Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted June 19, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 19, 2016 13 hours ago, racer254 said: So what was the money spent on? Like that comptroller in Dixon IL. She was able to steal millions and no one ever even wondered how she got the money she had? 6 hours ago, racer254 said: That's a bullshit argument. How many blue states turned red last year? 6 hours ago, 1jkw said: No it's absolute fact, the bullshit argument is that it's because of farm subsidies. I don't know. You tell me. How much did these former blue states get in subsidies? Doe Dumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 16 hours ago, 1jkw said: No it's absolute fact, the bullshit argument is that it's because of farm subsidies. I don't know. You tell me. How much did these former blue states get in subsidies? The libs are the ones that keep using this as what they think is a valid argument. Please list some factual information that backs it up. If you were really concerned about it, write your representative and get it changed. You act as though you are mad about this, but the left is the party that keeps coming up with these different subsidies. Keep acting mad about subsidies that your party is creating. It's funny. All mad because smarter people are taking advantage of the programs created by your party. Incredible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 For the first time in eight years, there are more “red” states than “blue” states in the country, according to new analysis of political party affiliations in the U.S. from Gallup. In 2015, there were 20 states that were solidly Republican or leaned Republican, compared to 14 that were solidly Democratic or leaned Democratic, with 16 “competitive” states, according to the analysis released Wednesday. That’s the first time since Gallup started the analysis in 2008 that red, or Republican, states outnumbered blue, or Democratic states. In 2014, there were 17 Democratic states and 15 Republican states. In 2008, there were 35 Democratic states and just five Republican states. The polling organization defined states “solidly” favoring one party as when they had a greater-than-10-point advantage in party affiliation, and “leaning” states are those where the party advantage is more than five points but less than 10 points. So did those 5 Republican states get more $$$ from the government than the 35 Democratic states in 2008? snowbeavis can you help him out? Another liberal talking point debunked again. You guys are constantly GRUBERED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted June 19, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, racer254 said: The libs are the ones that keep using this as what they think is a valid argument. Please list some factual information that backs it up. If you were really concerned about it, write your representative and get it changed. You act as though you are mad about this, but the left is the party that keeps coming up with these different subsidies. Keep acting mad about subsidies that your party is creating. It's funny. All mad because smarter people are taking advantage of the programs created by your party. Incredible. Reps from AG states lobby for the subsidies. Doe Dumber... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 FFS 35 vs 5 you dishonest hack. Another in the series of the facts vs hacks debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 2 hours ago, racer254 said: For the first time in eight years, there are more “red” states than “blue” states in the country, according to new analysis of political party affiliations in the U.S. from Gallup. In 2015, there were 20 states that were solidly Republican or leaned Republican, compared to 14 that were solidly Democratic or leaned Democratic, with 16 “competitive” states, according to the analysis released Wednesday. That’s the first time since Gallup started the analysis in 2008 that red, or Republican, states outnumbered blue, or Democratic states. In 2014, there were 17 Democratic states and 15 Republican states. In 2008, there were 35 Democratic states and just five Republican states. The polling organization defined states “solidly” favoring one party as when they had a greater-than-10-point advantage in party affiliation, and “leaning” states are those where the party advantage is more than five points but less than 10 points. So did those 5 Republican states get more $$$ from the government than the 35 Democratic states in 2008? snowbeavis can you help him out? Another liberal talking point debunked again. You guys are constantly GRUBERED. Simple fact that you can't seem to comprehend is that red states get more federal funds than blue states. As a percentage yes. Of course 35 states total would be likely to get more money overall than 5. Again compare NY and Pa's federal reimbursement to the solidly red states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Simple fact that you can't seem to comprehend is that red states get more federal funds than blue states. As a percentage yes. Of course 35 states total would be likely to get more money overall than 5. Again compare NY and Pa's federal reimbursement to the solidly red states. I see, when debating with liberals, I need to cherry pick the data. Got it. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 57 minutes ago, racer254 said: I see, when debating with liberals, I need to cherry pick the data. Got it. LOL No need to cherry pick anything, look at a map of the red states in 2008, those states got more federal tax dollars then and now period. This is fact not cherry picked data. The difference is 50 million people getting a dollar back or 10 million people getting 45 dollars back. Surely you see the difference. What happened to the farm subsidy argument? Talk about a cherry picked argument, comparing the number of dollars that 35 states get compared to 5, and not take into account the number of people that is, and dollars per person, is asinine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 49 minutes ago, 1jkw said: No need to cherry pick anything, look at a map of the red states in 2008, those states got more federal tax dollars then and now period. This is fact not cherry picked data. The