welfare sucks

[gongoozler]

We will never agree on this. Personally, I look for every tax break I can get. Who wouldn't? Corporations do the same thing.

I would be fine with getting rid of tax loopholes, but contingent with that, suspend governmental influence in green energy as well, including loans like the one Solyndra received.

[nobody]

...Quit whining and do something.

Or not.

In other words you expect people to read your mind then to prove a negative.

There is no proving a negative for you to do.

$600M in CP tax breaks, with supporting links, is a positive assertion. Logic much?

Prove it wrong, lazy.

he's just play ahole troll, time to ignore

ignorance ignores question to ignorant to answer

[gongoozler]

...Quit whining and do something.

Or not.

In other words you expect people to read your mind then to prove a negative.

There is no proving a negative for you to do.

$600M in CP tax breaks, with supporting links, is a positive assertion. Logic much?

Prove it wrong, lazy.

he's just play ahole troll, time to ignore

ignorance ignores question to ignorant to answer

I can't get straight answers to direct questions either.

[nobody]

...Quit whining and do something.

Or not.

In other words you expect people to read your mind then to prove a negative.

There is no proving a negative for you to do.

$600M in CP tax breaks, with supporting links, is a positive assertion. Logic much?

Prove it wrong, lazy.

he's just play ahole troll, time to ignore

ignorance ignores question to ignorant to answer

I can't get straight answers to direct questions either.

i might agree with them if the deduction was unjust or excessive. but all they can do is insinuate there is a wrong without identifying the wrong

[Supsalemgr]

I get that Solyndra is the scripted outrage, but green energy tax breaks and subsidies are piddling compared to what fossil fuels and nukes get.

As for the rest - Now you're just being a troll. How we end up with the corporate loopholes has been discussed at length and you're pretending it hasn't been. Still. Now, act as if it hasn't been said and that you're not getting straight answers, again.

Maybe it is because they are viable and "green energy" is not. They are fuels that are being used.

[nobody]

i might agree with them if the deduction was unjust or excessive. but all they can do is insinuate there is a wrong without identifying the wrong

Now you're just being a troll. For one thing, it's a competitive advantage given to oil companies that other energy sources don't enjoy.

like what? do the oil companies have something the coal industry does not have or the copper industry, iron, natural gas, salt, name a commodity that is removed from the earth.

[gongoozler]

Yes, there are tax breaks and subsidies specific to petroleum production that other energy sources do not get, big ones. And, I have no idea where you pulled "commodity that is removed from the earth" out of. Energy is the topic.

Then, there are the HUGE indirect subsidies - pollution, flattened Appalachians, loss of watersheds, wars, water grabs, support for dictators, trade imbalance, liability limits, etc.

Why don't we just limit the amount of money any corporation can make? Would that satisfy you? We could structure it so that oil companies cannot make any more than solar ones.

[mike]

Welfare queen and CP are apples and oranges.

Does the welfare queen, there are kings also, create jobs?

Consumers create jobs, companies just take advantage of the opportunity.

they've listened to the bs the rich have been pushing for thousands of years, "give us everything we want and we will take care of you peasants" and don't have a clue that consumption drives the economy and the strength of a country is derived from the strength of the individual to withstand adversity. the power of the wealthy is derived by pushing the economy to the brink of disaster, creating the situation where the worker knows that even a little bump in his life will destroy his life - work hard, don't get sick and shut-up

Indeed, billy ...

[mike]

Tonight, 2200, PBS Frontline - Episode: Big Sky, Big Money

The state of Montana responds to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision by challenging the ruling in court and investigating alleged campaign abuses.

Go, Montana!

https://movetoamend.org/

[Tertius]

Don't worry about those paying taxes. The problem is those sucking up tax money and paying no taxes.

Work should be required for every benefit.

[Colonel Taylor]

Yes, there are tax breaks and subsidies specific to petroleum production that other energy sources do not get, big ones. And, I have no idea where you pulled "commodity that is removed from the earth" out of. Energy is the topic.

Then, there are the HUGE indirect subsidies - pollution, flattened Appalachians, loss of watersheds, wars, water grabs, support for dictators, trade imbalance, liability limits, etc.

Why don't we just limit the amount of money any corporation can make? Would that satisfy you? We could structure it so that oil companies cannot make any more than solar ones.

The only thing that would satisfy the liberals is what Obama wants and that is wealth distribution. You know all the successful who have used their own money to make money and give it to the V's of the world who stand on street corners and DEMAND the taxpayers pay for their bills. Yup fairness in America the Liberal way only.

