One Boondoggle Down: Senate Kills Ethanol Subsidies (The Progressive Movement Is A Failure)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

unread,
Jun 17, 2011, 8:14:13 AM6/17/11
to
Senate Kills Ethanol Subsidies

Katherine Mangu-Ward | June 16, 2011

While the world watched Weiner resign, the Senate was busy doing stuff
that mattered a lot more, like voting 73-27 to kill nearly $6 billion
a year in ethanol subsidies. An amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn
(R-Okla.) failed on Tuesday, but rose miraculously from the grave two
days later (take that, Jesus!) and passed today.

Read the rest here:
http://tinyurl.com/44pdn6j

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 17, 2011, 8:51:35 AM6/17/11
to
On Jun 17, 5:14 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Senate Kills Ethanol Subsidies

Yah but any bill that passes in the Senate will have to recconcile
with the House Bill, where republicans voted to continue to subsidize
the american cotton industry, and 140 million dollars to subsize the
brazilian cotton institute. Talk about corporate welfare.
thomaswheat1975

Buster Norris

unread,
Jun 17, 2011, 10:18:32 PM6/17/11
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Tom Jigme Wheat
<thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 17, 5:14 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
>head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Senate Kills Ethanol Subsidies
>
>Yah but any bill that passes in the Senate will have to recconcile
>with the House Bill, where republicans voted to continue to subsidize
>the american cotton industry, and 140 million dollars to subsize the
>brazilian cotton institute.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

House Votes to Cut Off Subsidies for Brazilian Cotton Farmers
June 16, 2011
http://www.ewg.org/release/house-votes-cut-subsidies-brazilian-cotton-farmers

On 6/15/2011 7:26 PM, Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com� wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom Jigme Wheat
> <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [ nothing of value...]
>
> Tom Jigme Wheat<thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
> thomas wheat<thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
>
> Thomas Wheat (35)
> 1131 Evans Dr.
> Santa Rosa, CA 95405
> Email:thomaswh...@hotmail.com
> 707-542-2288 (landline)
> 707-291-4931 (cellphone)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3sjzv8j
>
> [Thomas Wheat]
> Stepfather: Thomas S. McIntyre, 64
> Tommy's Mommy: Margaret A. Wheat, 57
> Tommy's Little Sister: Tara A. Wheat, 26
> 209 Simone Pl S
> Santa Rosa, CA 95409
> 707-540-0234 (landline)
> 707-321-1249 (cellphone)
>
> MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/200119007
>
> Pic:
> http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/120/3f614cfd4a1930803c10a0523118f4d6/m.jpg
>
> About: I am a single 32 year old college graduate with a degree in
> history. I am passionate about politics and am proud to be a liberal.
>
> Twitter Account: http://twitter.com/#!/thomaswheat1975
>
> Website: http://www.georgebushconspiracy.com/

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 6:33:07 AM6/23/11
to
As usual Rightards dont know what they are talking about. The House
Republicans voted to cut 600 million from WIC (Women and Infants, and
Children Nutrition Program), cut billions from the SNAP (Food Stamps)
program, and yet continue to subsidize already profitable US Cotton
farmers. The House Republicans did manage to cut off the over 140
million annual subsidy payment to the Brazilian cotton institute, but
since they are still subsidizing profitable US Cotton farmers, it
opens up the US to sanctions from the World Trade Organization, that
will cost the United States, over 800 million dollars in penalties,
paid to brazil. Fact if the republicans were not so intent in
preserving Corporate Welfare for US Cotton farmers, they wouldn't have
to pay the 800 million dollar fine!!!!
Also Brazil will now raise tariffs on US exports into Brazil making
American products less competitive. So as usual House Republicans,
show what heartless bastards they are, and their ignorance of
international trade laws, and the fact that their corporate welfare
subsidy to US Cotton, is costing more, 200 million dollars more to the
treasury, than their 600 million dollar cut to the WIC program. So
where are the savings in that. Also it should be noted that 3 House of
representatives, tea party freshman, on the Agriculture committee that
voted to cut WIC Funding, and continue US Cotton subsidies, all
received million dollar subsidies for their family farms in the past
from the US Federal government. Talk about an entitlement complex with
these bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

Agriculture spending bill narrowly passes House after GOP whipping
By Molly K. Hooper and Pete Kasperowicz - 06/16/11 08:30 PM E

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/167009-ag-spending-bill-narrowly-passes-after-gop-whipping

"One of the biggest concerns Democrats had with the bill was the more
than $600 million offered in cuts to the Women, Infants and Children
(WIC) nutrition program. These cuts largely remained intact, despite
Democratic attempts on Tuesday to argue the funding should be
restored."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-retaliate-if-us-ends-cotton-payments-2011-06-18?reflink=MW_news_stmp

June 18, 2011, 9:50 a.m. EDT
Brazil to retaliate if U.S. ends cotton payments

"The U.S. House of Representatives this week voted to suspend $147
million in annual payments to a Brazilian cotton fund, arguing the
money for Brazil was also an unproductive and costly subsidy. The U.S
has been making the payments since last year, after the WTO authorized
$829 million in annual trade retaliations to Brazil for what it
determined to be illegal U.S. government subsidies to cotton growers.

The bill must still be voted on in the U.S. Senate, and the final
outcome is uncertain. "

As usual you are talking out of your ass Buster
Norris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are the liar, by withholding the complete truth about the
republican bill due to your Corporate partisan agenda.

On Jun 17, 7:18 pm, Buster Norris <bustyourf...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Tom JigmeWheat
>

> <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 17, 5:14 am, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking
> >head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Senate Kills Ethanol Subsidies
>
> >Yah but any bill that passes in the Senate will have to recconcile
> >with the House Bill, where republicans voted to continue to subsidize
> >the american cotton industry, and 140 million dollars to subsize the
> >brazilian cotton institute.
>
> LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> House Votes to Cut Off Subsidies for Brazilian Cotton Farmers

> June 16, 2011http://www.ewg.org/release/house-votes-cut-subsidies-brazilian-cotton...


>
> On 6/15/2011 7:26 PM, Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com� wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom JigmeWheat
> > <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> [ nothing of value...]
>
> > Tom JigmeWheat<thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
> >thomaswheat<thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
>
> >ThomasWheat(35)
> >1131EvansDr.
> > Santa Rosa, CA 95405
> > Email:thomaswh...@hotmail.com
> > 707-542-2288 (landline)
> > 707-291-4931 (cellphone)
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3sjzv8j
>
> > [ThomasWheat]

> > Stepfather:ThomasS. McIntyre, 64
> > Tommy's Mommy: Margaret A.Wheat, 57
> > Tommy's Little Sister: Tara A.Wheat, 26


> > 209 Simone Pl S
> > Santa Rosa, CA 95409
> > 707-540-0234 (landline)
> > 707-321-1249 (cellphone)
>
> > MySpace:http://www.myspace.com/200119007
>
> > Pic:

> >http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/120/3f614cfd4a1930803c10a...

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 11:54:15 AM6/23/11
to
If you don't like what the republicans cut, what would you have cut instead,
to achieve the same results?

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:12cfe9e9-5ab2-4b69...@u7g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/167009-ag-spending-bill-narrowly-passes-after-gop-whipping

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-retaliate-if-us-ends-cotton-payments-2011-06-18?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 1:34:19 PM6/23/11
to
On Jun 23, 8:54 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> If you don't like what the republicans cut, what would you have cut instead,
> to achieve the same results?

Fact is you cant balance the budget by decreasing tax revenues, the
cost of extreme across the board cuts to government spending would be
disasterous to the economy, GAO estimates that if the GOP across the
board cuts were adopted we would lose another 700000 jobs. We need to
invest in infrastructural spending, which would increase employment,
and restore the Bill clinton tax rates, at least on the top two
percent of income earners. Supply side, tanked the economy and
outsourced almost half of our manufacturing industrial base abroad,
that's why we're in the shitter right now, economically, and this is
excerbated by rampant speculation in commodities, like food and oil.
Also we have to find finding a way to wind down two Bush started wars,
that officially have cost the USA over 2 trillion dollars!, w/out
damaging our collective security. Furthermore we need to redesign the
tax code, since there are so many loopholes, that allow, the top 1/10
of 1 percent to pay an effective rate of 16 percent, along with Major
US corporations on the S P 500, that payed little or no taxes at all
and fact got million dollar rebates. The official tax rate may be
high, but that is not a reliable indicator of what these guys actually
pay, Corporate taxes only make up 6 percent of GDP, down from
approximately 20 percent under Dwight D. Eisenhower. So there are
fuckin free loaders, who sold us out to communist china,
whichincidently is the largest creditor of the USA foreign
debt!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975

>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat"  wrote in messagenews:12cfe9e9-5ab2-4b69...@u7g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/167009-ag-spending-bill-narrowly-pa...


>
> "One of the biggest concerns Democrats had with the bill was the more
> than $600 million offered in cuts to the Women, Infants and Children
> (WIC) nutrition program. These cuts largely remained intact, despite
> Democratic attempts on Tuesday to argue the funding should be
> restored."
>

> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-retaliate-if-us-ends-cotto...

> > > Website:http://www.georgebushconspiracy.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 1:47:25 PM6/23/11
to

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:0cdfc105-29c4-4bd4...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 23, 8:54 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> If you don't like what the republicans cut, what would you have cut
> instead,
> to achieve the same results?

Fact is you cant balance the budget by decreasing tax revenues,

Show me, in the last say sixty years, that year to year revenues actually
decreased?

the
cost of extreme across the board cuts to government spending would be
disasterous to the economy,

What is the definition of "extreme"? Can we continue to go down the path we
are on, of an ever increasing National debt, and avoid a disaster also?

GAO estimates that if the GOP across the
board cuts were adopted we would lose another 700000 jobs.

Is it possible that the GAO is wrong? Have they ALWAYS been right?

We need to
invest in infrastructural spending, which would increase employment,

By spending money the government does not have, and increasing the National
debt even more?

and restore the Bill clinton tax rates, at least on the top two
percent of income earners.

What good is increasing revenue, if you end up also increasing spending,
which is what you are proposing? How does that solve the problem with the
National Debt?

Supply side, tanked the economy and
outsourced almost half of our manufacturing industrial base abroad,
that's why we're in the shitter right now, economically, and this is
excerbated by rampant speculation in commodities, like food and oil.

How did supply side tank the economy? When Obama bailed out the big
financial institutions and GM, wasn't that also a version of supply side
economics?


Also we have to find finding a way to wind down two Bush started wars,

And also, the war that Obama started in Libya? Should we "wind down" these
wars, or should we stop this wars?

that officially have cost the USA over 2 trillion dollars!, w/out
damaging our collective security. Furthermore we need to redesign the
tax code, since there are so many loopholes, that allow, the top 1/10
of 1 percent to pay an effective rate of 16 percent, along with Major
US corporations on the S P 500, that payed little or no taxes at all
and fact got million dollar rebates.

Do corporations really pay the tax, or is that tax paid by the customers of
that business?


Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 1:41:45 PM6/23/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 23, 10:34 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jun 23, 8:54 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > If you don't like what the republicans cut, what would you have cut instead,
> > to achieve the same results?
>
> Fact is you cant balance the budget by decreasing tax revenues, the
> cost of extreme across the board cuts to government spending would be
> disasterous to the economy, GAO estimates that if the GOP across the
> board cuts were adopted we would lose another 700000 jobs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/republican-budget-cut-plan-would-cost-700-000-jobs-by-2012-moody-s-says.html

Republican Budget-Cut Plan Would Cost 700,000 Jobs by 2012, Moody's
Says
By Brian Faler - Feb 28, 2011 10:16 AM PT .

House Republicans’ $61 billion budget-cutting plan would cost 700,000
jobs, according to a report likely to inflame the debate over the U.S.
government deficit.

The measure would reduce real economic growth this year by 0.5
percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points next year, resulting in
700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012, said Mark Zandi, chief
economist for Moody’s Analytics. He said budget- cutters should wait
until the U.S. economy is stronger, saying Republicans “would be
taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.”

“Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the
economy’s halting recovery it would be counterproductive for that
restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough jobs to lower the
unemployment rate,” Zandi said.

The House approved its plan Feb. 19. Democrats who control the Senate
have said they wouldn’t accept the reductions.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican,
dismissed Zandi’s report.
thomaswheat1975

> > > > Website:http://www.georgebushconspiracy.com/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 1:56:03 PM6/23/11
to political-conspiracy-and...@googlegroups.com
top tax rates going back to 1913 to the present:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

regarding Republican budget will cost 700000 jobs by the end of 2012,
according to Moodys analytics

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/republican-budget-cut-plan-would-cost-700-000-jobs-by-2012-moody-s-says.html

Republican Budget-Cut Plan Would Cost 700,000 Jobs by 2012, Moody's
Says
By Brian Faler - Feb 28, 2011 10:16 AM PT .

House Republicans’ $61 billion budget-cutting plan would cost 700,000
jobs, according to a report likely to inflame the debate over the U.S.
government deficit.

The measure would reduce real economic growth this year by 0.5
percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points next year, resulting in
700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012, said Mark Zandi, chief
economist for Moody’s Analytics. He said budget- cutters should wait
until the U.S. economy is stronger, saying Republicans “would be
taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.”

“Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the
economy’s halting recovery it would be counterproductive for that
restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough jobs to lower the
unemployment rate,” Zandi said.

The House approved its plan Feb. 19. Democrats who control the Senate
have said they wouldn’t accept the reductions.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican,
dismissed Zandi’s report

thomaswheat1975


On Jun 23, 10:47 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> "Tom Jigme Wheat"  wrote in messagenews:0cdfc105-29c4-4bd4...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 3:13:41 PM6/23/11
to
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

thomaswheat1975

On Jun 23, 10:56 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:


> top tax rates going back to 1913 to the present:
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
>
> regarding Republican budget will cost 700000 jobs by the end of 2012,
> according to Moodys analytics
>

> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/republican-budget-cut-plan-w...

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 5:05:38 PM6/23/11
to
Do corporations pay the taxes, or is it their customers who really pay the
taxes?

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:787c6a8f-8d68-43bc...@y7g2000prk.googlegroups.com...

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

thomaswheat1975

On Jun 23, 10:56 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> top tax rates going back to 1913 to the present:
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
>
> regarding Republican budget will cost 700000 jobs by the end of 2012,
> according to Moodys analytics
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/republican-budget-cut-plan-w...
>
> Republican Budget-Cut Plan Would Cost 700,000 Jobs by 2012, Moody's
> Says
> By Brian Faler - Feb 28, 2011 10:16 AM PT .
>

> House Republicans� $61 billion budget-cutting plan would cost 700,000


> jobs, according to a report likely to inflame the debate over the U.S.
> government deficit.
>
> The measure would reduce real economic growth this year by 0.5
> percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points next year, resulting in
> 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012, said Mark Zandi, chief

> economist for Moody�s Analytics. He said budget- cutters should wait
> until the U.S. economy is stronger, saying Republicans �would be
> taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.�
>
> �Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the
> economy�s halting recovery it would be counterproductive for that


> restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough jobs to lower the

> unemployment rate,� Zandi said.


>
> The House approved its plan Feb. 19. Democrats who control the Senate

> have said they wouldn�t accept the reductions.


>
> A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican,

> dismissed Zandi�s report

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 5:06:47 PM6/23/11
to
What has been the historical percentage of revenue that the government
collects when compared to the GDP?

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:1ec66f68-9480-47a3...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

top tax rates going back to 1913 to the present:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

regarding Republican budget will cost 700000 jobs by the end of 2012,
according to Moodys analytics

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/republican-budget-cut-plan-would-cost-700-000-jobs-by-2012-moody-s-says.html

Republican Budget-Cut Plan Would Cost 700,000 Jobs by 2012, Moody's
Says
By Brian Faler - Feb 28, 2011 10:16 AM PT .

House Republicans� $61 billion budget-cutting plan would cost 700,000


jobs, according to a report likely to inflame the debate over the U.S.
government deficit.

The measure would reduce real economic growth this year by 0.5
percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points next year, resulting in
700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012, said Mark Zandi, chief

economist for Moody�s Analytics. He said budget- cutters should wait
until the U.S. economy is stronger, saying Republicans �would be
taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.�

�Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the
economy�s halting recovery it would be counterproductive for that


restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough jobs to lower the

unemployment rate,� Zandi said.

The House approved its plan Feb. 19. Democrats who control the Senate

have said they wouldn�t accept the reductions.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican,

dismissed Zandi�s report

Jerry Okamura

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 5:07:22 PM6/23/11
to
Didn't answer the question I asked...why is that?

"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message

news:87884b60-1112-4e37...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 23, 10:34 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 23, 8:54 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > If you don't like what the republicans cut, what would you have cut
> > instead,
> > to achieve the same results?
>
> Fact is you cant balance the budget by decreasing tax revenues, the
> cost of extreme across the board cuts to government spending would be
> disasterous to the economy, GAO estimates that if the GOP across the
> board cuts were adopted we would lose another 700000 jobs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/republican-budget-cut-plan-would-cost-700-000-jobs-by-2012-moody-s-says.html

Republican Budget-Cut Plan Would Cost 700,000 Jobs by 2012, Moody's
Says
By Brian Faler - Feb 28, 2011 10:16 AM PT .

House Republicans� $61 billion budget-cutting plan would cost 700,000


jobs, according to a report likely to inflame the debate over the U.S.
government deficit.

The measure would reduce real economic growth this year by 0.5
percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points next year, resulting in
700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012, said Mark Zandi, chief

economist for Moody�s Analytics. He said budget- cutters should wait
until the U.S. economy is stronger, saying Republicans �would be
taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.�

�Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the
economy�s halting recovery it would be counterproductive for that


restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough jobs to lower the

unemployment rate,� Zandi said.

The House approved its plan Feb. 19. Democrats who control the Senate

have said they wouldn�t accept the reductions.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican,

dismissed Zandi�s report.

Tom Jigme Wheat

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 6:04:50 PM6/23/11
to political conspiracy and the quest for democracy, pres...@whitehouse.gov, mcc...@senate.gov, lu...@senate.gov, ke...@senate.gov, le...@senate.gov, fein...@senate.gov

On Jun 23, 2:05 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Do corporations pay the taxes, or is it their customers who really pay the
> taxes?

Obviously its the middle class consumer who makes up the majority of
federal, and state, and local tax revenue. Corporate income tax
revenue to the treasury, is only about 8 percent of total annual
treasury revenues. Under Eisenhower, corporate income tax revenues
were 27 percent of total treasury revenues. Obviously the worse tax
cheats are the big corporations . They're making a killing fleecing
us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of all S&P 500 companies, 115 paid a total corporate tax rate of less
than 20% over the last five years; 39 of them paid less than 10%.

Here's a list of the top 10 worst corporate income tax
avoiders!!!!!!!!!!

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=67562604-8280-4d56-8af4-a27f59d70de5

Sanders compiled a list of some of some of the 10 worst corporate
income tax avoiders.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not
only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million
rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon
Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC here.)

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the
IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a
bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly
$1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com here, ProPublica here and Treasury
here.)

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26
billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion
refund from the IRS. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here and The
New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times
has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year
after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009
Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report
shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it
was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability
of $-19 million)

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the
Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from
the IRS last year. . (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul
University, here and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68
billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check
from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134
million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
(Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112, here.)

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in
taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an
almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury
Department. (Source: Bloomberg News here, ProPublica here, Treasury
Department here.)

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but
paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from
the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit,
professor, DePaul University, here, ProPublica here, Treasury
Department here.)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United
States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but
received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas
manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found here. The
deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to
shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127, here)

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than
$11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those
years was just 1.1 percent. (Source: The New York Times here)

then see this link smart ass!!!!!
check out this summary, citizens for tax justice report on how the top
12 corporations in america paid an effective income tax rate of
negative 1.5 percent on earnings of 170 billion, from 2008 - 2010. Its
only like 3 pages for the tards who dont like to read.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf

On how the Bush tax cuts failed to spur economic growth: Why do
republicans want to lower taxes on the rich further, since state and
local governments will raise regressive sales taxes to compensate for
budgetary shortfall, increasing economic burden non the poor and
middle class, while the rich's tax burden evaporates. Fact taxes are
at their lowest levels since Republican Herbert Hoover was in Office,
and he led USA into the Great Depression of 1929, which incidently was
also a real estate crash and burn speculative free for all.. We must
regulate the unregulated speculative derivatives market, and break up
the big banks.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/tenth_anniversary_of_the_bush-era_tax_cuts

So why dont you write a paper at univ. of Hawaii, or wherever you go,
and try to refute what I say, instead of lame bland one liner
responses, that are completely off topic.

In regards to Japanese investment in battery technology,[which you
brought up in another discussion regarding alternatives to increased
Oil Production], the one problem with that is that those batteries
require rare earth metals, of which China supplies approximately 90
percent of the world's supply mostly mined in Inner Mongolia, PRC.

If you remember last year, China cut off rare earth shipments to Japan
for a while, after the Japanese government, detained a chinese vessel
in Japanese territorial waters. Then Later Japan had a tsunami, that
crippled the Daichi Fukushima Nuclear power plant. Iam sure PRC has
the technology to create tidal waves, and it's conveniant for PRC to
do so, since they are experts in hydroelectric power, and since PRC
has become more hegemonic, claiming the entire south china sea, as its
exclusive economic zone, along with the Senkaku islands, also claimed
by Japan, of which the entire dispute over the islands was why china
cut japan off from rare earth metals supply.

PRC are flexing their muscles since they replaced Japan as the world's
second largest economy. PRC also lays claim to the Spratley islands,
jointly claimed by Vietnam and the Phillipines.

They are also the largest holder of USA Foreign Debt, so our decision
of whether to or not to raise the debt ceiling (limit) by August 2 nd
of this year, or risk default, means a lot of shit is going down in
the next month, old people in the USA might not get their Social
Security checks, or Medicare coverage, since the US only has enough
reserves to fund the military, and other major agencies, absent social
security, medicare, and this is compounded by the fact we are trying
to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq, by the end of 2011, and in a
process of a gradual withdrawl of the surge in Afghanistan, which the
country has by the way has an estimated 1 - 2 trillion dollars worth
of untapped mineral reserves, according to Sovet and American
geological surveys..So maybe Japan might want to invest in Afghani
economic and civil development.
thomaswheat1975


>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat"  wrote in messagenews:787c6a8f-8d68-43bc...@y7g2000prk.googlegroups.com...


>
> Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
> 1955 . . . 27.3%
> 2010 . . . 8.9%
>
> Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
> 1955 . . . 4.3%
> 2010 . . . 1.3%
>
> Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
> 1955 . . . 58.0%
> 2010 . . . 81.5%
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
> On Jun 23, 10:56 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > top tax rates going back to 1913 to the present:
>
> >http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
>
> > regarding Republican budget will cost 700000 jobs by the end of 2012,
> > according to Moodys analytics
>
> >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/republican-budget-cut-plan-w...
>
> > Republican Budget-Cut Plan Would Cost 700,000 Jobs by 2012, Moody's
> > Says
> > By Brian Faler - Feb 28, 2011 10:16 AM PT .
>

> > House Republicans $61 billion budget-cutting plan would cost 700,000


> > jobs, according to a report likely to inflame the debate over the U.S.
> > government deficit.
>
> > The measure would reduce real economic growth this year by 0.5
> > percentage points and by 0.2 percentage points next year, resulting in
> > 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012, said Mark Zandi, chief

> > economist for Moody s Analytics. He said budget- cutters should wait
> > until the U.S. economy is stronger, saying Republicans would be


> > taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.
>

> > Significant government spending restraint is vital, but given the

> > economy s halting recovery it would be counterproductive for that


> > restraint to begin until the U.S. is creating enough jobs to lower the

> > unemployment rate, Zandi said.


>
> > The House approved its plan Feb. 19. Democrats who control the Senate

> > have said they wouldn t accept the reductions.


>
> > A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican,

> > dismissed Zandi s report

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages