santorum

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.

It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.

Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.

The plan gets rid of "dozens" of tax breaks when there are over 130 on the books. Most corporations would still pay far less than the 28% tax rate that is proposed. This is a simplification of the tax code, and if it were proposed by a republican president, you would be all for it.

If it were proposed by republicans, I would hazard to it would be about 16%, and liberals would scream TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!!11!!!1!!! even though there is proof that lower corporate taxes equate to higher tax revenues.

Lower taxes can produce higher revenues, but a 54% tax break is a little bit too extreme, imo. I'm for smaller incremental cuts.

[SkinnyBenny]

Right. I'm not denying the inconsistency between advocating for small government and for more federal intervention on social issues. I just think its funny that these are the issues liberals really get bent out of shape over. These, and pot legalization. I've actually got a liberal friend who says's he's "fiscally conservative" but still supports Obama because of the gay marriage issue. He's not even gay, just a liberal with some seriously messed up priorities.

Yeah it's super weird that someone could find issues relating to equality and human rights to be as/more important than money.  Hmm.

  and then they get all preachy, calling it "human rights" and stuff to make it sound more serious. Classic.

 

[AbeFroman]

btw pushing for the legalization of pot has EVERYTHING to do with money and the economy.

Imagine the revenues it would produce. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yeah, reducing corp tax rate from 34% to 28%(latest proposal) doesn't seem overly lib.

It also eliminates loopholes that a lot of small businesses benefit from, so republicans are against it.

Yup, it actually turns the cut into an increase unless you get it to about 25%.

The plan gets rid of "dozens" of tax breaks when there are over 130 on the books. Most corporations would still pay far less than the 28% tax rate that is proposed. This is a simplification of the tax code, and if it were proposed by a republican president, you would be all for it.

If it were proposed by republicans, I would hazard to it would be about 16%, and liberals would scream TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!!11!!!1!!! even though there is proof that lower corporate taxes equate to higher tax revenues.

Lower taxes can produce higher revenues, but a 54% tax break is a little bit too extreme, imo. I'm for smaller incremental cuts.

Getting rid of the majority of loopholes would make it a much smaller cut, but at least it would be a cut, overall.  Companies like GE would actually see a 12% increase in their tax rate, but most others would see huge benefits. Buffett would scream like a little school girl. Would be hilarious.

[star seed 7]

Is a 12 percent increase of zero dollars still zero dollars?  Im not sure, I haven't taken math in a while.

[star seed 7]

And it says something about a person when they dont think eqaulity is the most important and basic issue, let alone that they dont even think its important at all.
 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Is a 12 percent increase of zero dollars still zero dollars?  Im not sure, I haven't taken math in a while.

OH nice catch seven. 12 percentage points. Whew, glad that's cleared up. GE actually paid 3.9%.

[star seed 7]

Didn't they pay nothing like a year or two ago?  It was mostly clean energy rebates or something, but that's what I was refering to.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Didn't they pay nothing like a year or two ago?  It was mostly clean energy rebates or something, but that's what I was refering to.

Yeah, that was the rumor going around. I pulled the number from a recent article about 2011 corporate taxes, so maybe in 2010 they didn't pay.

[steve dave]

Most of you probably aren't even gay!  Why do you care about this?   Probably just liberals with some seriously messed up priorities.

[Rage Against the McKee]

seriously

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

And it says something about a person when they dont think eqaulity is the most important and basic issue, let alone that they dont even think its important at all.
 

SO much good stuff here. We've got the "equality" buzz word, right up there with "human rights." You'd think we're talking about something akin to slavery. Next, equality is misspelled. And then, to cap it off, the finger wag. Liberalism perfectly encapsulated in one brilliant post.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I enjoy gays. 

[wetwillie]

Someone cliff notes for me about the gay thing did santorum show up at the airport with a couple bag boys in tow for a weekend in greece?

[p1k3]

btw pushing for the legalization of pot has EVERYTHING to do with money and the economy.

Imagine the revenues it would produce. 

not to mention big pharma would have some competition for once. Lower prescription drug prices reduces medicare part D costs, which of course wouldn't be an issue if neo conservative George Bush hadn't done this in the first place.

but yeah pot solves lots of issues, man

[p1k3]

It's funny how liberals and conservatives prioritize certain issues. Kinda meh about the national debt, jobs, and foreign policy, but criticize premarital sex or homosexuality and its a call to action!!

fix'd

Well, yeah, but again, how could any rational person think that pot legalization, premarital sex, or gay marriage is more important than 15% real unemployment or a $15 trillion debt growing by $1.5 trillion per year? The stuff that causes libs to go crazy is just comical.

I don't see how any rational person could think that Obama's economic policy has been significantly different from what a Republican president would have done.


Really, his stance on gay marriage isn't any different from most republicans, either.

I dont like Obama as much as the next guy, but i believe this to be true. No effing way McCain/Palin or any (R) would have done any better than Obama. After all, it was a Republican who crap all over the free market as his second term winded down.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't see how any rational person could think that Obama's economic policy has been significantly different from what a Republican president would have done.

Really, his stance on gay marriage isn't any different from most republicans, either.

I dont like Obama as much as the next guy, but i believe this to be true. No effing way McCain/Palin or any (R) would have done any better than Obama. After all, it was a Republican who crap all over the free market as his second term winded down.

You know, and I'm just spit-balling here, I would think McCain would not have spent his first two years ramming through a massive new entitlement program we can't afford and trying to pass a massive new energy tax. He might have even realized the urgency of ballooning deficits and pursued budgets that actually cut spending, instead of increasing it. Maybe he would have pursued some needed tax reform right out of the gate instead of, say waiting until he was running for reelection. But, it's hard to say how much he would have accomplished since, without Obama's actions above, Republicans probably would not have retaken the House in 2010.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

By the way, Chris Christie recently weighed in on Obama's non-existent position on gay marriage.

[LickNeckey]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

[SkinnyBenny]

Let me just take a timeout for a second here to tell you how incredible your screen name is.

[michigancat]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?

[SkinnyBenny]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?

BECAUSE THE BABY JESUS SAID SO