Originally posted by joe beyserDo you have more accurate data pertaining to the reasons why Americans renounce their citizenship?
And there are those leaving because of the political dissent list Obama is making. Which makes more sense. Leaving because of a little paperwork or because their life and the lives of their families may be at risk? BBC news is as bad as CNN or Fox.
Originally posted by Soothfast"In recent years, for example, Wells Fargo, Verizon, Boeing and General Electric paid no taxes whatsoever."
The US tax codes are complex because of all the special interests (both "left" and "right" ) out there lobbying for special dispensation. There are tons of loopholes and exception clauses in every page of the corporate tax code, for instance. That's why it's thousands of pages long. Republicans love to rage and bellow about how corporate tax rates in th ...[text shortened]... years, for example, Wells Fargo, Verizon, Boeing and General Electric paid no taxes whatsoever.
I don't have the balance sheets of those concerns on my desk, but I suspect your claim is all bluster. They pay taxes somewhere, somehow, and even if the parent entity doesn't, the money paid by them to stockholders, executives, and employees is heavily taxed.
I do agree on the complexity and lack of transparency of the code. Each side has its sacred cows, and all of them are very expensive to the taxpayer, and to the government. A simpler method would generate more revenue, save compliance money, and eliminate to a large extent the IRS. The reasons for maintaining the old system is not revenue, but control.
Originally posted by sasquatch672It's funny how you seem to forget that, now with the Republicans regularly abusing the filibuster to an unprecedented (and demented) degree, you need a supermajority to get anything past the Senate.
Obama had both houses of Congress for two years and got nothing done. It's funny time how you types always conveniently forget that.
Originally posted by sasquatch672
I do so love the attention, Soothfast...you're making me blush.
However, your assertion that "Republicans did nothing" is nonsense. Republicans tried to protect the American people from this legislation, but Obama insisted, and was willing to risk an unprecedented default on United States debt to stick this law to the American people. Think about t ...[text shortened]... ou saw opinion polls swing so wildly, so quickly? My guess is you have to go back to Watergate.
I do so love the attention, Soothfast...you're making me blush.
You're like the smelly bum who gets on the bus, getting the kind of attention that should make anyone blush.
However, your assertion that "Republicans did nothing" is nonsense. Republicans tried to protect the American people from this legislation…
Opposing any and every proposed solution to a problem is not "doing something," dude. It just isn't. As usual you miss the point. This stifling, lockstep, monolithic, and universal refusal in the right-wing narrative to acknowledge there is a problem that needs a solution is truly a wonder of the modern world. It's the best propaganda Koch brothers money can buy, surely. Why aren't the Republicans coming up with an alternative way to get tens of millions of uninsured people the health care coverage they need? Republicans have wasted enormous amounts of time forcing utterly futile and purely symbolic votes on trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act this year, when instead they could have been channeling their energies into constructing serious alternative legislation. Why is that? Could it be that crafting serious legislation doesn't play to the crowd? Being an adult is no fun, so hey, let's throw Lego bricks around the Capitol building, and scream, bitch and bawl. Let's shut down the government for half a month and needlessly cost taxpayers billions of dollars for a self-indulgent bitchfest. Much more fun.
Obama knew what this legislation would do, knew it wasn't ready, knew he needed a delay - and instead stared down Republicans!
I don't know what Obama knew, but let me tell you: every piece of legislation this complex has unforeseen consequences that arise once the legislation is enacted. It's actually normal, and the normal response, historically, is to make on-the-fly amendments to the law as needed to rectify any unduly onerous consequences. It is, again, normal. I challenge you to find one single law over 500 pages long that did NOT require fine-tuning later on. I'm not talking about website glitches, I mean the law itself. Obama's mistake was to predict that there was a 100% chance of no rain tomorrow. It may have helped to sell the ACA, but it's ignoring the whims of private insurance companies and the complexity of the fine print.
I'm enjoying watching him twist. I really am. When was the last time you saw opinion polls swing so wildly, so quickly? My guess is you have to go back to Watergate.
My prediction: 8 months from now this will all be old news, and the ACA will have largely stabilized after some corrective amendments. By the beginning of 2017, when Obama leaves office, the ACA exchange system will be as firmly entrenched and as effective as the state-level one in Massachusetts. It will never be repealed, unless it is replaced by a public-option. The "filibuster-everything" tactics the Republicans have pioneered could always be adopted by Democrats in the Senate, if necessary, to prevent ever repealing the ACA without replacing it with something better. That's my prediction. So get used to the ACA being the law of the land.