The Delco Daily Times weighs in...many times and says "Hang in there Curt" ???
Many items from the Delco Times' the last couple of days...or is it daze?
Darts and Laurels section:
So the "Hang in there, Curt" Delco Times, with almost 40% of online poll respondents saying the Weldon scandal will influence them, follows with:
7th Spotlight: Weldon won debate by a KO
Willliam Bender, Of the Times Staff
10/22/2006
Gil Spencer: For GOP, there’s no need to fear Gil Spencer, Times Columnist
10/22/2006
Comments:
On the debates, the public lost. We never got a chance to go to a public debate.
On the Delco Times' comment: "Hang in there, Curt." I'm disgusted that a local newspaper would provide encouragement to a Congressman who is under investigation by the FBI. Obviously the voters disagree with the Times' editors and are influenced by Weldon's transgressions.
Darts and Laurels section:
LAUREL: To U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon. Nothing much else has gone right for him this week. Yes, the timing of the probe stinks. But it is what it is. Hang in there, Curt.
ONLINE POLL: ...
One of the questions we asked this week: Will the FBI investigation of Curt Weldon and his daughter’s business dealings have any effect on your vote in the 7th District Congressional race?
Yes, it will have major effect, 38.9 percent; No, mind already made up, 36.2 percent; Yes, but still undecided, 4.9 percent; No, but still undecided, 0.8 percent; Will have no effect on decision, 15.2 percent; Not planning to vote, 3.9 percent. There were 488 responses.
So the "Hang in there, Curt" Delco Times, with almost 40% of online poll respondents saying the Weldon scandal will influence them, follows with:
7th Spotlight: Weldon won debate by a KO
Willliam Bender, Of the Times Staff
10/22/2006
Gil Spencer: For GOP, there’s no need to fear Gil Spencer, Times Columnist
10/22/2006
Comments:
On the debates, the public lost. We never got a chance to go to a public debate.
On the Delco Times' comment: "Hang in there, Curt." I'm disgusted that a local newspaper would provide encouragement to a Congressman who is under investigation by the FBI. Obviously the voters disagree with the Times' editors and are influenced by Weldon's transgressions.
posted by Seventh Watch at 12:17 PM
49 Comments:
Anybody catch the reference in Bender's column that Weldon's own internal polls show him down???? Didn't the last internal Weldon poll show him up 19 points???? That's a helluva turnaround in a matter of weeks. Gil Spencer got it right earlier this week when he said the ship was listing (today's column was obviously written by him after he got slapped by his masters).
The Delco Times is a pathetic rag. If it wasn't for all the free copies they give away in a desperate attempt to boost circulation figures for their advertisers, they would have folded long ago. If all Weldon can count on for support is the Delco Times, he's long gone.
"The Delco times is a rag",its funny how the Dems love any paper that agrees with them ,but if they don't their a rag.Hypocrites.
funny how the Dems love any paper that agrees with them
And your proof for this is where?
their a rag
Einstein, the word you're struggling for is "they're." Guess you were left behind in that whole "leave no child behind" thing.
It really sucks when the only comeback you have is to analyze the poster's post for grammatical errors.
Hey Seventh Watch, all I have to say to you is Wwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhh. You sound like a freaking baby.
Well, it will be interesting to see what the reaction is from the Weldon camp if the Inquirer (likely) or the Delco Times (unlikely it seems) endorses Sestak.
I wouldn't say the Delco Times is a rag. There are some good writers and good newspaper people there. But I will say that the granting of a "laurel" and a "hang in there, Curt" for being under FBI investigation is kind of like endorsing ethics violations and potentially criminal activity. That certainly calls their editorial judgment into question.
I'm pissed at Gil Spencer for stealing my "There's no need to fear" Underdog idea for his column and then trying to spin it the other way.
Weldon is insincere (i.e. lying out his a$$) claiming he is happy being an underdog. The only reason to be happy there is if he placed a wager on Sestak at 10-1 odds back in February.
As for Bender's piece about the debate, I don't have any argument with it. I saw only the first 10-15 minutes online and Weldon was certainly the more lively of the two and Joe flubbed the airport question. However, the debate focused too much on the local economy (and how much pork Weldon can bring in) and failed to focus on the national policies that would improve the overall economy. I doubt Weldon touted his votes for all the pork the other congressmen brought into their districts, like that bridge in Alaska.
I don't believe in the GOP trickle-down (aka voodoo) economics. Weldon and the rest of the current GOP have short-sighted policies that patch, mask or ignore existing problems and fail to fund/promote substantial infrastructure improvements.
Minimum wage, health insurance, pollution, drug prices, education, tax policy all affect the local economy. For every big-name company Weldon claims to have helped, there are many smaller companies that dropped off the radar.
Weldon is still running for Mayor of Delco and trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie for the 7th, rather than grow the pie so our fair share becomes bigger.
Joe understands that. He may not have articulated it as well as he should have in the debate, but that doesn't invalidate policies or the support he will lend them. If Weldon wasn't afraid of a real League of Woman's Voters debate, my advice to Sestak would be to fire his current debate coach and get one that gives him an electric shock when he becomes inanimate. Seriously, though, Joe does have good ideas and is quite sincere. Because the issues are so important, Joe purposely avoids the kind of theatrics and antics that Weldon employs. But, Joe is NOT here to entertain us, but rather, to represent us. Weldon certainly does not represent me (and never has).
I've lived here since I was 6 (guess that's makes me a carpetbagger too) and I can't name every little library, shopping mall, or community program either. But I can still see the country is off the track and headed in the wrong direction.
This election is a referendum on the Bush policies that Weldon voted for and that Sestak will fight. It is NOT a quest to find a congressman that can milk the budget cow and toss in some pork (it's not Kosher).
Let's put Weldon in a debate on healthcare and his vote to prevent the government from negotiating drug prices for Medicare.
Did Weldon win the battle on style? Quite possibly. Will he lose the war on the national issues among thinking voters? Most likely.
Friday, Weldon put a band-aid on his campaign's gunshot wound. A band-aid is not enough. On Nov. 7th the voters are going to pull him off life support.
Whateveryone fails to understand is that the "pork" Weldon gets is the job of a congressman to make sure that federal dollars are returned to his district. Every Congressman does it--it comes wiht the terrotory. How far will Weldon get being damaged and in the minority party???? Not far.
If Joe, or any person, were congressman were in office, they would deliver. The only difference will be that Ds might get something.
Pork is a red herring in this race. Ignoring everything else and voting for Weldon on that basis alone is short-sighted. If a majority of voters fall for it, they deserbe what they get.
Did anyone notice that Saturday's headline on the debate was that it was"debatable" who won, and today the DELCO Times changed its tune? Wonder what caused that--Was Charlie calling?
I e-mailed William Bender about the article and he said he knows Weldon won, he does not write the headlines, though.
when the only comeback
Anyone who can read can see that wasn't the only "comeback." In "comeback," I asked for proof of the unsubstantiated comment. You conveniently ignored that. And the original poster (perhaps you) was silent about his unsubstantiated claim. So, in debate-speak, I bitchslapped that puppy into silence. He couldn't back up his statement. (Oh you Weldon people have such a problem with cold, hard facts, don't you.)
And mixing up "their" for "they're" isn't a grammar error, Einstein. It's a usage error. If you think relishing in ignorance is noble, I'll leave that honor to you.
When talking about the Delco Times, remember these points:
-- The Times is owned by Journal Register, which is a conservative corporate media conglomerate that has the Philly suburbs in a headlock. Each paper has its own conservative columnist, each paper has its own conservative editor, and each paper is scared shitless of its corporate bosses.
-- If you still have access to the first Sestak-Weldon debate, watch Curt interact with Phil Heron of the Delco Times after the debate ends. You'll understand the "Hang in there, Curt" better after viewing.
-- With all of that said, the Times has actually, until this weekend anyway, covered the race fairly. Keep an eye on them from here until 11/7 to see if they've switched into "please the boss" mode.
"With all of that said, the Times has actually, until this weekend anyway, covered the race fairly. Keep an eye on them from here until 11/7 to see if they've switched into "please the boss" mode."
You either have mental issues or are on drugs. Covered the race fairly until this weekend? What was so unfair, they gave Curt the win, which was so blatantly obvious.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I guess if you are a Republican or a person with anger management issues that believes that he who screams the loudest and can get the most indignant wins, then you can make the argument that Curt prevailed.