difference is 50 million people getting a dollar back or 10 million people getting 45 dollars back. Surely you see the difference. What happened to the farm subsidy argument? Talk about a cherry picked argument, comparing the number of dollars that 35 states get compared to 5, and not take into account the number of people that is, and dollars per person, is asinine. Hiw much of that tax money came from the 47%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted June 19, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted June 19, 2016 51 minutes ago, 1jkw said: No need to cherry pick anything, look at a map of the red states in 2008, those states got more federal tax dollars then and now period. This is fact not cherry picked data. The difference is 50 million people getting a dollar back or 10 million people getting 45 dollars back. Surely you see the difference. What happened to the farm subsidy argument? Talk about a cherry picked argument, comparing the number of dollars that 35 states get compared to 5, and not take into account the number of people that is, and dollars per person, is asinine. Indians and public land is alot of it for many states. Managing federal lands, such as parks, forest service lands, blm lands is expensive proposition for the govt. 60% of my state's land is government owned. Takes alot of federal money from tax payers to keep it up.... We also have a large indian population that take huge federal money's cause of agreements the federal govt made with the tribes over the years. Easy way to stem the flow of tax payer dollars to many red state is do away with indian money and federal land money requirements. That would equalize many red states to blue states tax payer up take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 58 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said: Hiw much of that tax money came from the 47%? Very little especially from the poorest states, that would be the red ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 51 minutes ago, BOHICA said: Indians and public land is alot of it for many states. Managing federal lands, such as parks, forest service lands, blm lands is expensive proposition for the govt. 60% of my state's land is government owned. Takes alot of federal money from tax payers to keep it up.... We also have a large indian population that take huge federal money's cause of agreements the federal govt made with the tribes over the years. Easy way to stem the flow of tax payer dollars to many red state is do away with indian money and federal land money requirements. That would equalize many red states to blue states tax payer up take. Still like it or not the poorest states get the most in benefits like welfare food stamps and the like and they are red states there is no denying that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) 39 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Still like it or not the poorest states get the most in benefits like welfare food stamps and the like and they are red states there is no denying that. Prolly because they have dem run cities that are in decay? Just guessing here. Edited June 19, 2016 by Capt.Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted June 19, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 19, 2016 What happened to Doe Dumber? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted June 19, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted June 19, 2016 35 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Still like it or not the poorest states get the most in benefits like welfare food stamps and the like and they are red states there is no denying that. Liberals like to keep and store the majority of the blacks in those poor southern states. That is what makes those states so poor is all the blacks that dont play sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Capt.Storm said: Prolly because they have dem run cities that are in decay? Just guessing here. NY and Pa both have run down cities to deal with too, and parks and so on and so on, so guess again. Not to mention the tourist dollars added to state and local governments where national parks exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 5 hours ago, 1jkw said: Very little especially from the poorest states, that would be the red ones. BS! Quote The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. Until you actually pay tax, stop whining about those that pay you way, that would be you and your leftist whining parasite libtards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) Gee the companies that are paying the most tax seem to be theones the left whines about the most Quote These are the companies paying the most in taxes: 1. ExxonMobil • Income tax expense: $31.05 billion • Earnings before taxes: $78.73 billion • Revenue: $428.38 billion •1-year share price change: 6.56% • Industry: Oil and gas Large multinational oil companies have been among the largest payers of corporate federal taxes for years. Exxon's (XOM) income tax amount was approximately the same in 2011 as it was in 2012 — $31 billion. A simple reason for Exxon's position at the top of the tax paying list is its size. It vies with Wal-Mart each year for the spot as the publicly traded U.S. company with the greatest revenue. Exxon's revenue has averaged more than $400 billion a year from 2007 to 2012. Part of Exxon's success is tied to the price of crude oil. A barrel of WTI crude was worth $35 in 2003. The price reached $60 in 2006 and rarely dropped below it thereafter. It rose above $100 in 2008 and has occasionally topped that price since then. Whether Exxon can stay atop both the tax and revenue list much longer depends on several factors, not the least of which are new sources of energy led by solar, wind and particularly shale-based fossil fuels. One benefit Exxon has that may allow it to keep the top position as America's largest company is its role as the number one producer of natural gas. 2. Chevron • Income tax expense: $20.00 billion • Earnings before taxes: $46.33 billion • Revenue: $222.58 billion • 1-year share price change: 9.52% • Industry: Oil and gas It is somewhat unfair to say that Chevron (CVX) is a more modest sized version of Exxon, but in many cases it is. Chevron is the third largest public company in the U.S. based on sales, just above another energy multinational, ConocoPhillips, which was recently broken into two parts. Chevron has paid more than $10 billion a year in taxes in every year except one since 2005. And its revenue since the same year has only once dropped below $200 billion during that time. Like other large energy companies, it has added liquid natural gas to its reserve base, because natural gas currently accounts for 23% of the world's energy consumption. One challenge Chevron faces as it moves forward is the difficulty of finding new oil fields. This will require Chevron to make greater and greater efforts at deepwater drilling and oil sands production. Chevron is sanguine about its long-term prospects; it expects to increase production 20% by 2017. 3. Apple • Income tax expense: $14.21 billion • Earnings before taxes: $55.96 billion • Revenue: $164.69 billion • 1-year share price change: -20.68% • Industry: Computer hardware Apple (AAPL) has made a furious race up the ladder of top corporate tax payers. As appeal for its iPad, iPhone and Mac products has exploded, its tax payments have gone from $2 billion four years ago to $4.5 billion two years ago. And it has increased threefold since then. But these days Apple is facing several growth challenges, which could threaten its spot near the top of the tax tables and already have cut its stock price by one-quarter from record levels. Due to the iPhone's success, Apple was the dominant producer of smartphones since 2007. But Samsung passed Apple in smartphone sales in 2011. The iPad's dominance, too, has been threatened by Google Android-based tablets, the growth of which will put it ahead of Apple iOS-based products this year, according to research firm IDC. Other threats to Apple's growth include the fact that its success in the mammoth Chinese market has been very modest. 4. Wells Fargo • Income tax expense: $9.10 billion • Earnings before taxes: $28.47 billion • Revenue: $79.45 billion • 1-year share price change: 16.77% • Industry: Banks Wells Fargo (WFC) is often considered the most successful of the four U.S. money center banks, the others being Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Since the start of 2008 (when the bank bought Wachovia and nearly doubled its size), the year of the global financial crisis, Wells Fargo shares have rallied more than those of the other three. Wells Fargo's success is largely due to the fact that it has not relied heavily on investment banking and proprietary trading. The former is considered an unreliable source of revenue, the latter risky. Wells Fargo leans more on consumer banking. And its national customer base tends to be concentrated in a few markets that it dominates. That keeps the firm's cost of maintaining large numbers of branches low. As Morningstar recently commented, "more than one third of the bank's deposits come from markets in which Wells Fargo is the pre-eminent player, and more than two-thirds are gathered in markets in which the company ranks among the top three." Wells Fargo's annual tax bill dropped as low as $602 million in 2008, and has risen steadily each year since. 5. Wal-Mart • Income tax expense: $7.98 billion • Earnings before taxes: $25.74 billion • Revenue: $469.16 billion • 1-year share price change: 21.87% • Industry: Supermarkets Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) is the largest company in the United States and the largest employer. Unlike some of the other companies on the highest taxpayer list, particularly the banks and oil companies, Wal-Mart is relatively young, founded in 1962. Since that time, expansion has outpaced traditional American retailers, such as Sears, Kmart and J.C. Penney, each of which has struggled as Wal-Mart has expanded. Wal-Mart's annual tax payment has been above $7 billion in each of its past five fiscal years. Wal-Mart's size has become something of a disadvantage because it is hard for the retailer to grow much faster than the economy in general. Recently, the company's U.S. same-store sales were up only 2.2% In a recent conversation with the media, Charles Holley Jr., Wal-Mart's chief financial officer, said "I don't think the economy's helping us." 6. ConocoPhillips • Income tax expense: $7.94 billion • Earnings before taxes: $15.42 billion • Revenue: $60.35 billion • 1-year share price change: -22.86% • Industry: Energy exploration and production ConocoPhillips (COP) joins its larger rivals Exxon and Chevron on the top tax payer list. By sales, ConocoPhillips was the fourth largest public corporation in the U.S. until it recently broke itself into two pieces. One of the new companies, Phillips 66, holds the former parent's downstream assets — those that handle refining and marketing. The rest of ConocoPhillips, which kept the parent's name, is the largest of all the U.S.-headquartered exploration and production companies. Among the company's initiatives are plans to drill above the Arctic Circle beginning in 2014. The move is risky. Competitor Royal Dutch Shell recently stopped its operations in the same area due to engineering problems. ConocoPhillips also has significant assets in the Far East and runs the deepwater drilling operations in China's largest offshore oil field. 7. JPMorgan • Income tax expense: $7.63 billion • Earnings before taxes: $28.92 billion • Revenue: $91.66 billion • 1-year share price change: 24.30% • Industry: Financial services Almost all the recent news about JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has been negative. What was once considered the best-run bank in the United States has gone through a series of missteps, the most visible of which was a $6 billion trading loss in its London offices. As a result of the catastrophe, the bank agreed with the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency that it would improve oversight of its trading operations. The loss also cost several senior JPMorgan executives their jobs and tarnished the reputation of the bank's highly visible CEO, Jamie Dimon. And, within the last few days, a Senate panel has accused the bank of a cover-up. Despite those issues, JPMorgan's earnings have been solid and rose 53% in the fourth quarter, largely due to strong results in its mortgage operations. 