|
|
-
Anthony, you seem to support the socialist agenda totally. Surely you are not being duped and don't know it?
If the government takes over the internet too then you will not have to worry about defending them anymore. Game over!
-
 Originally Posted by bostinks
Because the tax laws the democrats have written make it a financial gain for these companies to do so. The tax laws democrats won't let the republicans change would allow the corps to bring the money back tax free but the Saul Alinskey plans which obama and many other democrats are following want to hurt the US not help us. Why do you think clinton repealed the Glass-Stegal Act? Inacted NAFTA and GATT, it sure was not for the good of the USA. Why did clinton allow the mergers of all the big oil companies and then not say anything when his own party demonizes the same companies he made to big? THEY HATE THE IDEALS OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! and the sheople are allowing them to destroy us from the inside.
yes if they hate this country they need as soon as possible ,I 've told its real nice in Iraq this time of year this video kinda says it hey clayton you buying a prius http://www.break.com/index/prius-own...-owner-2217919
Last edited by LITE-INN; 11-08-2011 at 11:17 PM.
-
Originally Posted by bostinks
The problem is the republicans HAVE been compromising with the democrats. They let clinton install NAFTA and GATT. They let clinton repeal the Glass-Stegal act causing the housing bubble which caused the bailouts which prolonged and deepened the rescession. They have allowed the democrats to increase regulations to the point of driving jobs out of the country. They have allowed democrats to increase regulations in the insurance industry to drive out competition. They have allowed democrats to reward failure and punish achievement. It is time to give the libertarians a chance.
Check your history. You look pretty stupid saying Clinton was "allowed" by Republicans to repeal the Glass Steagal Act, when the facts clearly show it was REPUBLICANS WHO PROPOSED IT and PASSED IT. What an idiot.
However, full credit to you for realizing that the repeal of Glass Steagal, thanks to the REPUBLICANS, led to the housing bubble and subsuquent crash of the economy. Now if you could have only been right about which PARTY did all that, we could agree. But it wasn't Clinton and the Democrats, it was THE REPUBLICANS.
Originally Posted by wikipedia glass steagal act
The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[16]
And NAFTA was pushed through to the very end by the original weed in the White House, George Bush, it was only signed by Clinton after he took office. Basically Clinton, while professing to support the final version of NAFTA, did make changes to what he had been handed by the Bush administration, and was the President to sign it into law. However, again, it was predominantly a REPUBLICAN endeavour:
The (NAFTA) agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
But keep on rewriting history to suit yourselves. It sure beats facing the truth. I am just happy to see Americans finally waking up to the spin and lies spread by your kind. We will win this fight in the end, and take OUR country back from the liars and fear mongers who have dominated it and ruined it for so many for so long.
Have a nice day. Roll on 2012!
Last edited by t.nie; 11-09-2011 at 06:24 AM.
-
if Clinton signed its his
-
Originally Posted by bostinks
Because the tax laws the democrats have written make it a financial gain for these companies to do so. The tax laws democrats won't let the republicans change would allow the corps to bring the money back tax free but the Saul Alinskey plans which obama and many other democrats are following want to hurt the US not help us.
BHWaAAHAHAH! Dem & Repub tax laws. You mean lobbyists' tax laws? Yep, let's try that lower tax rate again. It worked so well in 2004 when corps were allowed to repatriate their income by paying less in taxes. No wait, the top 15 corps to receive this benefit STILL decreased their overall US employment by around 21,000 and simply bought back shares of the company or gave a dividend.
Now, I said sure, claim a dividend and get the money back here. But, corps have to either be a true US citizen and stop the tax evasion or the Supreme Court needs to overturn their decision regarding the Citizen's United case. You either are a citizen and bare all such rights and responsibilities or you are an alien and not offered Constitutional protections. A quick side note, aliens MUST PAY TAXES on US income too.
Why do you think clinton repealed the Glass-Stegal Act? Inacted NAFTA and GATT, it sure was not for the good of the USA.
I thought no ghosts of administrations’ past were up for discussion. I agree Clinton did some bad and some good. As to the repeal of Glass-Stegal, Clinton did sign the bill as President. However, three Republican congressmen created the bill that Clinton signed into law. It is call the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. ( Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act)
Why did clinton allow the mergers of all the big oil companies and then not say anything when his own party demonizes the same companies he made to big? THEY HATE THE IDEALS OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! and the sheople are allowing them to destroy us from the inside.
Not 100% sure about the oil corp mergers being referenced. Again though, I said he did some bad and some good. Not sure what you are getting at about hating the Constitution, but I will go out on a limb and say you believe some economic, and likely the Capitalist, system is constitutionally guaranteed. I invite you to read the document and give me insight to where it states such.
Last edited by anthonycacace; 11-09-2011 at 07:53 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Clayton_Wetter
Anthony, you seem to support the socialist agenda totally. Surely you are not being duped and don't know it?
If the government takes over the internet too then you will not have to worry about defending them anymore. Game over!
Come on Clayton. I usually get a better response from you then name calling. I will ask my question again in a new way. This was reported yesterday: The latest execs who will cash in as they step aside: Nabors Industries' former CEO, Gene Isenberg, due $126 million when he exits as chairman, and IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, due $170 million.
Now, why is it OK for these two to get paid for doing no work for a company? (Don't you guys blast union workers who at least must show up each day to earn their exit package?) And, why do these CEO's deserve such a high EXIT compensation? Let's say for example you took $100,000,000 and paid it out in a $40,000 salary; this could go to 2,500 people. Just a thought and that still leaves the CEO's 26 and 70 million respectively.
-
What the CEO,s of private company,s make does not concern me..they made it they earned it... I am not forced to pay there retirements. what does concern me is the fact that ...
the salary of a retied president is $450,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied house or senate member $ 174,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied speaker of the house $223,500.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied Majority/Minority leader $193,400.00 a year for life.
I am forced to pay in to this so this is inpart my company and i have no say...talk about making money for doing nothing!!!Some body else can do the math and figure out how many millions are spent each year on ex presidents/ senators and congressmen.Some like Frank kratovil who only served 2 years..
Obama 4 and no more!unless we can impeach him first!
-
Originally Posted by anthonycacace
Come on Clayton. I usually get a better response from you then name calling. I will ask my question again in a new way. This was reported yesterday: The latest execs who will cash in as they step aside: Nabors Industries' former CEO, Gene Isenberg, due $126 million when he exits as chairman, and IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, due $170 million.
Now, why is it OK for these two to get paid for doing no work for a company? (Don't you guys blast union workers who at least must show up each day to earn their exit package?) And, why do these CEO's deserve such a high EXIT compensation? Let's say for example you took $100,000,000 and paid it out in a $40,000 salary; this could go to 2,500 people. Just a thought and that still leaves the CEO's 26 and 70 million respectively.
I'm not name calling. If the shoe fits wear it. With your response, I rest my cacase!!!
-
-
Originally Posted by halfast07
What the CEO,s of private company,s make does not concern me..they made it they earned it... I am not forced to pay there retirements. what does concern me is the fact that ...
the salary of a retied president is $450,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied house or senate member $ 174,000.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied speaker of the house $223,500.00 a year for life.
the salary of a retied Majority/Minority leader $193,400.00 a year for life.
I am forced to pay in to this so this is inpart my company and i have no say...talk about making money for doing nothing!!!Some body else can do the math and figure out how many millions are spent each year on ex presidents/ senators and congressmen.Some like Frank kratovil who only served 2 years..
You're pretty naive if you think you aren't paying the salaries of corporate America. They sure don't get paid in rupees.
-
Originally Posted by LITE-INN
if Clinton signed its his
Glad to hear you think that way. Bush owns two wars, one huge big pharma payoff, the tax cut welfare checks for millionaires and billionares and the destruction of the American economy under his dictatorship.
Now you can quit laying all that crap off on Obama. He didn't have a thing to do with any of the Bush destruction of America. That was all his baby. Just like you just said, Bush signed off on it, so he owns it.
The only thing Obama owns is health care reform. And no one knows what the final cost or benefit of that is, because the majority of it hasn't become active yet. So don't even go there, half wit.
-
tnie, Please watch this! It should please you for sure! Must be some reason to deflect from the truth. Is this part of the reason?
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19851083
-
oh we forgot obama is a do nothing president but he did the cash for clunkers no how is that working out for you really are better off today that you were 3 years ago and how about them gas prices food etc . I like to see a debate between GLENN BECK AND OBUMMER OR HERMAN CAIN AND THE PRES OR LAURA INGRAHM AND OBUMMER WHO IS SUPPOSE TO BE IRISH WTH?
Last edited by LITE-INN; 11-09-2011 at 05:20 PM.
-
Now you can quit laying all that crap off on Obama. He didn't have a thing to do with any of the Bush destruction of America. That was all his baby. Just like you just said, Bush signed off on it, so he owns it.
AND OBUMMER DID NOTHING ABOUT IT
-
-
why does the do nothing congressman senator even get paid just eating up our tax dollars they need toget off their azz and do something I am talkng about both parties
-
Are you saying Clinton did not sign any of those debacles of which I said was republican as well as democrat.............and why throw "stupid" in a good debate? Did he veto it?
Originally Posted by t.nie
Check your history. You look pretty stupid saying Clinton was "allowed" by Republicans to repeal the Glass Steagal Act, when the facts clearly show it was REPUBLICANS WHO PROPOSED IT and PASSED IT. What an idiot.
However, full credit to you for realizing that the repeal of Glass Steagal, thanks to the REPUBLICANS, led to the housing bubble and subsuquent crash of the economy. Now if you could have only been right about which PARTY did all that, we could agree. But it wasn't Clinton and the Democrats, it was THE REPUBLICANS.
And NAFTA was pushed through to the very end by the original weed in the White House, George Bush, it was only signed by Clinton after he took office. Basically Clinton, while professing to support the final version of NAFTA, did make changes to what he had been handed by the Bush administration, and was the President to sign it into law. However, again, it was predominantly a REPUBLICAN endeavour:
But keep on rewriting history to suit yourselves. It sure beats facing the truth. I am just happy to see Americans finally waking up to the spin and lies spread by your kind. We will win this fight in the end, and take OUR country back from the liars and fear mongers who have dominated it and ruined it for so many for so long.
Have a nice day. Roll on 2012!
-
You're pretty naive if you think you aren't paying the salaries of corporate America. They sure don't get paid in rupees but guess the big differnce the ceos fo something good for their company the US and the world unlike oh lets say speaker of the house
-
talking about doing nothing
Congressional leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have been influenced by outside consultants into looking down upon mandatory workplace verification. Their reasoning behind doing this is to keep Congress focused on "restoring jobs." Yet mandating use of a mandatory workplace verification system would open up nearly 7 million jobs nationally, and could put tens of thousands of unemployed Missouri residents back to work!
Polls have consistently shown that Americans favor replacing illegal workers with U.S. workers and passing legislation that would mandate use of a workplace verification system is the best way to make this happen. Congress needs to hear from Missouri residents of all creeds, races, sexes, religions, and political affiliations that Missouri businesses shouldn't be able to hire illegal aliens.
-
11-09-2011, 06:52 PM
#100
Originally Posted by bostinks
Are you saying Clinton did not sign any of those debacles of which I said was republican as well as democrat.............and why throw "stupid" in a good debate? Did he veto it?
I'm just glad you point out it was both parties that played a part in it.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.
|
|
Banned
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks