people, my friends!" Don't be coy. If you didn't understand that, you wouldn't have the wit to post here.I don't have a problem with lowering corporate tax rates, but they need to be matched with steeper rates for the wealthy people who own the lion's share of ... shares.

    When I was a kid, my Republican parents frequently complained about what they called "double taxation," the idea that money earned through a corporation was taxed first as corporate income and again as personal income. I have no problem with reductions in the corporate rate, but this is a tax cut for wealthy people financed via larger deficits. That makes no sense at all.
    . Corporations are many people, not one. Each one of those people are doing their own taxes. Corporations do their own taxes. Show me how wealthy people get a tax cut?

  6. #156
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,662
    Thanks
    34295

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    . Corporations are many people, not one.
    Yes, and they all share in the windfall of a corporate tax cut.
    Each one of those people are doing their own taxes. Corporations do their own taxes.
    You can't possibly be this obtuse.
    Show me how wealthy people get a tax cut?
    Asked and answered.

  7. #157
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    23,682
    Thanks
    3957

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    I didn't say anything about crime, so I don't know why you're talking about crime.

    Both Trump and Dahmer are obviously awful people. It is equally obvious to me they are both awful people.

    By definition, my view of Trump as a seriously fucked up person, is not "extreme", because, by definition, that would indicate that I'm some sort of outlier, a fringe element.

    However, as I have pointed out, this is actually a majority, mainstream opinion. So not extreme. By definition.
    I bring up crime because the law is how our society draws the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Your own opinions about how one should act is not a standard I feel obliged to live by. And the President has not even been charged with a crime - let alone convicted of one. So obviously he is not as bad as you are making out - and certainly nothing comparable to Jefferey Dahmer who was convicted of 15 murders.

  8. #158
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    52,452
    Thanks
    2818

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Yes, and they all share in the windfall of a corporate tax cut. You can't possibly be this obtuse. Asked and answered.
    Why are rich people panicking about the $10K cap on property tax write offs if you’re right?

  9. #159
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,662
    Thanks
    34295

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Why are rich people panicking about the $10K cap on property tax write offs if you’re right?
    They aren't. The people who are panicking are non-rich people who've bought extra-big homes in extra-nice neighborhoods based on a particular calculous about their incomes--and now they are in trouble because they made expansive choices about where to live. The really rich don't worry about this at all.

    And the real question isn't about limits on property tax but on all state and local taxes. This panics STATES because it creates a race to the bottom for state taxes and services. Rich people just have to move somewhere the taxes are lower. That's easy--if you're rich.

  10. #160
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,637
    Thanks
    1025

    From
    TN
    I don't see how many people can have itemized deductions exceeding $24000 but NOT currently be in the AMT.

Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Read: Donald Trump's full letter firing James Comey
    By DemoWhip in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9th May 2017, 05:31 PM
  2. Donald Trump can now officially be called ‘Fat Donald’
    By labrea in forum Political Ideologies
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 22nd September 2016, 10:50 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13th April 2016, 05:04 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th March 2016, 05:04 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd November 2013, 09:10 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed