GE pays no taxes, receives tax bonuses, ships jobs overseas, and its CEO is into job creation

[Correction]

This article doesn't make me feel any better about the situation, but like many things, I know next to nothing about tax law.

The article also completely sidesteps the root of the outrage, that a company that rolls in the worst examples of corporate abuse of middle-class Americans is held up as a paragon for others to learn from by a sitting democratic president.

[Rhinox]

Maybe I missed it the first time, but does the article actually state how much (% or otherwise) GE paid? Either way, it's a reminder that the media can be very untrustworthy (Both factually and sensationally). Either way, I have to applaud the author to taking up the tough defense and legitimately meeting people's oppositions and giving good arguments of their own. OP counter.

I don't know if I would trust that article. It makes a bold claim and criticizes a newspaper investigative Journalism yet the title reads Yes, GE Paid Taxes in 2010 (We're Pretty Sure)

[Rhinox]

Maybe I missed it the first time, but does the article actually state how much (% or otherwise) GE paid? Either way, it's a reminder that the media can be very untrustworthy (Both factually and sensationally). Either way, I have to applaud the author to taking up the tough defense and legitimately meeting people's oppositions and giving good arguments of their own. OP counter.

I don't know if I would trust that article. It makes a bold claim and criticizes a newspaper investigative Journalism yet the title reads Yes, GE Paid Taxes in 2010 (We're Pretty Sure)

[Yugl]

The article also completely sidesteps the root of the outrage, that a company that rolls in the worst examples of corporate abuse of middle-class Americans is held up as a paragon for others to learn from by a sitting democratic president.

Question. Shinzon (Shinzen?) proposed a "scientific" method to governing. When I pressed him on matter in PMs, what he really meant was people who could get things done. If we ignore what I would argue is "technocratically" irrelevant (Meaning it doesn't pertain to the task at hand) claims about the CEO, do you think he can get the task done? I'm bringing this up because it would seem you and him conflict as to the legitimacy of this goal.

[Yugl]

Double posted accidentally (Mouse double click + slow loading), but I'll use this for Rhino's comment:

I don't know if I would trust that article. It makes a bold claim and criticizes a newspaper investigative Journalism yet the title reads Yes, GE Paid Taxes in 2010 (We're Pretty Sure)

You're absolutely right that I should exercise skepticism. I'm not familiar with the news source, so I can't make claims about its integrity.

[Correction]

do you think he can get the task done?

What task, creating more american jobs? no

The task of making it even easier for multinational corporations to zero out their tax liability while slashing domestic jobs and reaping billions in tax credits? sure that's why they hired him

[Yugl]

Ok, so you predict he won't. How will you evaluate that prediction?

[Correction]

By the number of non-service industry jobs created? Not a difficult metric is it?

[Yugl]

By the number of non-service industry jobs created? Not a difficult metric is it?

So you wouldn't correct for any existential factors? If it increases, you'll admit he met the task?

[Correction]

What kind of stupid fucking question is that? How precise do you want my language to be? Obviously there are projections on job growth. If growth exceeds those projections thanks to his involvement then mission accomplished. If growth exceeds those projections and his involvement is ambiguous then he didn't make it worse, mission still accomplished.

I'm predicting neither will happen based on pure history, both his and this administration's.

[Yugl]

What kind of stupid fucking question is that? How precise do you want my language to be? Obviously there are projections on job growth. If growth exceeds those projections thanks to his involvement then mission accomplished. If growth exceeds those projections and his involvement is ambiguous then he didn't make it worse, mission still accomplished.

I'm predicting neither will happen based on pure history, both his and this administration's.

It's not a stupid question because most people correct for existential factors that will affect growth. Also, your original response never said anything about projections, so you're being stupid for not outline exactly what you want to compare (Since many people are dumb enough not to think about that beforehand).

[Correction]

Then the answer to all of your questions is 'no'

The longer answer is 'stop being obtuse'

[Yugl]

Then the answer to all of your questions is 'no'

The longer answer is 'stop being obtuse'

Well, we'll see then. I expect ad hominem bitching and whining from you whether it works out or not though.

[Correction]

Well, we'll see then. I expect ad hominem bitching and whining from you whether it works out or not though.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfy9qx731P1qcsoik.gif

[Kuya]

I got really annoyed reading yugl's post.

[Yugl]

Your sig says it all.

[kuronosan]

Then the answer to all of your questions is 'no'

The longer answer is 'stop being obtuse'

http://media.onsugar.com/files/ons1/...s5.preview.jpg

[Demosthenes11]

I got really annoyed reading yugl's post.

you don't like reading people trying to be overly intellectual for the sake of being overly intellectual?

What do we call that, intellectual masturbation?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Well, yes, the government does own the money. Hence why it's actually illegal to destroy/disfigure US currency.

Cutting taxes is functionally equivalent to spending money at a budgetary level. I appreciate that you're trying to make this more complicated to avoid cognitive dissonance, but it's really just that simple.

I disagree and I'll just leave it at that since it doesn't matter b/c the govt. has the power to tax anyway.

And I read somewhere that the reason GE didn't pay any taxes, maybe it was in that article, is b/c they deducted losses from previous years.

[Acturus]

The article also completely sidesteps the root of the outrage, that a company that rolls in the worst examples of corporate abuse of middle-class Americans is held up as a paragon for others to learn from by a sitting democratic president.

Oh, I fully agree with you on the source of the complaints, but I also had to wonder at just how "honest" the soundbyte of "whah didn't pay taxes" actually was.