[neoplacebo]

Tonight, 2200, PBS Frontline - Episode: Big Sky, Big Money

The state of Montana responds to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision by challenging the ruling in court and investigating alleged campaign abuses.

Go, Montana!

https://movetoamend.org/

Anyone watch? Any cons dare? It's obscene. Just another activist court overturning 100 years of settled law on behalf of corporations, liars and cons.

I was involved in the same exact fight in a Western municipality 20 years ago. We won some races, lost others, and lost the campaign cheating lawsuit - not due to lack of evidence. The scale of it now, though, is heartbreaking. Is this really what we want our politic to look like?

I posted months ago that Citizens United was more important than any other issue, nothing good is possible without real democracy. Neither candidate is talking about it, the debate moderators didn't ask about it, and you darn well know the media that's the prime recipient of all those ad dollars is not going to report on it.

I cannot recall a lot of my elementary school civics / social studies lessons, but what recourse is there to challenge SCOTUS? I didn't think there is any..... :?: but, hooray for Montana!

[O Really]

I cannot recall a lot of my elementary school civics / social studies lessons, but what recourse is there to challenge SCOTUS? I didn't think there is any..... :?: but, hooray for Montana!

You can't directly challenge a Supreme Court decision, as in "you guys are wrong and we're going to sue you." But Congress can pass another law similar to, but without the glitches, of the one the Court struck down. Or - theoretically, we could ratify and Amendment to overrule the Court. IRL, however, the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues. As it should.

[Reality]

Now back to tax breaks.

Does anyone other than me use the equity in their home to get a loan to make major purchases because the interst paid on the loan is tax deductible?

Should I cancel my loan and put the balance on my CC's and no longer get a tax break so I can pay more tax?

I'm beginning to lose sleep over this.

[Colonel Taylor]

The liberal way!

[rstrong]

So Obama and the dems had control for 2 years

You're like a broken record. It was one year before the filibuster-proof majority dissipated and not really even then thanks to Byrd's age and Kennedy's illness.

Actually the Democrats - in theory - had their 60 seat filibuster-proof supermajority for 72 days.

In reality:

Franken didn't get sworn in for another six months. (The Republicans knew they'd lose that one, but it wasn't the point. The point was to prevent a supermajority.)

And it wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Spector and Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.

Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 of 270 votes.

Likewise, 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of 183 votes in the Senate.

So Obama had 58 of the 60 votes needed for a Supermajority, but usually only 56 votes.

And that doesn't count the unreliability of votes from so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

The Democrat filibuster-proof majority is a myth.

[rstrong]

The liberal way!

Your "teleprompter" avatar is based on a submoroic easily disproven lie, and your "Obamaphone" post is based on a submoroic easily disproven lie.

I hope for your sake that Rush Limbaugh warms his forearm before sticking it up your posterior to use you as a sock-puppet.

[Colonel Taylor]

You mean the great uniter (community organizer) couldn't sway a couple of republicans to his side?
By the way how many Liberals or Democrats from his own party voted for HIS OWN Budget? He can't even get his own followers to follow let alone someone from another party. He is a failure and you libs proved it my not voting for your own leaders budgets.

[neoplacebo]

I cannot recall a lot of my elementary school civics / social studies lessons, but what recourse is there to challenge SCOTUS? I didn't think there is any..... :?: but, hooray for Montana!

You can't directly challenge a Supreme Court decision, as in "you guys are wrong and we're going to sue you." But Congress can pass another law similar to, but without the glitches, of the one the Court struck down. Or - theoretically, we could ratify and Amendment to overrule the Court. IRL, however, the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues. As it should.

Ah, thanks. I was thinking their decisions cannot be overturned but didn't think of how Congress can "go behind their backs" in passing a similar law to one that was declared unconstitutional. And I agree with you about how SCOTUS has final word on constitutional matters.

[neoplacebo]

Now back to tax breaks.

Does anyone other than me use the equity in their home to get a loan to make major purchases because the interst paid on the loan is tax deductible?

Should I cancel my loan and put the balance on my CC's and no longer get a tax break so I can pay more tax?

I'm beginning to lose sleep over this.

I've done that before, lost sleep, and went back to credit cards. No, actually, I have borrowed against the house just for that reason. Hell, I wish credit card interest was tax deductible like it was back in the 60's; maybe then it would be more apparent to the confused who drives the economy. Hint; millionaries don't generally use credit cards