A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

     

    Small population states like Alaska with many National Parks and other federal spending will show as getting more "federal funding per dollar paid"...what that means ..isnt much. It isnt the citizens of the state getting the money, nor is it the state Government...

    The federal Government's core Constitutional role for military defense does  not mean a small state with defense bases, or national parks, is a "taker".

    The liberals play with these menaingless statistics to try to pretend their core Democratic base doesnt have an unprecedented number of welfare recipients and huge unproductive public sector ....

      

     

     




     

     

    Translation: "The numbers don't prove what I want them to, so I'll ignore them and throw out a strawman instead."

    Lame.

     

     

     



    Translation of your translation:

     

    The numbers reflect military bases, which are evil, so, I'll ignore that it wipes out whatever point I once had.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "Nobody works for oil subsidy companies? "

    Oil companies do not get subsidies, you are mistaken. You must mean Solyndra solar panels ....

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... well you better let TX know that because they are putting out some false info.

     

     

    In 2006, federal tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry amounted to an estimated $3.5 billion, based on tax data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and additional analysis by the Comptroller. The largest oil and gas tax subsidies are the Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit, the Percentage Depletion Allowance and the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. All are intended to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.

    http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#oilgas

     

     

     

     

    Those are TAX DEDUCTIONS, not handouts of federal taxpayer money, like Obama's buddies got for failed green energy.

    “Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources

    Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries.  Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”, the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners.  Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.

    Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”.  A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.

    Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Like I said, TX considers those tax breaks subsidies, as does virtually everyone else not in the industry that benefits.

     

    Of course commonsense would tell you that if someone gets a break on their taxes, which in turn increases their income, only because of the industry they are in, then that, by definition is a subsidy.

    Subsidies have a long track record and today come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans), indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How many times do you have to be told that these ae not subisidies, but tax breaks?  No dollars flow from Washington to the oil companies.

    It refutes your point, as this thread is about dollarsthat flow from Washington.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "Nobody works for oil subsidy companies? "

    Oil companies do not get subsidies, you are mistaken. You must mean Solyndra solar panels ....

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... well you better let TX know that because they are putting out some false info.

     

     

    In 2006, federal tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry amounted to an estimated $3.5 billion, based on tax data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and additional analysis by the Comptroller. The largest oil and gas tax subsidies are the Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit, the Percentage Depletion Allowance and the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. All are intended to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.

    http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#oilgas

     

     

     

     

    Those are TAX DEDUCTIONS, not handouts of federal taxpayer money, like Obama's buddies got for failed green energy.

    “Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources

    Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries.  Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”, the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners.  Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.

    Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”.  A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.

    Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves.




    Like I said, TX considers those tax breaks subsidies, as does virtually everyone else not in the industry that benefits.

     

    Of course commonsense would tell you that if someone gets a break on their taxes, which in turn increases their income, only because of the industry they are in, then that, by definition is a subsidy.

    Subsidies have a long track record and today come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans), indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).

     



    The tax deductions taken by the oil industry are identical as other businesses...so what statist -worshippers Obama and you are saying is, for a disfavored industry that doesnt bow to the Messiah,  any tax less than 100% is a "subsidy"...got it.

    Whereby billions on direct taxpayer handouts to cronies for failed green energy is ,um, an "investment"...

     

     



    Heh, heh, heh... ya sure thing spanky.

     

    These subsidies ARE IN ADDITION TO the regular expenses oil companies are allowed under tax laws.

    Let me know when I can "immediately write off as an expense intangible drilling costs from income taxes rather than amortize them (spread the deductions out) over the productive life of the property." Heck, let me know when I can write off any of my equipment immediately rather than amortize it over it's normal business life.

    Let me know how I can apply for the Percentage Depletion Allowance especially since it "is available only to independent producers who produce fewer than 1,000 barrels per day."

     

    But ya, the comptroller in a state where one of, if not the, biggest industry has mislabeled these special write offs as 'subsidies' because we all now how much the state of TX wants to make it's leading industry look bad.

     



    Sure thing, sparky, you claim tax deductions  are subsidies...but after your smoke and mirrors, look at the bottom line...

    The three largest oil companies paid the most in taxes in absolute terms of all major corporations, according to data on S&P 500 companies compiled by The New York Times.

    President Barack Obama has chastised oil companies for receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks. However, the Times reports that ExxonMobil paid $146 billion in taxes; Chevron paid $85 billion; and ConocoPhillips paid $58 billion over the last five years.

    In terms of their effective tax rates, the big three oil companies don’t get off easily either. Exxon had an effective tax rate of 37 percent, Chevron’s effective tax rate was 39 percent, and ConocoPhillips’s was a whopping 74 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

    In fact, the big three oil companies paid multiples more, in both total dollars and effective tax rates, than such administration favorites as Apple, Google and General Electric.   Funny, Mr Obama doesnt berate his buddies at crony capitalist GE....   The insane IRS Code is what Democrats and statists love, they can rig it for their favorites and screw their political enemies...


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/nyt-oil-companies-paid-the-most-in-taxes/#ixzz2fqEKr3mr

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    Well if you don't like the general amounts of federal tax dollars received per tax dollar paid, how about a chart that shows the percentage of federal tax dollars paid directly to each states budget. This is money that each state receives directly into their general revenue funds.

     

    Federal Aid to State Budgets as a percentage of state revenue.

    1.  MS   49.01%
    2.  LA   46.52%
    3.  AZ   45.70%
    4.  SD   45.56%
    5.  MO   44.36%
    6.  TN   44.03%
    7.  NM   42.57%
    8.  MT   41.86%
    9.  GA   41.07%
    10. NY   40.45%
     

    http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/states-reliant-on-federal-funds-unprepared-for-cuts 

     



    Again with the "percentage of state revenue" ...which is very misleading, since small red states have small budgets.
    Huge state Governments in big blue states have huge state budgets and will get less of a 'percentage' of federal dollars by comparison ....that doesnt mean small red states are "takers"  ...

     

    Look at the raw numbers, 2010:

    New York received $61 billion in federal dollars

    California received $52 billion

    Mississippi received $8 billion

    Louisiana received $13 billion

     




    Heh, heh, heh... so you're saying that the best comparison between state budgets is raw number. That would mean that a state like TX should have a budget equivalent to NH.

     

    Geepers, that's so ridiculous as to disqualify you from any discussion on anything related to math.

    Here's a hint spanky: Percentages are exactly how you determine parity across diffrent size elements.

     



    The leftists are succeeding well at making the state governments dependent on the federal "aid" , just as they do to the poor....soon the state and local governments will be little but vassals to Washington ....

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Have the liberal bureaucrats get a real job.



    Sure thing.  And have the conservative bureaucrats do the same.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Translation of your translation:

     The numbers reflect military bases, which are evil, so, I'll ignore that it wipes out whatever point I once had.



    I never said military bases are evil, so my point is still valid.

    But you forgot about all of the private contractors who service those military bases...the numbers of which generally dwarf those of the base itself.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Translation of your translation:

     The numbers reflect military bases, which are evil, so, I'll ignore that it wipes out whatever point I once had.

     



    I never said military bases are evil, so my point is still valid.

     

    But you forgot about all of the private contractors who service those military bases...the numbers of which generally dwarf those of the base itself.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it's not valid.  And, I was having fun wit yah.

    you can't look at the gross number which includes military expenditures and directly correlate that to taxes and the return to the states.  Sure, there is some local benefit, but the military benefits us all.

    so, all that money in those $1 in, $3 out really benefits us all more than the local economy where the base is. 

    Fair?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "Nobody works for oil subsidy companies? "

    Oil companies do not get subsidies, you are mistaken. You must mean Solyndra solar panels ....

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... well you better let TX know that because they are putting out some false info.

     

     

    In 2006, federal tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry amounted to an estimated $3.5 billion, based on tax data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and additional analysis by the Comptroller. The largest oil and gas tax subsidies are the Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit, the Percentage Depletion Allowance and the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. All are intended to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.

    http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/index.php#oilgas

     

     

     

     

    Those are TAX DEDUCTIONS, not handouts of federal taxpayer money, like Obama's buddies got for failed green energy.

