Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Top Ten Nannie State Teat Suckers

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 15, 2011, 1:47 p.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

ModestCapitalist posted these stats:

(you can find them at the original Forum Post here.)

Check this out:

  1. Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

  2. Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

  3. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

  4. Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

  5. Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

  6. Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

  7. Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

  8. Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

  9. ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

  10. Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Those are just the top 10. There are dozens more on the list.

And repelicans signed a no tax pledge . . . the fuckers.

276 Comments

276 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 11 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

This is that shit that I cannot stand. These people pay nothing and we have a lot of homeless now on the streets.

[-] 7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

CBS did a spot last night on a place named Slab City, near the Salton Sea, in California.

I think they said it had 2,000 residents - all of them homeless.

We're talking average American families, formerly middle class. Armed with shot guns to protect the kids.

fucking repelicans

[-] 5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

You know? I'm going post that.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Please do. Unless the consequences of the economic disaster are right in everyone's face, the denial will remain.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22138) 3 years ago
[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 3 years ago

I used to live near there, California is a disgrace. Those rest stops are FILLED with people who live in their cars. They can barely afford their gym membership for showers, and if they're lucky, they have a storage unit. Why is McDonald's stock up? People use the free internet, and they want to get out of their cars.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 3 years ago

gym memberships, storage units, cars and computers? the people of mississippi would kill to be in their shoes. gucci?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 3 years ago

You got problems if you think working Americans don't deserve to afford food AND rent. You got it all twisted, now you talk of Gucci shoes? You can do better than that.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

no he can't -

he's a nitwit

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 3 years ago

according to you they are eating at mcdonalds. yes, I can always do better. the question you should be asking is.... can you?

why would someone pay for a storage unit if they are homeless?

[-] 2 points by judy (61) 3 years ago

I was shocked by that, too. One day a homeless bicycling panhandler was on the street. Begging. For a car ride!!! I talked to him a bit. He was trying to get a ride to his storage unit!!! (I thought... what the HECK is he doing with a storage unit??!!! He's homeless!!!) Well, his story was, basically, he had had a job, nice apartment, nice clothes, good furniture, stereo, etc. First he lost the job. Then, while looking for another one, ran out of his savings, could no longer pay his rent. So he lost his apartment. A storage unit was cheap, he didn't have to sell all his good household items, could store his clothes there, store his tools, toys, etc. (Hoping he would get another job soon.) This is the face of the new type of homeless. So yes, he could have easily had Gucci shoes on, still own his computer and a cheap gym membership to use for a shower! (This was in California, also.) This conversation really opened my eyes. I didn't feel comfortable enough to give him a ride though. It's heart-breaking.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Especially as a woman, you can't give him a ride. But seriously, some people sleep in their storage units because they are "climate controlled". I went to a place once, whoever I was with said, "Nevermind the guy in the hall, he sleeps here during the day, works at night." And I used to complain that regular apartments were human storage units, or toolsheds for the rich...

[-] 1 points by judy (61) 2 years ago

Yes, it's all very sad.

[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 3 years ago

Why would someone, like yourself, choose a cruel and brutal disposition toward others in need, whatever the reason behind their trouble...obvious trouble, they don't prefer their plight? Because it's easier, more personally gratifying to presume the worste about them, including the plight of their children? Half of America lives at or below the poverty line, according to recent statistics...so your cruel attitude condemns one out of two Americans. I call that inhumane, and being a very bad neighbor, indeed. Lover your neighbor as yourself? I don't see it.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you just encapsulated the mindset of most righties

nasty, mean spirited, selfish, arrogant, ego-driven schmucks

the repelican party is DONE

[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 2 years ago

Really? That comment surprises me. I see no rationale for it. You must not be referring to me, though your reply here seems to indicate you are. Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays...however you please.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

ahhh

bah humbug

and all I was saying was that the mindset you articulated, that of a "a cruel and brutal disposition toward others in need" seems to be a common repelican trait . . . .

if it happens that you are, yourself, repelican, then all I can say is

  • what are you thinking?
[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 2 years ago

I'm baffled why my comment leads you in any way to believe that I am a republican or a democrat...though if that is how fixated you are on pigeon-holing other people, it's no wonder, I suppose, that you can't grasp the drift of my meaning. Attack first, read the post later. Nice.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That is not what I said. It seems a bit silly to examine this discourse in detail, but since you are obviously confused:

you said:

  • Why would someone, like yourself, choose a cruel and brutal disposition toward others in need,

it has two parts, a quantification of a mindset, and that mindset is, as you stated:

  • choose a cruel and brutal disposition toward others in need,

I commented that this mindset is typical of repelican thinking and behavior

You also said, in that sentence:

  • why would someone choose . . ..[such a behavior or attitude

indicating wonder, curiosity, over the fact that some do adopt such behavior.

Both the identification of the behavior and the wonder over how someone could adopt it are indicative of someone who does not exhibit such traits, let alone take pride in their expression as is so often the case among the repelican elite.

I was not accusing you of harboring repelican tendencies in the least.

On the contrary.

[-] 1 points by Durandus (181) 2 years ago

well enough...thanks.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

hey no sweat.

It's easy to get lost in what I call the white space

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

goddamned nannie state koch suckers

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 3 years ago

An apple pie is 50 cents and it gets you out of the cold and rain, you can sit and have water and free internet. You don't know how people are struggling now. Many people live in their cars in CA, and no, they were not counted by the Census.

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 3 years ago

so why would they pay for storage?

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 3 years ago

It is the last thing they hold on to, if they can. I wish I could give you numbers on how many storage users are homeless.

[-] 3 points by judy (61) 3 years ago

There are so many storage units that are abandoned, too, when they can no longer hold on to them. And the stuff just gets auctioned off.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I blame corporate welfare

smash the nanny state teat suckers

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Why not Fucking Libtards? Several of the companies listed above have been HUGE contributors to Obama and democratic candidates, get your facts straight before spouting off.

[-] 2 points by dantes443322 (148) 2 years ago

shhhh....you're going to ruin the Obama re-election campaign that is going on here.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Opps, sorry, didn't mean to expose any secrets. I will be a good little penguin and follow Obama to the promised land.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Like the repub's dont do the same. This movement note's both parties as such, or didnt you know that. Libtard huh, sounds fox news stupid to me.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

I was only responding to the comment on "fucking repelicans" to say that is not one party but the whole system. My general argument is, that the best way to get the corruption out of the system is to shrink the size of government overall. 25% of the US GDP is just plain ridiculous and should be brought back to around 18 immediately and then lower still over time.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah-ya - they contribute to both parties don't they.

I did come across one interesting fact though, and that is in regard to national elections:

Goldman Sux

  • Goldman Sachs gave $478,250 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election period through its political action committee - 35% to Democrats and 65% to Republicans. 112
[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Wow, can't argue with facts from Wikipedia now can I;-) where do I sign up for the Obama2012 campaign?

Might want to try looking at 2008 though, (64% to Democrats, 36% to Republicans).

I could care less how much they get from whom since there will ALWAYS be ways around what ever rules or laws that you try to put in place. The only way to remove the corruption, is to remove the power. Cut federal spending by about 80% and we might just see things change.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

No doubt you are referring to the SEC, the EPA, FEMA, things like that.

People like you would deny the federal government the opportunity to perform the functions of government that are in fact its right and proper role.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 2 years ago

ZenDog, what do you consider the functions of government? Should they regulate what we eat, what we drive, whom can marry, where we school our children, etc... The government has overstepped by leaps and bounds.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

certainly the food industry needs regulation - we don't want baby formula arriving from China for example, contaminated with compounds that will make infants ill or kill them.

And if, as a matter of education, you think it important to indoctrinate the children into a belief that the world is flat then I would suggest, at the very least as far as pubic education goes - such philosophy must be curbed into extinction.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Those are not big offenders, other then really stupid EPA regulations. I would dump the departments of Transportation, Energy, Housing and Human Dev. Labor, probably a few others. Would also stop extending American military power around the world. All of which is small change. I like the Ryan plan for the most part, turn over to individuals grants of insurance premiums to purchase medical insurance and allow non-profits to run some as well. Also raise the Social Security retirement age to around 75 with an increased benefit. You spend your own money early on, and if you are still around at 75 you get a bigger government cut. I would prefer it to be abolished all together but that will never happen.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I don't think I like your ideas.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

fukcing nannie state koch suckers

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Where does General Electric rank?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Google? Did you ever hear of Google?

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

I want you to tell me

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I can see that. How's it feel to want?

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

you tell me - that's what this movement is all about - wanting other peoples stuff. Just trying to fit in.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Actually you aren't fitting in at all. It's a lot of work to gather the data, verify the data, then share that data with people interested in making a stand to bring positive change to the nation.

Since it is obvious you aren't interested in doing your part - even though you do stand to reap practical benefits as a result - the best I can do is offer some practical advice . . .

The people are rising up. You can get on board, or get out of the way. Nothing will stand before the will of the people.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

hahahaha! ok - Obama lover hahaha!

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 3 years ago

the nature of the "refunds" is the return of an over-payment as a result of adjustments made in subsequent years. however, a "subsidy," very different from a refund, is TRUE corporate welfare. Some subsidies: farmers get paid not to grow food, farmers get paid to grow corn for ethanol, solar and green energy tax deductions, accelerated depreciation, alternative fuel credits, loss carryforwards.

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

The world needs to change its philosophy on money and the many ways people are brought up to make profits. I try many times to put up such ideas, but many people (and not always trolls but people) just cannot get their minds on society needing the rich to always getting richer. I ask myself: what is the purpose of this? Why do the rich always want more? Why do we (the poorer majority) put up with this? How can modest people suppress the idea of greater equality among people when such things happen? It is now certain and undeniable that our institutions, philosophies and minds must all change. Revolutions cannot succeed if people do not change their ways in the direction of the institutions. If the people do not change themselves internally the hard times will be harder. People must understand that homelessness is created because of our faulty system that only profits the rich.

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 3 years ago

zendog wants to mislead you with his partisan rant to the point you improperly assume "they pay nothing". It is a democrat contingent that supported and drove bailouts. I would still vote dog for president however.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

No, he isn't misleading me. I was already there.

[-] 0 points by fairforall (279) 3 years ago

that I believe. :)

[-] 3 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 3 years ago

You need to add that Chevron, Exxon, et al also has our military under their thumb to keep their middle east pipelines.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

that's a separate issue, one that merits its very own post.

Don't forget about Tamraz, and what'sizname . . . Nelson Gross.

[-] 3 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 3 years ago

good job !

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz1ejBOPiGq

Here is an article that speaks to your point. I knew it was happening, but not to this degree. No wonder we're going broke !!

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

http://occupywallst.org/forum/re-taxes-and-taxation-let-justice-be-done-though-t/#comment-426003

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I just tried to pull in that list, but the page is a bit more band width than comcast will allow at the moment.

Here's the link

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I've been considering breaking each topic into new threads and cleaning up

[-] 2 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

Thank you again for posting the facts. It's been this way for decades and decades, but it's just gotten so much worse over the last twenty or so years. I had hoped this problem would diminish rather than increase over time, but it's become clear there are some really bad actors at the top of the wealth spectrum who need to be reined in.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That is putting it very politely . . . .

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22138) 3 years ago

I'm sick. Thanks for the great research. I just saw a bunch of homeless kids testifying to a callous Congress. So sad. So unjust. So unnecessary.

[-] 1 points by judy (61) 3 years ago

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Just watched a report of it on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKYDUXNIvpk

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22138) 3 years ago

And, thanks for posting the link.

[-] 1 points by judy (61) 3 years ago

YW :)

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I keep saying that savings and investment bankers who have committed fraud need to go to jail.

It should be a central issue for the Occupy Movement

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22138) 3 years ago

I agree. There are just so many issues and frustrations that it is taking time for the movement to iron them all out. Most of our politicians should be jailed as well for upholding pledges to Grover Norquist instead of their constituents.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

well perhaps we can agitate for someone else to take their place on election

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4849) 3 years ago

Hi Zen, What does it take for the people to bring criminal charges against these criminals? Anyone here in law, that can address this issue? The Fed will do nothing. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

hey Nevada -

I'm not sure, but there must be some legal mechanism to force the DOJ to act.

I don't know.

I do know that the Boston DA is looking into charging some lenders in their jurisdiction.

The only other thing I can think of is agitation, protests, demanding justice.

Right outside the homes of those who have engaged in fraud.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4849) 3 years ago

NV and CA are charging lenders for fake prime loan thing, and fake repo firms as well. Many repos in NV are blocked for now. Looks like our best hope maybe the states. Fed is too much in bed with crooks.

Agree about taking the protest to homes of those engaged in fraud, as they do not deserve peace.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

The national news outlets should be picking up on this story. I haven't seen it.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4849) 3 years ago

Just local exposure, so far. Some pops up on local news NV setting on Google. We are rural, and got screwed out of broadcast TV. Not giving in to dish companies. Radio is just right wing shit. Internet is our window to world, and it will be under attack from now on. Will look for some links to post.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Yes different laws, different requirements, different privileges for those who have and for those who have not. Who says that there is nothing wrong with how business is done? Government & Private sector business. Definitely not their wage slaves ( more afraid of joining the homeless ).

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 3 years ago

Thanks for the credit but I got those stats from another site. Someone else did the heavy research. I just copied their work.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

hey, just giving credit where credit is due.

and thanks again - for all you do.

[-] 2 points by randart (498) 3 years ago

I saw this a while ago and it turned my stomach. The price of gasoline rises and the tax payer ends up giving the oil companies a refund after recording record profits.

It is all rigged and wrong. They call the poor leaches and then get more in refunds than all the poor combined.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I don't care which party they are from, if they can't get behind a more equitable form of revenue generation, then they need to go.

Period.

Of course, with the Norquist Tax pledge, I'd say the repelican party is DONE.

[-] 6 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 3 years ago

I wasn't aware of that Norquist pig until I read about him on this site. When I saw him speak in response to the super committee failure, I wanted to reach right into that TV and smack him in the face. I really try not to get into a partisan state of mind. I don't trust any of our leaders but when I hear republicans talk about the economy, I feel like putting my head in a vice. Cutting off blood flow to the brain is the only way to accept their proposals as anything but insanity. Their conservative policies have had 30 years to work. 30 damn years.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Easy now boss.

Lets take a breather.

We know whose head belongs in a vice

and it aint yours . . .

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Of course you care, you democrud braindead rope smoker. If you can't tell the very few up there with any integrity, no if to it, you simply cannot and will never be able to do so.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Actually I don't care. My principle interest is in making sure the repelicans have their hands removed from the levers of power.

I'm confident once that is accomplished we can make some real progress.

I'm also confident there will be others that need a fine lesson in the cost of subverting the will of the people to suit their own agenda - but they will be much more easily isolated and ostracized once the repelicans have left the stage.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

i am very happy you posted the info and i mostly agree with your comments but..... the dems have to take much of the blame for what has happened to the country. reagan for sure started the ball rolling in a steep downward direction but clinton was mostly the same. murderous sanctions in iraq, ending welfare as we know it, nafta, and don't even get me started on the financial mess he helped to create. obama had it all in his hand and dropped the ball. we have two wings of the capitalist party - please do not push the idea that the dems will be our saviors - they will not!

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah- I don't understand why Monihan refused to do anything about East Timor back in 78 when he was at the U.N. - so you definitely have a point -

my theory is that when the repelicans are gone the rest will be easy to mold to our will - as long as we are focused and pay attention.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

i hope you are right but you have little evidence - they are playing the grand game - all of them - you will have to do some real work to mold them

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

You need electroshock and medication. It matters not which side of the aisle they are on, just look at SB1867. Had McJewCain not written it, some other demotard would have, it's part of the plan.

Now cometh Obama, if he signs it, you still love demotards and stay blind to their evil. If he doesn't sign it, he's a hero in your eyes while you forget the reason he said he would veto it is because it does not allow detainees to be tortured.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

that bill is huge, it encompasses a lot more than the simple issue of indefinite detention

He can hardly not sign it because of the funding portions of the bill.

It's very clever, and one of the things in DC that really needs to change - Tacking bullshit provisions onto spending legislation.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Yeah, strictly a republican tactic. He can hardly not sign any bullshit sat in front of him my ass, he's quite capable of writing an executive order any time it strikes his fancy. On the funding, dude, the government is borrowing debt from China just to keep the lights on. Be honorable and bankrupt already. Real people with sense, not people like you, will take over and straighten things out.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

yeah-ya

I can just imagine what that'll look like.

We all know he doesn't have the line item veto -

maybe I should google Presidential Signing so I can explain precisely why your idea is such utter partisan bullshit.

piss off.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Edited as I've no need in alienating anyone. Mea Culpa

However, I originally pointed out the first official whitehouse admin statement as to why it would be veto'd being that 'it wasn't worded craftily enough to make the military actions exempt from the rules of the Geneva Convention as to prohibit torture of detainees'

Let me find linkages

http://wwww.sott.net/articles/show/238665-Why-Obama-Wants-to-Veto-S-1867

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/tag/stephen-preston/

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/why-obama-wants-to-veto-s-1867/

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

i think you are correct about obama and the detention bill - anyone who sees this as a republican democrat problem is not thinking clearly ( i think that means you and zendog) - your understanding of the debt and china seems silly - do you know how the world works.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

I edited the post as I've since attempted to establish peaceful discourse with Zen and others. I supplied links in the edited post and I believe some of them lead to the original whitehouse admin statement. If not, it's out there anyhow......

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

i responded to zendog with this - still think you need to explain your thinking about china and debt -this is from democracy now - the show was 12/22 if you are interested in the whole thing -NICK BAUMANN: So, I wasn’t that surprised by the signing statement, because President Obama has used signing statements in the past, especially with regards to defense authorization bills. I believe he used one on the previous defense authorization bill, because there are some transfer restrictions regarding Guantánamo detainees. But the administration’s big concern is they don’t want anything in the bill to sort of infringe on their ability to do what they want with regards to prosecuting the war on terror. I don’t think that they are particularly concerned about, you know, these allegations that could allow for indefinite detention or rendition. I think they want as much flexibility as possible, and the signing statement will probably be directed in that way, to say, you know, "We’re going to interpret this to give us a broad—a broad mandate to prosecute the war on terror." So, civil libertarians shouldn’t get their hopes up about that signing statement in any way. I have learned—I learned last night that the bill hasn’t actually been physically sent to Obama for signature yet, so, you know, they could still make some enrollment corrections to the bill, and then we’ll see what happens. I’ve also asked the White House repeatedly what the schedule for signing the bill is, and they haven’t responded. And I don’t believe anyone else has reported when he plans to sign it.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well, if nothing is done within ten days, it may as well be signed as the net results are the same. No?

I'm not familiar with Zen's thinking on China and debt. I know that it's a bad and sad state of affairs when my United States borrows money from Commies, or really anyone at all. My United States extorts plenty from it's people and should learn to operate within the constraints of those means.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

don't think the debt is a real problem in any way - what we do with the debt is! if you go into debt to fund your education or buy a business that can be a good thing - correct? if we take the commies (a bit old fashioned, don't you think) money and go to war with iran that is a waste but if we spend that money on energy independence then we should thank those commies profusely. if they are dumb enough to fund our much needed infrastructure build out that would be good - no? then we inflate the dollar and pay them in cheaper and cheaper money or decide to repudiate the debt and .... what can they do?? you should look at hudson's book - he explains how the rulers of our country discovered that the world has to recycle dollars into treasuries so they fund our programs - now the real question is what do we do with the money!

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

copy the text, post a link, let us review

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

this is from democracy now - the show was 12/22 if you are interested in the whole thing -NICK BAUMANN: So, I wasn’t that surprised by the signing statement, because President Obama has used signing statements in the past, especially with regards to defense authorization bills. I believe he used one on the previous defense authorization bill, because there are some transfer restrictions regarding Guantánamo detainees. But the administration’s big concern is they don’t want anything in the bill to sort of infringe on their ability to do what they want with regards to prosecuting the war on terror. I don’t think that they are particularly concerned about, you know, these allegations that could allow for indefinite detention or rendition. I think they want as much flexibility as possible, and the signing statement will probably be directed in that way, to say, you know, "We’re going to interpret this to give us a broad—a broad mandate to prosecute the war on terror." So, civil libertarians shouldn’t get their hopes up about that signing statement in any way. I have learned—I learned last night that the bill hasn’t actually been physically sent to Obama for signature yet, so, you know, they could still make some enrollment corrections to the bill, and then we’ll see what happens. I’ve also asked the White House repeatedly what the schedule for signing the bill is, and they haven’t responded. And I don’t believe anyone else has reported when he plans to sign it.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I dunno.

I do know that various members of both the Justice dept and defense have come out with their concerns regarding portions of the NDAA and I think that must in some way reflect what the President himself is thinking.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

post edited with explanation and links

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

It's already been done here multiple times.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I suppose you missed that on the whitehouse's website. How convenient.

Prove it

Post the text in question.

Prove it or risk being seen as just another

crass, partisan, Liar

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Go look.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I'd rather have dinner

frogs legs

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

I knew you were are knob gobbler from the word go.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

Great post!

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You should thank ModestCapitalist for bringing this information to the forum. I just repeated it.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Hey Zendog, here's more for ya. http://goo.gl/zWi70 Just think, at the end of the year we owe them for doing their business here.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

It is insane, isn't it.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Sure the hell is. Not one bullet for a soldier or dime for the families of fallen soldiers, infrastructure, crime, the list goes on. Some of these go farther back than 3 years. This is what both political parties have helped make it for them for the past few decades.Its the elites ego that think we should pay them for being here when the truth is they need this country and the people so they be the shitheads they are. It do need to change.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yes it does

[-] 1 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

Walmart shows over $22bil in profits but they can only pay their slaves $8.40 /hr no health insurance, not even a pat on the back. "To The Barricades" (see article on adbusters)

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

How many employees do they have?

22 bil in profits means after all expenses including vulgar compensation paid to the upper brass, I'm sure plenty of billions are written off buying DC as well as paying for many "legitimate" lifestyle enhancing business expenses and perks.

[-] 1 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

they have about 2 million employees. that would be another $11k per they create a huge void in mankind. they will pay in the end my friend! Solidarity

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

yesssssssssss

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

there is definitely something wrong with that.

the fukers

[-] 1 points by homer001 (9) 2 years ago

BAC, GS, and C, are insolvent under any real accounting system. The oil companies are obviously gifted tax gifts to exploit unprofitable Gulf reserves that would not be profitable exempt tax breaks. Everyone complains alternative has no chance but we prop up our oil, admittedly, vs. middle east oil. We drive artificially drive oil precises, yes, down, to kill alternatives. We should be driving oil fuels up and forcing change.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I dunno - they are seeing record profits at the current price.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

Democtrats were in control by a 2/3 margin when all these things happened.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

um, actually many of the tax incentives were produced under Bush, and many of them predate bush.

When the dems were in control of the house, they had to contend with the bushite drumbeat of fear men like Cheney constantly summoned over terrorists, and then there was the Tea Party that came along and cowed the dems miserably.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

The constitution demands that all legislation related to the tax code including corporate loopholes are created by congress, more specifically they must originate in the House of Representative.

By the way Exxon did pay taxes in 2009. The info was from a Forbes article that was later retracted and clarified. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

well that's nice.

Since the house is in charge of tax policy, and since the house - controlled by repelicans, refuses to end bushite tax breaks, we may safely say those repelicans and their Norquist Tax pledge, need to go.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

The Democrats controlled the house for 40 years. Republicans gained control in 1995 and we had a few years of surplus instead of deficit. The Democrats took over again and had total control from 2006-2010 and we had the worst deficits in a long time.

The truth is that politicians suck in general regardless of party. They all spend money on their pet projects that make their friends and themselves rich. This is why we need to limit the influence of government in our lives. Power corrupts so we need to limit their power and that means limiting their funds. No money for bailouts, subsidies, grants, contracts...

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Bushite tax cuts had already been passed by the time the dems took over - and we were at war on two fronts.

Deregulation of the banking industry took full steam around 98, and only now do we pay the consequence.

You can leave it to the repelicans if you like, but I guarantee they will do nothing about that GE pollen that blows onto your corn field, infecting your corn, and placing you at the mercy of Monsanto . . .

What we need are curbs to corporate power and influence over our political system, curbs to investment strategies that rob our retirement funds, bankrupt our savings institutions and our whole economy.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

You just can't admit that both parties are the same.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

that is because they are not the same - it just looks that way.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

They may have different cronies and different abuses but in general, when it comes to how they run things they are the same.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I keep hearing that, but its not quite true.

Were it not for repelicans for example, we would have ended the bushite tax cuts.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

When the "Bush tax cuts" were extended, the House was 2/3 Democrats, the Senate had a Democrat majority, and the president who signed the legislation was a Democrat.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

that may be true - but it fails to take into account several factors -

  • we were still at war on two fronts

  • the rise of the tea party

  • many of the dems at that time were from red states, and they aren't there anymore - Why? Because of the tea party - the outcome they feared came to them, something they were sure would happen if they ended the tax breaks.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

I don't understand how any of that relates to the people in power (Democrats) passing legislation extending tax cuts to the rich.

Even your third point makes no sense. The extension was signed in a lame duck session (the election was over) so anyone on the way out was already on the way out.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

As I said, if your information is correct, it certainly does serve to create that impression.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Apparently, if the points you have posted below are accurate, I was not paying close attention.

If the timing of the signing is accurate, then one needs to examine what else was contained in that bill which might have required its passage without further amendment.

One needs to examine the process of its creation, statements from both sides of the aisle during that process, and how it ended up being signed at such a late date.

This does, no doubt, point out how the procedures of Congress enable the perception of a monolithic entity actively engaged in screwing the public.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

While it is true that congress often puts items in bills that are unrelated but you must remember that on Dec 16 2010, congress was 2/3 Democrats.

With that kind of majority the Republicans had absolutely no power to put anything anywhere. This was clearly a Democrat bill which proves my point that there is generally no difference between the two establishment parties.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Really? You sure about that?

link please

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 3 years ago

Why do I need to provide a link?

It is pretty common knowledge and easy to find information.

The Bush tax cuts were set to expire on December 31, 2010. The election was on Nov 7. The legislation to extend them was passed on Dec 16, 2010 by a House that was 2/3 Democrats. Hopefully I do not need to explain what a lame duck session is.

I could go find a link but really, were you paying attention at all?

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 3 years ago

this is corporate capitalism and corruption gone mad, must be stopped and soon

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

It won't be easy - there is entrenched resistance to the necessary change. If you watch the movie Inside Job it becomes clear that it is the result of long planning.

We have to focus on:

  • the investment bankers and the lenders who have engaged in fraud - they need to see a judge

  • Corporate personhood and campaign finance reform -

  • ending foreclosures

  • the Keystone Pipeline

  • global warming

  • other issues as they arrise

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

I dont see General Electric up there - Your savior's (Obama) right hand man Jeff Immelt's company. The one which pays zero taxes and ships jobs th China. No - I am not surprised actually.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

well I guess that GE just didn't make it into the top ten.

What's Immelt's position - does he support ending the bush era tax breaks?

corporate welfare?

tax code restructuring to make the tax climate competitive with say - Ireland?

What's he think?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

Immelt is the CEO & head of Obama's jobs council. He could care less about taxes as GE paid zero. why dont you look it up?

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

oh, I doubt he could care less - I'm sure he has an opinion one way or the other - and his opinion should reveal the President's own thinking on the subject one way or the other.

Why don't you go collect your paycheck and tell your boss we're getting organized, and this summer is going to be insane . . ..

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 3 years ago

Here's 30 Corporations that has paid LESS THAN ZERO in 3 years. http://goo.gl/9Y3hX Yes, that less than, they get paid for being here.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

the fuckers . . ..

and speaking of repelicans

Action Alert: Stop the End Run On The KeyStone XL PipeLine

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

I dont see General Electric up there - Your savior's (Obama) right hand man Jeff Immelt's company. The one which pays zero taxes and ships jobs th China. No - I am not surprised actually.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago
[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

hahaha! And you wonder why there are no jobs! hahaha! loser.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Actually if you look at the post linked above, and again, [here]

you will find a link as follows:

"Cornell Global Labor Institute Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs," Tar Sands Action, September 28, 2011 Take action now!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

yea - why are the unions backing it? 20,000 - I guess that's not many

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

i don't read this site too much but i see that you are proven wrong over and over again and still come back for more - do you not have the capacity to change your thinking when the facts dictate that you must? are you not able to see that where you get your info is misleading you? the only possible explanation is that you are very stupid or zendog was right when he said- Why don't you go collect your paycheck and tell your boss we're getting organized, and this summer is going to be insane . . ..i am hoping he is right since otherwise i would fell bad about making you feel stupid

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

hahaha - when was I PROVEN wrong hahaha? Merry Christmas.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

well we could start with this then look at #3 - but really sorry to bother you - you just don't get it- Actually if you look at the post linked above, and again, [here]

you will find a link as follows:

"Cornell Global Labor Institute Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs," Tar Sands Action, September 28, 2011 Take action now!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

yea - Cornell Global Institute is a bunch of left wing Tree hugging socialists. what do you expect the study to say lol! Dont build it - no problem the Canadians & Chinese will benefit. It's not like it isnt going to be built. Instead of north - south it is going to go east - west & ship the oil tCHina from Canada lol! cut your nose off to spite your face.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

and your info comes from unbiased capitalists - sure - if you don't realize that all our noses are getting cut off then you are not paying attention - but i guess we know that already

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Like I said - Let the Canadians & The Chinese have it. And you can then stop your whining.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

must be you didn't read the link:

Lara Skinner, associate director of research at the Cornell Global Labor Institute, said: “The company’s claim that Keystone XL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL – steel pipe- will not even be produced in the U.S.”

Overall, she said, “Keystone XL could kill more jobs than it creates. There are alternatives to this kind of dirty energy that, if supported, could create large numbers of jobs in the emerging green economy.”

Read the rest of the article

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

ok - dont build it - have it your way & just keep occupying. Global Labor Institute should tell you everything right there. I am sure Skinner doesnt have an agenda hahaha! Please!!! I guess we will never know unless we try. Keep it up

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I will

Thanks for the support

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 3 years ago

what is your point? why are you not bringing this to the attention to your elected rep? they are the ones beholden to you!!! I will tell you why - you think the govt is your savior!!! a bunch of communist losers !!!!

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 3 years ago

I like your list but I'm not sure it's long enough. How about the 7 trillion in fed loans to the banks to "re capitalize" that they used for whatever trading they felt like doing and what about big food and corn subsidies. Two more big teat sucks that created very few if any jobs for Americans,

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I'm not disputing you - these are just the top ten.

[-] 1 points by leavethecities (318) 3 years ago

When I was a kid I wanted a Nanny like Mary Poppins instead I grew up and got an scrouge banker as a nanny, at least Mary could fly.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 3 years ago

Their profits do help the 1%, but don't expect them to spread the wealth. If they can run the government, they can make USA a slave labor economy like China. Let's all do our part and help finance the end of the world.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by avery724 (60) 3 years ago

you have no right to destroy private property.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 3 years ago

As I mentioned in the point just below this one (if you had opened your eyes) the second part was the actual suggestion the first was just for effect.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

we can't be smashing private property

the Occupy Movement can never endorse such activities.

Maybe you should start your own group.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 3 years ago

That one was for effect, the second one where we civily knock on their front door was the actual suggestion.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

if you want effect, get one million people tweeting:

corporations do not have tongues!!

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 3 years ago

Notice how the hypocritical trolls have yet to comment on this post.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

LoL!

Nope. But I think I noticed competing Forum Posts just went up.

LoL!

The repelican Party is DONE!

bwa hahaha

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

End Corporate Welfare Now!

[-] 0 points by mikePac (52) 2 years ago

Zendog is an idiot. The companies listed above and he blames it all on the Rep , while the majority of them are contributing to Obama's campaign fund. Who is the fuckers now idiot???

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 2 years ago

2 out of 10 is a majority? sounds like you're the idiot.

[-] 0 points by mikePac (52) 2 years ago

Hey dickHead better look at them again

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 2 years ago

provide a reason and I might. Big Man. The one thing I can say about the net, it makes little people like you far to brave.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
  • Goldman Sachs gave $478,250 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election period through its political action committee - 35% to Democrats and 65% to Republicans. 112

Just what do you think that means?

I think it means that among Congress, Goldman thinks their advantage lies with repelicans

the scum

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

Yea and probably had the FED (Federal reserve) print it out of our pockets....CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!! LEVEL THE FIELD

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Yes!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Another great post.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I don't think I know what ever I'm going to do with all of this positive reinforcement.

I think I'll go out an buy a new hat . . . .

; D

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Make sure it is size M. I love that hat.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL!

Do you think my fat head will still fit a size M?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

OIC, I was going for Machiavellian.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL

size Machiavelli

that's a good one!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

we'll call it a size M-L

everyone will be so confused -

whoever would have thought I would become a Large Machiavelli

; D

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Size M-L.........I like it.

LOL.

Did you ever play Risk as a kid? Everybody has an inner Machiavelli.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I never did, no. Seems a shame now . . .

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Mayhap you are making up for lost time?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL.

