From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010041600274510672-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> A tax code, which taxes proportionately according to income, and the
>> ability to pay without regard to marital status.
>> A tax code which addresses low income, and lower middle income
>> proportionately.
>> A tax code which is not regressive, and does not provide massive
>> loopholes for those more than able to pay their fair share. That
>> includes corporations such as Exxon which had billion in profits had
>> off-shore subsidiaries pay foreign taxes, but not a cent to the US
>> Treasury.
>
> It may be obsolete, and perhaps, "unfair", but it is a fact that the oil
> companies were given these tax breaks, or "loopholes" because they used
> a lot of their profits to explore for new oil fields or reserves. this
> is similar to the railroads being given land on which to build their
> tracks.....My dad, who was an Exxon executive used to tell me about
> things like this.


Irregardless of that, I think what he is talking about is the companies
who do a majority of their profit making in this country, using an
offshore "office" as their headquarters to avoid paying US taxes and pay
a small amount to some island country instead.

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7veu$hmp$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>>>> --DR
>>>> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
>>>> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what
>>>> "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we
>>>> are discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there
>>>> are a variety of ways He is viewed.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>> Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active in
>>> government?
>> They have no business trying to impose their faith on other people if that
>> is why they are being active.
>>
>> They also have no business trying to control what other people do based on
>> their faith or religious beliefs. As I stated, I am a person of faith, I
>> am active in government but would NEVER use the government to force my
>> religious beliefs on other people.
>>
>> While the founding fathers felt religion was needed to guide the country,
>> they also created separation of church and state for good reason.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> I'm still looking for that "separation of church and state" clause in the
> Constitution but still haven't found it. What I do find in the Constitution
> is that the governement cannot involve itself in religion but those of
> religious faith have the right to be involved in government. There is
> separation of the state from the church but not vice versa.
>
>


So you think the constitution allows you to enforce your religious
beliefs on other people, just because it doesn't specifically say a
church can't do this?

Stephanie
From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-16 21:58:23 -0700, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> said:

> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010041600274510672-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> A tax code, which taxes proportionately according to income, and the
>>> ability to pay without regard to marital status.
>>> A tax code which addresses low income, and lower middle income proportionately.
>>> A tax code which is not regressive, and does not provide massive
>>> loopholes for those more than able to pay their fair share. That
>>> includes corporations such as Exxon which had billion in profits had
>>> off-shore subsidiaries pay foreign taxes, but not a cent to the US
>>> Treasury.
>>
>> It may be obsolete, and perhaps, "unfair", but it is a fact that the
>> oil companies were given these tax breaks, or "loopholes" because they
>> used a lot of their profits to explore for new oil fields or reserves.
>> this is similar to the railroads being given land on which to build
>> their tracks.....My dad, who was an Exxon executive used to tell me
>> about things like this.
>
>
> Irregardless of that, I think what he is talking about is the companies
> who do a majority of their profit making in this country, using an
> offshore "office" as their headquarters to avoid paying US taxes and
> pay a small amount to some island country instead.
>
> Stephanie

What I was talking about is a corporation such as Exxon which publicly
complains about paying high taxes, alleging such high taxes threaten
"energy innovation". When examined corporations such as Exxon have $100
Billion of their tax burden shifted onto the US Tax payer. For example
two out of every three US Corporations paid no Federal income taxes
from 1998 through 2005.
Last year Exxon Mobil reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the
most off shore taxes of any corporation, however not one cent was paid
to the US government, we carried that for them.

Then there was General Electric which last year had 10.3 Billion pre
tax income, was handed $1.1 billion in tax BENEFITS!

....and they have the nerve to claim the wage earners are not carrying
their weight.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: stephe_k on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message

>> Why don't you pay any attention to what I keep telling you?
>>
>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>
>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>
>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>
>> I AM NON-RELIGIOUS.
>>
>> Let me know when and if that finally sinks in. Do it in the first
>> line, or I won't read the rest.
>>
>> Discussing anything with you is like talking to a door knob, and I
>> don't have that much time to waste.
>>
> If you are not religious, then what do you have against gays getting
> married?

He thinks if you allow them to marry, they will go down the street,
kidnap a child and kill them?

Stephanie
From: Chris H on
In message <4bc92d55$0$1583$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes
>Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>>Yes, Stephanie, I have come to ignore most of your posts
>
>And that is how Harrington convinces himself that he's right - he
>simply ignores any fact which he doens't like.

No he doesn't that's a lie... :-)))


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/