    “Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources

    Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries.  Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”, the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners.  Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.

    Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments – several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century – are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are “subsidies” for “big oil”.  A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.

    Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves.




    Like I said, TX considers those tax breaks subsidies, as does virtually everyone else not in the industry that benefits.

     

    Of course commonsense would tell you that if someone gets a break on their taxes, which in turn increases their income, only because of the industry they are in, then that, by definition is a subsidy.

    Subsidies have a long track record and today come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans), indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).

     



    The tax deductions taken by the oil industry are identical as other businesses...so what statist -worshippers Obama and you are saying is, for a disfavored industry that doesnt bow to the Messiah,  any tax less than 100% is a "subsidy"...got it.

    Whereby billions on direct taxpayer handouts to cronies for failed green energy is ,um, an "investment"...

     

     



    Heh, heh, heh... ya sure thing spanky.

     

    These subsidies ARE IN ADDITION TO the regular expenses oil companies are allowed under tax laws.

    Let me know when I can "immediately write off as an expense intangible drilling costs from income taxes rather than amortize them (spread the deductions out) over the productive life of the property." Heck, let me know when I can write off any of my equipment immediately rather than amortize it over it's normal business life.

    Let me know how I can apply for the Percentage Depletion Allowance especially since it "is available only to independent producers who produce fewer than 1,000 barrels per day."

     

    But ya, the comptroller in a state where one of, if not the, biggest industry has mislabeled these special write offs as 'subsidies' because we all now how much the state of TX wants to make it's leading industry look bad.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    In the context of this discussion, who cares? Dollars don't flow from Washington to the oil companies.

    if you want to discuss the benefits or lack thereof of deductions for oil exploration, start another thread.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

     

    GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!

     

     



    Pointless. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Which is precisely why I used it to describe the OP....    

     



    Well, that would be good if the OP had not made a point.

     

    One reason that larger companies are not expanding their workforce is that it is less expensive and more productive to pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to make money than it is to take a risk and invest in a new business initiative. How do you think financial services companies get the idea they can take undue risk and if it blows up they will get bailed out? Heck, Dodd-Frank has put taxpayer support of too big to fail into law.

     Even Obama butt kisser Warren Buffet knows that.

    Hence the flow of money to the corpoarte cronies in Washingtin. Add to that activist money in support of the entitled underclass and you have the richest parts of the county sukking off the teat of the government in Virginia and Maryland.

    OK, add to that the military industrial complex. Do you think they might benefit from some cruise missiles flying into Syria?

    Then when you add the bloodsuckers from healthcare and education all looking for the government to fund their customers so they do not have to be serious about their business, can you imagine more money going to Washington yet?

    Can you figure it out yet?? 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    10 States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
    1. New Mexico: $2.63
    2. West Virginia: $2.57
    3. Mississippi: $2.47
    4. District of Colombia: $2.41
    5. Hawaii: $2.38
    6. Alabama: $2.03
    7. Alaska: $1.93
    8. Montana: $1.92
    9. South Carolina: $1.92
    10. Maine: $1.78

     

    Interesting. And how much money do you suppose these states sent to the Federal government in return for the magnanimous gift of their own money that was returned to them?

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    In NM's case, they sent a dollar.  Then they got their dollar back, and another $1.63 on top of it.

     

     



    That statistic is close to worthless.... The "state" doesnt send a dollar...and the $1.63 back is not given to the 'state'.
    The devil is in the details...

     

    Small population states like Alaska with many National Parks and other federal spending will show as getting more "federal funding per dollar paid"...what that means ..isnt much. It isnt the citizens of the state getting the money, nor is it the state Government...

    The federal Government's core Constitutional role for military defense does  not mean a small state with defense bases, or national parks, is a "taker".

    The liberals play with these menaingless statistics to try to pretend their core Democratic base doesnt have an unprecedented number of welfare recipients and huge unproductive public sector ....

     

     



    Actually money rarely lies. Actions speak louder than words. You want the truthy? Follow the money. You want to pretend that it is not about money? What does that say about how soberly you look at the world?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

     

    GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!

     

     



    Pointless. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Which is precisely why I used it to describe the OP....    

     



    Well, that would be good if the OP had not made a point.

     

    One reason that larger companies are not expanding their workforce is that it is less expensive and more productive to pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to make money than it is to take a risk and invest in a new business initiative. How do you think financial services companies get the idea they can take undue risk and if it blows up they will get bailed out? Heck, Dodd-Frank has put taxpayer support of too big to fail into law.

     Even Obama butt kisser Warren Buffet knows that.

    Hence the flow of money to the corpoarte cronies in Washingtin. Add to that activist money in support of the entitled underclass and you have the richest parts of the county sukking off the teat of the government in Virginia and Maryland.

    OK, add to that the military industrial complex. Do you think they might benefit from some cruise missiles flying into Syria?

    Then when you add the bloodsuckers from healthcare and education all looking for the government to fund their customers so they do not have to be serious about their business, can you imagine more money going to Washington yet?

    Can you figure it out yet?? 



    You want it both ways. You wantt to say that too big to fail should not be allowed then you want to say regulation is bad!!!!! 

    You want it both ways. You want to say that bloodsuckers from health care are bad and then you want to say that laws that prevent the blood sucking are bad!!!!

    We can disagree about the best way to do things but if you are going to simply parrot somneone talking out of both sides of their mouth then voters can never find common ground.

    ANd their IS common ground. A whole lot of it. Much more than you seem to realize. Much more than most people seem to recognize. The thing that stops us is the BS from politicians and pseudo journalists and our own prejudgements and willingness to look for scapegoats.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

     

    GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!

     

     



    Pointless. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Which is precisely why I used it to describe the OP....    

     



    Well, that would be good if the OP had not made a point.

     

    One reason that larger companies are not expanding their workforce is that it is less expensive and more productive to pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to make money than it is to take a risk and invest in a new business initiative. How do you think financial services companies get the idea they can take undue risk and if it blows up they will get bailed out? Heck, Dodd-Frank has put taxpayer support of too big to fail into law.

     Even Obama butt kisser Warren Buffet knows that.

    Hence the flow of money to the corpoarte cronies in Washingtin. Add to that activist money in support of the entitled underclass and you have the richest parts of the county sukking off the teat of the government in Virginia and Maryland.

    OK, add to that the military industrial complex. Do you think they might benefit from some cruise missiles flying into Syria?

    Then when you add the bloodsuckers from healthcare and education all looking for the government to fund their customers so they do not have to be serious about their business, can you imagine more money going to Washington yet?

    Can you figure it out yet?? 

     

     




    How do you think financial services companies get the idea they can take undue risk and if it blows up they will get bailed out? Heck, Dodd-Frank has put taxpayer support of too big to fail into law.

     

     


    That statement alone should disqualify you from this thread.

    First off, who initiated TARP?

    Who said:"I have to abandon the free market in order to save it'.?

    Dodd-Frank's mechanism to save failing institutions is self-financing by those same institutions. No taxpayer money involved.

    The alternative is reinstituting Glass-Steagle and every wingnut to a person fought that.

     



    Right.  Bush did it.  sigh.

     

    That's what all your arguments boil down to, isn't it?

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    you can't look at the gross number which includes military expenditures and directly correlate that to taxes and the return to the states.


    Of course you can, when the governors of those red states are boasting how much more jobs there are...when many of those jobs would not exist there but for federal largesse....federal largesse from blue states.

    But you knew that. You're just a snake. A dumb one at that.

    Federal largesse from blue states?  How totally dumb is that statement.

    All that is good flows from DC and the federal Government, per progressives.... the river of money to DC is collected, then redistributed to DC to punish its enemies and bribe its friends...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: A River of American Money Flows to D.C.

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration’s mantra that these tax treatments





    .

    .

    .

    versus

    .

    .

    .

    .

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    Barely a mention on The Weekly Standard, National Review or Daily Caller.

    Weird, huh?

    [/QUOTE]

    Riveting stuff alright, for leftwingers....LOL

    [/QUOTE]

     

    again

     

     

Share