I guess I am. Or have been. Or something.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It is all good!!!

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I found the following on another thread - just wanted to share

; )

TROLL ALERT

If your parent is police, ask them why some police beat upon the unarmed and non-violent. Posted 5 hours ago on Dec. 24, 2011, 4:09 p.m. EST by FawkesNews

  1. Thrasymaque

    • OWS is not non-violent.
    • OWS wants to create clashes with the police. It's their modus operandi.
    • OWS has exaggerated the overall police brutality.
    • A minority of OWS protesters (just like a minority of police) have also been violent.
  2. Muppetmaster

  3. foreeverLeft

    • "The whole problem with the protests is there hasn't bee enough violence! We try to put people in a position for some good old fashioned skull cracking but nada! We can't get ma and pa America on our side until there are some dead babies in the street! We need to see some protestor on TV with half her face torn off to get the attention we need to further the cause!"

    • "Kent State won Vietnam for us, we need a Kent State now!"

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Good to know.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 3 years ago
[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

This seems like a reasonable approach.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 3 years ago

Then we can count on you to use the NaSI SARs as requested, right?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Yes - and I will encourage a close examination of Levin and McCain.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 3 years ago

This is a good post but don't forget, the Dems signed on to this crap as well. It's really not about one party or another, it is about there collective failures.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I believe there is corruption among both parties.

I also believe the repelicans are the chief source of corruption within the system.

I would point to two things as evidence:

I do not dispute that among dems there is corruption - it was seen when Moynihan, in representing the United States before the U.N., did nothing, said nothing, about the genocide in East Timor.

I believe we see it again today, with the Levin / McCain teamwork on the NDAA bill.

I believe we see it in other forms of quote bi-partisanship that would gut medicaid, privatize social security, and other like measures.

I believe the tea party repelicans must go.

I believe that all those who follow them, must continue to follow them -

right out the door.

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

you need to keep in mind that obama plans on raising $1 billion to run for a job that pays 400k - he is not going to get that money from you or me - so where will he go to get it?? and why will they give it to him - you know the answers. the system is blown if it ever really worked (i can make a good case that it did not). i am reading suskinds book about obama - very interesting - i think you should read it. again i would like to say that i am mostly with you here but you must keep a clear head about who is for you and who is not!

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You go ahead and vote however you like.

I plan to vote for the President - I mean, common.

  • Corporations are people too? - Romney

  • I'd send out the Marshalls and have all those liberal activist judges brought before Congress to testify on their activities - Newt

  • Abolish FEMA! - Lawn Raul

I mean, common -

at least the President is sane

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

no doubt and we have no choice but let's not fool ourselves - also you should not be leading others to think too much in that way - hoping for the dems to fix things will not work - never has - pressure from below is the answer as i assume you will agree. still think you should read suskind's book - obama ran on one program and ditched it just like clinton - he had an even greater opportunity than clinton to make real change and walked away from the fight - i will not blame you for voting for him but count the bodies - how many dead under the nobel peace prize winner

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The President did not begin his campaign on economic issues. Twin wars and terrorism were the priority at that time.

The economic clusterfuck threw the entire Congress for a loop - no one would have guessed they had fucked things up as bad as they have - except a few investors who managed to bet against the very mortgage investments they were selling as triple a - bringing AIG to their knees in the process.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

you are right about the beginning of his campaign but the economy is what tipped the election towards him. go read his speeches and see if you want to continue along this line. would you like to talk about health care - sinlge payer - he said it was the best system but off the table. defend him if you like - vote for him but he is a shit - he blew it. he had a chance to change the world and is now pleading with goldman people for money - hat in hand - is that the line. did you mention the iraqi dead - or gitmo - should i go on? i would vote for this guy - Franklin D. Roosevelt did not fix the economy with the New Deal programs he signed into law in his first term. As he prepared in the fall of 1936 to face the voters he promised to double down on the kind of economic interventionism he had already tried, in a spirit of constant experimentation until he found something that would resuscitate the economy more than the first round of stimulus had.

It’s a fairly famous speech, the emotional heart of which is in the passage referring to his rich and powerful opponents:

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

“They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.”

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I don't buy your argument.

And I would point out that the President did not overturn campaign finance reform, the Supreme Court did that.

conservative activist judges did that.

And FDRs speech is as applicable today as it was then.

Vote as you like - I'll be voting for the President

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

we do not disagree too much probably - my only real point is to vote with your eyes open

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

great - i hope you are right about the gop - at least in this form - you are aware that obama is to the right of ike (it is very sad to me since i was born in 1950 but i would vote for lbj, or nixon or ike over your man - in 1975 you would never convince me that i would say that) - and remind me where he is getting that $1,000,000,000 to run fro the job that pays 400k?

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

nixon?

Did you just say nixon?

He wanted to bomb Hanoi

  • wtih a nuke

And I don't see the President as being to the right of Ike - not when he acknowledges that a single payer option is the best option

He's a pragmatist - he has some idea of what he can accomplish.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

read the book then talk to me -yes nixon killed many - your boy not as many but give him time

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

personally I think I would prefer to read it long after he has left office - perhaps there will be less effort at shaping opinion and more on establishing facts.

I could be wrong - some portions of the debate are centuries old.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 3 years ago

Doesn't it take two to be corrupt? The corrupter and the coruptee. Maybe not between the two parties but in general

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

And the democrats let those subsidies continue in the past and the future. Go away DNC.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

yes they did.

they were chicken shit.

scared of repelicans.

I'm not scared of repelicans

the repelican party is DONE.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 3 years ago

Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility. This bank mess they manufactured is pretty stunning. Greenspan is certainly the ultimate GOP Anne Rand "free market" ideologue and there is no question in my mind that the law changes that took place during Greenspan's fed created this crisis. The end result of "self regulation" in our banking system has been a crisis that holds hostage all the hard earned deposits of American citizens if we don't find a way to pay off wall streets gambling debts on an ongoing basis. I realize there are ideologues out there who think that over regulation is still the problem but when I envision their system I see banks that have no fed or FDIC backup who have an unregulated casino department that could cause depositors to loose all their funds if the casino has a bad day.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

What you are seeing happen as we speak here is a private market - and black market - for private lending is growing to serve both companies and individuals since the banks aren't lending. These private groups do not take individual deposits and are not FDIC guaranteed.

The only reason the guarantee cam4 into being was to stop bank runs and frankly it didn't do much good when Washington Mutual was in trouble during this crisis. Many people and groups are shifting their deposits to strong institutions even though their amount far exceeds the maximum amount guaranteed.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Well I can't prove this but I'm pretty sure that the banks have used the fed infusions as a cheap dollar carry trade to buy eurobonds and make money on the spread, that's why they keep pushing for the European central banks to start printing money ---------so they don't all end up like MF Global. We were told that money would be used to keep the economy moving but it was used to keep the casino open. I'm interested in what you are telling me, do you have more info? Sounds like what happened in communist countries when there economies became so dysfunctional, the black market started making up for the shortfalls.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

MF Global got into trouble by buying European bonds and they declined in value and those are considered mark to market assets.

Banks aren't lending - although this has eased up in the past quarter - to anybody without a stellar credit record. There is plenty of money available for solid companies and people, the rest of them are not getting credit. They have no confidence in where the economy is going and where the regulations are going and how their assets will be defined by Dodd Frank and by the Basel Accord.

Banks are going to have a hard time making money in the future. They will be much mire like regulated utilities. So a system has to emerge to fund new growth companies and this will be the private pools of money. Think of all the big companies that have emerged over the past 30 years - Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Home Depot, Google, Facebook, Twiiter - they all were ventured with private money. The same thing is happening in the credit sector with established companies as they cannot get credit.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

MF Global crashed because they were leveraged 44X when those bonds went down. If they had kept 10% reserves and had a more conservative investment they would be fine today --------that's what we don"t know now WTF kind of leverage is going on in our banks, and what is the money invested in.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

it is crazy. The movie Inside Job documents how the ideology of financial deregulation is supported at the universities, and then promoted from Wall Street and within the political structure.

Its madness.

We need to institute whatever financial system Iceland had before 1999.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 3 years ago

Glass Steagall was a pretty good system for 50 years

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

Are u drunk?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

no, in fact I haven't had a drink since 1986. But since you ask . . .

it is rather interesting.

I wrote an argument articulating the need for revolution, about three years ago. It is unfortunate in that I was attempting to reach - metaphorically speaking - through both sides of the looking glass at once. It was a challenge I wasn't quite up to, but never mind.

What is interesting is the fact that I did, and here we are. Not that I'm all that special, mind you - I'm sure I'm just one voice . . . .

  • among thousands

And now I'm saying the repelican party is DONE

I claim it is all a result of their own behavior, hence:

  • they have only themselves to blame

And what behavior would that be?

A complete lack of reasonable solutions to the debt issue. End the Bushite tax breaks. They steadfastly say NO.

And why not, they are the Party of NO

Soon they will be the Party of NO MORE

And then we will hear no more public denials of global warming from policy makers.

We will hear no more of privatization of social security, or of medicaid.

We will see fraudulent lenders and investment bankers sent to prison, and forced to make restitution.

We will see an end of deregulation of the financial system, and those in the education system who remain to advocate such policy will no longer have tenure.

We will see these things.

In my lifetime.

and I'm an old man.

Thanks for the post.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

Okay. So if the democrats would become the sole party?

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

You mean after we pass a 28th Amendment, banning corporate campaign financing, and ending corporate personhood?

Probably the results will by that point be so rosy we will all go back to sleep, and the forces of corruption will again begin by stealth to subvert our system.

Unless we can provide better curbs to corruption . . .

At the least, a single party system will tend toward an end of politics by division.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 3 years ago

But what if the single party isn't your precious democrats? Or the evil repelicansZ. Or any party at all?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

independents?

dead rabbits?

rabid dogs?

wtf? is your point

[-] 0 points by avery724 (60) 3 years ago

He must be , that or mentally inbalanced due to drugs.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

It is very disgraceful. GE's CEO is our wonderful president's jobs czar. He's sucking right off Obamas teat.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

That may be, but the President has been clear that he wants revenue generation as a part of the plan to balance the budget.

In case you missed it - revenue generation is another term for ending corporate welfare. We've ten examples posted above.

Repelicans Refuse.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

I don't agree with you on much, Dog, especially that fat ugly middle finger of yours. Revenue does need to be raised, and the federal budget needs slashing. Then, most of our elected officials need to be bending over in a prison cell next to Bernie Madoff.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Repelicans are standing directly in the way.

You should read this for perspective of the overall repelican strategy.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

Lower taxes, reduce government spending=more jobs, more revenue for the tax coffers.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

that's been the mantra for over ten years

it's failed - COMPLETELY

that makes you either a fool

or a LIAR

next

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

Fact Mutt! Revenue doubled under Reagan. Too bad overspending tripled. Government has it's tentacles in every area of your life, and you love it so much you want more. Big government mantra=spend, spend, spend, more, more, more, more.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Did you get that from FLAKESnews, or Limbaugh?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/reagan-and-revenues/

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

Krugman is not a source. nytimes is not a credible news source. Liberal Obama lovers get their "news" from that source.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Further debunking, of the Limbaugh lies.

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

So, FLAKESnews then?

WE all know they never lie.

The Great Reagan recession lasted for over 8 years. I lived it.

Did you?

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

I believe you are shamefully mistaken. You are referring to the results of Carter the Peanut Farmer. 21% interest, 12% inflation. Yes I do remember that misery, much like today's. 10% unemployment.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 3 years ago

Yeah, it was FLAKESnews.

That makes you the one sorely mistaken.

Made obvious, by your response.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

LoL

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

I often wonder if any business should pay taxes; the owners and their employees pay income taxes... and the business does contribute to all such things as Social Security, Medicare, Workman's Comp, etc. on behalf of the employee... isn't that enough? If a corporation is not a person, there is no "income," only an increase in capital.

Are we talking "income tax" here or capital gains?

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

we're talking about a 15 trillion dollar debt

and currently the only plan to pay for it comes from granma's SS check.

fukin nimrods

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

Well... my feeling is that we need to adopt a long term austerity budget but in light what appears to be the rapid expansion of those demanding handouts, and the propensity for political corruption, I don't think that's a realistic expectation.

It could be that my fiscal perspective is just skewed but I'd say we're on a definite path of destruction, and the so-called "liberals," and the Dems, and the African side of Obama, are all saying, "I don't care."

They will care when we must all resort to self defense to survive.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

umm,

end corporate welfare?

hello?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

I don't have a problem with state tax incentives to encourage or attract; and I don't have a problem with federal loans to sectors that impact our economy, but I do have a problem with subsidies to such things as ethanol.

In Germany, where gas is four or five times as expensive, they refuse to buy ethanol. And here, we're subsidizing it. Under Obama those subsidies have increased.

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 3 years ago

Good for them. They paid a LOT of money into social security,and medicare as a matching share (even more into social security) for all of their American citizens and legal immigrants.

I am proud of those companies for paying their share.

And I am proud to be American.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 3 years ago

Next.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

we need to reboot your brain

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Who the fuck do you think passed the tax laws making the limited examples shown, perfectly legal?

Both sides, including your corrupt demotards.

Do any demotards own large corporations which also pay no taxes? You betcha!

Hell junior white trash, your demotards damned sure helped pass SB1867.

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

I may be white trash

but I aint no junior.

And I say both Levin and McCain need to be charged with something for crafting legislation that stands in violation of the bill of rights and may in fact hamper counter terrorism efforts according to the head of the FBI . . .

I think that would be sedition, and treason, respectively.

[-] -2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Oh sure, I said so.

Of course your repelicans held a gun to the heads of your demotards that fucking passed it, at an amazingly high percentage.

Why not charge them for armed extortion?

Really you stupid cunt, all who signed it should be charged. You're an idiot.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

Really?

I was thinking that if we went for the ringleaders we could bend the rest to our will - it just seems so much more

  • efficient
[-] -2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Ringleaders? You need to be liquidated and dumped in a landfill, even if your schtick is just that, enough is enough.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago
  • nannie state teat suckers
[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

there's my picture -

come and get me mutherfuker

. . . . and it's clickable . . .

-

If bleed we must

then bleed we shall,

and upon their heads

will rest that stain.

. . . . .

May that thread that permeates the universe

and binds us together in peace and in love

guide and protect all,

and let us take great pride:

we are a secular nation.

We are a progressive nation.

. . . . . We are not afraid. . . . . .

[-] -3 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

Does it even bother you that none of that is true? Your source is another post?

One minute with google...

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/12/14/exxonmobil-is-a-leading-u-s-taxpayer/

I guess you can call them liars but what credibility do you have?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 3 years ago

Exxon and Shell Announce Massive Profit Gains — All the More to Spend on Influence Peddling and Climate Denial

More oil-company earnings figures out today — the latest from Shell and Exxon.

Exxon reported a whopping $10.7 billion in profits, an increase of 41% from the same period last year. Overall, Exxon has earned over $20 billion in profits in just the first six months of the year. Not surprisingly, ExxonMobil is also one of the most politically engaged of the top five oil companies. A few key facts:

Exxon is the top oil and gas contributor in 2011, giving over $384,000 already this year, with 95 percent of the contributions going to Republicans.
Exxon has spent over $3 million on lobbying this year and has increased their lobbying expenditures by at least 25 percent from the first quarter to the second.
ExxonMobil spent $5.7 billion—more than half of its first-quarter profit—to buy 69 million shares of stock in order to “reduce shares outstanding.”
Despite ranking in the top of the Fortune 500 list of company profits, ExxonMobil, along with other oil companies, continues to receive billions of dollars in tax breaks paid for by taxpayers.
Exxon pays a lower effective tax rate than the average American. In the years spanning 2008 to 2010, Exxon paid an effective rate of 17.6 percent, nearly 16 percent below the average individual federal tax rate.
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson ranked in as one of the highest paid CEOs in 2010, earning over $21 million in direct compensation.

ExxonMobil is also well known for giving millions of dollars to climate deniers and industry front groups with the goal of creating doubt about global warming, attacking the integrity of climate science and scientists, and promoting a pro-corporate polluter agenda.

Royal Dutch Shell announced their 2011 second-quarter earnings, reporting profits of $8 billion, a 77% jump from the same period a year ago, bringing their total profits in the first six months of 2011 to $14.9 billion. Below is a quick look at Shell by the numbers:

Shell has spent nearly $4 million on lobbying in 2011, making it one of the Top 20 Spenders of 2011, and the second biggest spender of the oil and gas industry.
The oil and gas industry ranks as the fourth largest spender on lobbying in 2011, spending a combined total of nearly $40 million.
The Big five oil companies, BP, Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell, made more than $900 billion in profits (figure in 2011 dollars) – almost a trillion dollars – over the past decade.
Big oil tax loopholes, including oil industry specific tax breaks and unnecessary general provisions, will cost the federal treasury $40 billion over the next decade.

— Noreen Nielsen

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

OMG! Oil companies make money and lobby to protect their interests!! How horrible! This reminds me of the time Cheny had a meeting on energy policy and included people from the oil industry, scandalous!

Is the left still flogging GW? I thought Elvis had left the building on that farce. You can always tell when a lib has given up on something silly, they begin to pretend they had never been in support of that! Lots of that going on with the GW crowd now. :)

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 3 years ago

Next.

[-] -2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

hey man. you know your opponents are desperate when they respond with Elvis sightings.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 3 years ago

so . . . we're supposed to take Exxon's word for it?

Is that the same Exxon of the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

The one that didn't pay and didn't pay and didn't pay for cleanup till they could get the price tag reduced far below actual losses incurred by their own spill?

That Exxon?

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

So sue them for fraudulent reports to the IRS, this is you big chance to get rich and famous! You can take down EM all by yourself!

Exxon Mobile has published their paid taxes, if they are lying sue them other than that you're just another leftwinger that wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Ummmm, I agree with your assessment of the zcanine who needs the battery of rabis shots in his beer gut, however, notice the debunking article focuses on only 2009.... do the totals from 2008-2010. Different story and it's not like they have to file every year, most corporations do not and there is no penalty if the corporation has no liability.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

The OP referenced '09 ergo, '09 taxes. They actually paid more in 10 and 11 but that would be to difficult to find all by your self wouldn't it? LOL and it really screws up the narrative! :)

I've always wondered, do you guys tell these whoppers for yourselves or do you think it convinces the really stupid liberals?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

You're right, I can't find their 2011 tax return and fuck Exxon and you too.

I doubt you have seen any of their returns.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

Here you go..3.1 bil first quarter.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/05/02/exxonmobil-u-s-taxes-and-u-s-earnings/

I don't need to fuck you, you folks always fuck yourselves. Can't you comprehend how stupid these blatant lies make you look?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Nope fool, from the treasury department. That dog ain't gonna hunt and there is no law that says exxonperspectives has to publish anything true about it's tax returns on it's own website.

Next, go suck off BP too.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

Exxon's taxes are available to the public through their annual SEC K1 filing...fool. Absolutely any idiot can check it out, even you.

Next.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Show me their complete return for 2011.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

2011 taxes aren't due to be filed until after 2011 is over dufus. I told you where to find EM's tax filings, they are a public company, they file a K1 annually with the SEC. Unlike the government, I will not wipe your ass for you, I told you where it is, go get it.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

No shit fool, you are the one who said..................

"The OP referenced '09 ergo, '09 taxes. They actually paid more in 10 and 11 but that would be to difficult to find all by your self wouldn't it?"

hahahahaaaaahahaaahahaha.... getchur broad flat nose out of exxons rectum!

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

What an incredible fool you are! This is too easy. :) Had you actually read my link you may have saved yourself this embarrassment. Corporations pay quarterly, they file annually. You've never actually paid taxes have you?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

[-] foreeverLost 1 points 7 hours ago

The OP referenced '09 ergo, '09 taxes. They actually paid more in 10 and 11 but that would be to difficult to find all by your self wouldn't it?

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 3 years ago

You're really having difficulty with the differing concepts of paying and filing aren't you? :)