Watching Curt and Sestak debate is like watching the Santorum temper tantrums with Casey. Despite the polls showing the electorate is fed up wiht the status quo, Curt espouses no vision of the future to contrast with Joe's ideas to move the couontry in anew direction. Instead of thinking and acting progressivley or responding to his consituents concerns about the direction of the country, Curt fights and acts indignant just to detract attention form the fact that he and his Party are idea challenged.
Curt's campaign is stuck in the past, rehashing that this is what I did for you, and ignores any new initiatives or ideas stating he is going to fight to do for you to make your life better--Weldon articulates no vision for the future excpet more of the same or "stay the course."
Weldon has turned this in to the biggest campaign about nothing I have seen--for a man with 20 years in Congress, the last 12 of which have been spent in the party wiht control, the record he is touting is flimsy (I guess because the last six years with Bush have been such a waste).
I guess Curt realizes that if he wins there are two more years with lame-duck Bush--therefore Curt does not need to speak of a vision because there will be nothing accomplished(then again I guess Curt is worried that his future will involve court rooms and statements under oath).
At least Joe Sestak is prepared to offer something, a vision, a plan, that can work, and whihc is arefreshing change form the status quo of rubber-stamping the failure that is the Bush presidency.
Hey Troll Patrol,the proof is on this very site,Any time the Delco times runs a positive story on Sestak ,it's posted here,but as soon as they run something they don't like, it's a rag.Hypocrites. P.S.-you bitchslapped nobody into silence.
Joe DOES NOT have ANY ideas! so tired of hearing that non-sense all over! What are they???
-Making healthcare more affordable... Did he say how?
-Bringing more small businesses into the district... probably by raising taxes?
-not lying and not cheating... hmmm... Since Bill Clinton is on board, you should join the forces too!
Anon:
Why don't you tell us what Weldon's plan is besides falsely saying Joe's going to raise taxes? Weldon has not runa one ad saying what he wants to do--just attacks. Does not even do such a good job of touting what he claims to have done--guess because he's afraid of Bush/Santorum backlash.
If you want Joe's plan, go to his website. You may not like it, but its there fore for you to read. Stop blindly spouting your RNC/Karl Rove/George Bush spin that noone has a plan but a Republican and everyone else offers questions and not solutions. Sestak has offered a plan.
I suggest you stop drinking Curt's Kool Aid.
I suggest you all stop drinking Joe's Kool Aid. The abstract below is from his web-site... Obviously, you don't think it talks about raising taxes, do you?
Revenue Enhancement
-Restore the top tax rate reductions, protecting middle and low income families by exempting families earning less than $200,000 per year.
-Reinstate the inheritance tax, with a higher exemption for family farms or small businesses, including a tax exemption for families up to $7 million.
-Restore the dividend and capital gains tax rates, but with fair exemptions to middle and lower income families.
Weldon outlined his Healthcare plan in the debate, They both want everyone to be covered. The difference is that Weldon HAS a plan, and is acting on it. Joe does not. When Curt would talk his plans for various issues, Joe's rebuttal would revert back to personal attacks. Similar to certain members of this site.
The only plan Weldon has is to smear and scare. He doesn't care anything about Pennsylvania. He only cares about wealthy Serbian warlords and Russian mobsters who funnel cash to him through his daughter's cardboard company. My mother had a massive Social Security problem and contacted his office for help. No one ever called me back, no matter how many times I called. I guess if I was a rich Russian named Boris who would give him free trips, he would've called me right back. I don't know that much about Shestack but nobody could be worse than Weldon.
Agreed. If the audience of this site is somewhat representative of Joe's core supporters, it does not surprise me that they've got so brainwashed by the communist like propaganda. If you have a trouble reading and understanding basic sentences and then putting 2 and 2 together.... you can be sold on a lot of junk... oh, by the way, there are still some Enron shares available
Anon 6:31 --
I don't personally know a single family in the 7th District that would give a flying fig about the tax-law changes in Sestak's plan.
Unless you earn over $200,000 a year, you are not touched by it. And in fact, Joe's plan includes other incentives -- family tax credits, home mortgage deductions for all (even non-itemizers), college tax credits, and portable pensions -- that really benefit the middle class.
You want to cry about putting back a few taxes onto the richest 1 percent? Go right ahead, but I don't see them crying for me when I pay the bills each month. I say let 'em pay their fair share -- they sure aren't now with Weldon and Bush looking out for them.
To Anon 7:54--
First, we're arguing about taxes going up or down as a result of Joe's initiatives. For the sake of the argument let's not mix it with the "fairness" concept for now.
Second, "... taxpayers in the highest income bracket are often entrepreneurs and small business owners, not just highly-paid executives or people living off their investments. ...Small businesses generally pay their income taxes through the individual income tax system, not
the corporate tax system. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations are the three
main organizational forms chosen by small business owners. Under the tax code, each of these
three small business types pays taxes at the same rates paid by individuals."
http://jec.senate.gov/_files/SmallBusiness.pdf
I've also seen a lot of business owners using LLCs as pass-through entities for corp. tax purposes and paying individual income taxes on their income.
This topic has been very extensively researched and recommendations have been implemented. All that resulted in higher tax revenues. Too bad Joe Sestak has not lived in the real world for the last 30 years. He would have known better.
To Anon 7:54--
(part2)
And now speaking of fairness concept - $200,000 of taxable income is not a whole lot for a small business. But who cares, let's hit them with the higher tax rate.
If the limit was lower (say $50,000) would it be fair to slap a guy that worked harder and longer hours with a higher tax bill? No. This will discourage a lot of people from opening up their businesses or advancing in the corporate world.
If you ask me what's fair I'd go for a 15% flat tax rate for everybody with absolutely no exemptions. No offshore tax heavens, no trusts and no death tax either.
Oh well... unfortunately "let's take it away for the common good" rhetoric is way too popular those days.
For those Anon's knocking the idea of "fairness", you fail to see that the system has become less fair to the poor and become more advantageous for the wealthy.
A %15 flat tax may "sound" fair, but it is NOT. For the 40 million people in the US living below the poverty line, 15% is the difference between eating, having medicine or making the rent or car payment. For the wealthy, the 15% is the difference between buying 1 or 2 luxury cars or rent on their summer home.
Think of it this way, is it "fair" for a fat man and a thin man to each lose 15% of their body weight?
Also, the rich can afford tax accountants to thread the loopholes. In my life, I've seen that a significant percentage of small businesses keep two sets of books. Some bars have one more cash register than they report to the IRS. I've seen barbers ring up 7$ for a $10 hair cut and pocket the $3. Businesses have more ways to hide revenue than salaried employees whose wages are reported directly to the IRS. The tax system is already rigged in their favor.
Bush and Cheney paid only about 15%.
I am glad to see that this blog was able to trigger such spirited debate. The Weldonites are anything if persistent. Puppio must be making lots of that Weldon Kool Aid.
Anon 8:34 & 9:01 --
Please don't lump small businesses and proprietorships in with individuals when discussing taxes. Repubs love to do that, and it's a nonsense argument.
Small businessmen may pay at the same rate, but they have literally hundreds of business deductions they can also use to effectively lower their taxes, deductions that aren't available to individuals.
You want to talk about a flat tax? Absolutely, but make it a progressive flat tax that increases its rate at higher income levels, and lowers it dramatically at very low income levels.
And of course, Joe doesn't advocate for any of this. He's simply saying that the Bush/Weldon team has bent over (in both directions) for the ultra-rich in its tax policy and fiscal sanity demands that we take some of that "welfare for rich people" back.
Progressive flat tax,so the harder you work ,the more you pay in taxes,sounds real fair.
Anonymous 9:20 am
Even with a simple flat tax the more you make the more you pay.
With a progressive tax, sure you pay a slightly higher percentage. Unlike the poor, you're not worried about making the rent or feeding the kids.
The issue is what people can afford to contribute to society. And, frankly, the rich do not contribute their fair share in terms of how much they can afford to give to help out the less fortunate. (And, yes, not everybody has the same opportunity/fortune despite hard work. A student that has to work a job to help his family doesn't have the luxury of extra study time, doesn't have a laptop computer, and in a poor school districts... the latest books and equipment.)
Anyone that repeats the mantra: "Why should I have to pay school taxes if I don't have kids in school?" does not understand their role in contributing to society (or the benefits they got from the taxes others paid for their education).
The rich don't realize that their lifestyle (and safety of their communities) depend upon the poor having real opportunities that require taxes to finance.
Anon. 9:20 --
Do you really believe that people who make $500,000 a year work harder than people who make $50,000?
Do you really believe that?
(I know this stuff should not surprise me anymore, but it does. It really does.)
Anon 10:09
I have seen enough people growing up in poor families (really poor familieis), working their butts off for those scholarships, and having 80-100 hour work weeks. How does your average work week look like? How long you can stomach something like that? And if 10-15 years down the road they are making more than 200,000 dollars, you should sit down with them at the same table and explain why they owe you or anybody else for that matter.
They owe the country that gave them the opportunity. Simple as that.
the country gave this opportunity to everybody. Some people took it and some didn't. Let's punish those who did.
First of all, the people that worked the 80-100 hours to get the scholarship know what it is like and are pretty good at giving back.
It is NOT about punishing people that took an opportunity, it is about giving more people an opportunity. The ones that have already made it are the ones that need to provide the resources to education and care for the people that haven't made it yet. If they hoarde the resources, society begins to break down.
Most of the people with over a million already had a leg up, or inherited a family business, or a trust fund.
According to the Treasury Department,the top 50% of taxpayers by income paid over 94% of all income tax taken in,with the top 1% paying 33% of all income tax,not exacly hoarding the resources.
Of course they are hoarding the resources.
The top 1% of the population pays 33% of the taxes because they have 40%-50% of all the money.
Here's an example even you might understand:
100 people trapped on a island. One person controls 50% of the fresh water and food and yet contributes only 33% of the total in the tribe's community pot.
Wrong on the numbers,the top 1% own about 37-38% of the wealth.
I smell a lot of dead Commies here and they stink!! Let's ship them all to Cuba, France, North Korea and ex-USSR to learn about "social equality" firsthand.
Economics 101... TAX CUTS EXPLAINED
Whether you're Democrat, Republican, Independent, or even someone who just doesn't care to include those not providing anything substantive to the economy, this little vignette explains tax cuts better than any politician I've ever seen.
Tax cuts explained in easy terms:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
SO THERE YOU HAVE IT!
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
I smell a lot of dead Commies here
Curious how the right still wails about Commie boogeymen, but they'll happily endorse countless billions in corporate welfare to fabulously wealthy multinationals like Exxon/Mobil. While the Bush Admin bleeds the national economy with its obscene deficit, which is funding tax cuts primarily for the rich, the Bush Admin is also handing out countless billions in tax breaks to Exxon/Mobil, which already earns the highest profit in corporate history. The right is just like Joseph Stalin: bleeding and oppressing the common man to pay for the elite. Read about the Bush Admin's $25 Billion corporate welfare giveaway to Exxon/Mobil here and here. You're paying your hard-earned tax dollars to keep those Exxon/Mobil fatcats rich.
OK, that is about as idiotic a post as I've seen here so far.
1) It's a fake. Got to Snopes, type in Kamerschen and you'll find out he has nothing to do with it.
2) It doesn't reflect anything like reality. To make this a real analogy, the ten men would go out to dinner, the charge would be $1,000 and they'd pay $200, charging the rest with no idea of how they were going to pay it off. The richest guy would open his wallet, claim that he used the last of his cash to pay the limo driver, throw down a $10 and high-tail out the back door, leaving the guys in the middle to pick up the rest of the tab.
Kamerschen must have gotten his PhD from a cracker-jack box if he's going with that analogy.
Here's how that situation works in real life:
The rich guy goes to the owner and cuts the deal for the $20 savings and does not inform his "friends". The rich guy pays 39 instead of 59 for a 34% savings.
Why does the owner go along? Several potential motivations:
1) The rich guy pays the biggest share so can threaten the owner with taking the group's business elsewhere.
2) The rich guy may kick back $5 to owner (tax-free) and $15 off $59 is still a 25% break.
3) The rich guy may not prevent the owner from knowing the details of the split by settling with everyone outside the restaurant.
The biggest flaw/hole/deception though in Kamerschen straw-man argument is the relative wealth of the diners and the similar costs of their meals. Years ago I worked for a very rich man (his net worth was more than 100 times my own). If he spent $500 on a bottle of expensive wine and a meal, that was proportionally like me spending $5 for a soda and burger. So, for the diners, the relative cost needs to be divided by their bank account amounts. Under this normalization, the rich man is paying the smallest percentage of his resources (even at $59).
Finally, the other 9 people support his lifestyle or family. One could be the mechanic that fixes his car. The other a teacher for his kids. One could be a carpenter that maintains his home. Another, a policemen who guards and protects. And then there is the fireman that rushes in to save his life. Let's not forget the city-worker that fixed the pothole that would have damaged the Mercedes.
How much should the rich/fortunate contribute back to society?
If Jesus made $1,000,000 per year, how much would he (He) think was fair tax level considering 40-million live at/below poverty level in this county alone.
I wasn't much of a student of the Bible, but I never heard that Jesus complaining that the rich needed a tax cut.
Hmmm... You want to talk about Exxon? While $25 bil in tax cuts may sound like a big number to you, it barely covers the cost of just one big development project (i.e. Sakhalin-II). Oil and gas industries were in deep red for more than a decade. China and India only became a big enough threat to oil supplies about 3-4 years ago. In the meantime the exploration and capital expenditures in the industry were skyrocketing (well, growing at a healthy clip of 25-30%pa). Exxon has invested in various O&G projects over $75 billion since 2001, so that they can produce and sell enough oil and gas to folks who drive their cars and heat their homes.
So if you drive a car and expect to keep it in the foreseeable future, think again about what you've just said about the tax cuts to Exxon. Do you think oil and gas is getting more plentiful and accessible as the time goes by? Nope. You have to go after very risky and expensive offshore projects. Do you think Chinese government does not help their national energy giants to compete for the scarce resource?
As much as we all would like to start filling up the tanks with something better than gasoline, the technology is not there yet. Expect to wait for another 15-20 years and don't rant about things you don't know enough.
don't rant about things you don't know [sic] enough
Hey know-nothing: Exxon/Mobil, in 2005, posted the highest corporate profit in all of history. In the entire history of mankind. They made more profits than any company in recorded history.
Let's all pause a moment so that can sink into your thick skull.
Exxon/Mobil also paid their CEO a $600 million retirement package.
Exxon/Mobil doesn't need welfare from the federal government. They don't need hard-earned tax dollars sucked out of middle-class taxpayers' wallets and given to a company so they can pay their CEO $600 million.
So all your blather about the Chinese and India and yada yada yada doesn't change this reality: Bush and his robber barrons are taking from the middle-class and giving to the rich.
Exxon/Mobil does not need billions in corporate welfare. End of story.
Why is it when libs can not logically defend their position, they just switch topics? While I'd agree that the multimillion retirement package was off the charts IT WAS NOT THE POINT OF OUR DISCUSSION.
To your point, dear "slap in the face", Exxon did get $35 billion dollars of net in income in 2005, of which it paid back $23 billion to its shareholders ($7 bilion for dividends and $16 billion for share repurchase program). You didn't happen to own any Exxon shares, do you? There is no need to be a millionaire to be able to afford it. Currently it trades at $70 dollars a piece.
The reality is that you should stop bitching about others and start thinking for yourself.
The reality is that you should stop bitching about others and start thinking for yourself.
A pointless ad hominem remark.
IT WAS NOT THE POINT OF OUR DISCUSSION
The topic of the discussion was the billions in corporate welfare Exxon/Mobil gets from the American taxpayer. You have steadfastly ignored that topic, and veered off wildly to India, the price of stock, a corporate repurchase program, etc.
(BTW, I am a Registered Republican and am not a liberal. I also happen to own 565 shares of Exxon/Mobil stock; nonetheless, I don't believe corporations should get countless billions of dollars in corporate welfare.)
You continue to fail to address the original point, which is, once again: Exxon/Mobil does not need billions in corporate welfare. End of story.
BTW, I forgot the last part of my diner story. The rich guy kept the receipt for the entire meal and ask his accountant to mark it as an $80 deductible business expense. So, the rich guy saves another $20 and is now down to only $19 (or $24 if he kicked back $5 to the owner).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home