8. Berkshire Hathaway • Income tax expense: $6.92 billion • Earnings before taxes: $22.24 billion • Revenue: $162.46 billion • 1-year share price change: 31.01% • Industry: Asset management The house that Warren Buffett built continues to grow. Buffett bought huge railroad company Burlington Northern Santa Fe in 2009 for $34 billion. More recently, he agreed to buy Heinz with investment company 3G Capital. The sticker price on the transaction is $23 billion. Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-B) continues to remain something of a mutual fund as the company owns large positions in American Express, Coca-Cola, ConocoPhillips and General Electric. Berkshire's recent earnings were also bolstered by its derivatives trading operations.The company booked a $1.4 billion gain from this activity in the fourth quarter. 9. IBM • Income tax expense: $5.30 billion • Earnings before taxes: $21.90 billion • Revenue: $104.51 billion • 1-year share price change: 7.57% • Industry: IT consulting International Business Machines (IBM) by most measures, is the second-largest technology company in the United States, just behind Hewlett-Packard. However, there are significant differences between the two. Most notably, HP is falling apart, while IBM's continued financial success, most recently under its first female CEO,Ginni Rometty, has landed it on this list. One of the most critical reasons for IBM's success is that it operates in a broad array of businesses, which means it does not have to rely on a single sector of the tech world. While IBM's hardware operations are best known for its long line of mainframes, its software operations and IT services division are just as large. IBM is also geographically diversified, and very large parts of its annual sales come from Europe and Asia. 10. Microsoft • Income tax expense: $4.57 billion • Earnings before taxes: $20.03 billion • Revenue: $72.93 billion • 1-year share price change: -12.04% • Industry: Software In an industry in which success is often measured against fast-growing Google and Apple, Microsoft (MSFT) has been maligned for its lack of innovation and the resulting poor growth. What is ignored in that analysis is that Microsoft is a money machine and has huge operating margins in two of its oldest divisions. Microsoft had a net income of $6.38 billion in its fiscal second quarter on revenue of $21.5 billion. The Windows division alone had an operating income of $3.3 billion on revenue of $5.9 billion, a 56% margin. The business division had an operating income of $3.6 billion on $5.7 billion in revenue, a 63% margin. Other divisions, however, dragged down results. Microsoft's online operations, including its Bing search engine and its entertainment division, which markets Xbox products, posted operating losses. Largely due to the success of the two older operations, Microsoft has paid more than $5 billion in taxes in four of the past five years. 24/7 Wall St. is a financial website offering news and opinion Edited June 20, 2016 by Sleepr2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 5 hours ago, 1jkw said: Still like it or not the poorest states get the most in benefits like welfare food stamps and the like and they are red states there is no denying that. Like it or not the 47% pay little to nothing to help run the country but (like you) whine about those that pay the bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 17 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said: BS! Until you actually pay tax, stop whining about those that pay you way, that would be you and your leftist whining parasite libtards. You are really not very smart, that's why most people on the old FS had you on ignore. First off I have paid estimated quarterly state and federal taxes for years and years, second compare the richest top 10 states and their color to the poorest 10 states, third I am only pointing out that the people who bitch most are the ones who are getting the most, red states, and that is a fact period. It guys like you that think you are in someway on par with the real wealthy people that are a joke, you are the most clueless unoriginal person ever on this or the old site, now type it's bushes fault and post up that list for millionth time, It's all an idiot like you can muster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 24 minutes ago, 1jkw said: You are really not very smart, that's why most people on the old FS had you on ignore. First off I have paid estimated quarterly state and federal taxes for years and years, second compare the richest top 10 states and their color to the poorest 10 states, third I am only pointing out that the people who bitch most are the ones who are getting the most, red states, and that is a fact period. It guys like you that think you are in someway on par with the real wealthy people that are a joke, you are the most clueless unoriginal person ever on this or the old site, now type it's bushes fault and post up that list for millionth time, It's all an idiot like you can muster. On par with the wealthy? does that mean I'm supposed to agree with the theft of their money based on the 47% ers greed and envy? It's guys like you that that use other peoples wealth to justify your greed and envy for other people money rather than address the runaway spending and waste of our government programs . Grow up , your childish argument are ,laughable ......... ,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 5 hours ago, SnowRider said: What happened to Doe Dumber? Still waiting on the links to the facts? FFS you are a hack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted June 20, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 minute ago, racer254 said: Still waiting on the links to the facts? FFS you are a hack What facts? 1jkw has already explained them. Not our fault you refuse to believe them or you're to dumb to understand them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 ^^^^look at the hack^^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 minute ago, SnowRider said: What facts? 1jkw has already explained them. Not our fault you refuse to believe them or you're to dumb to understand them. Yeah , these evil rich taxdodgers (like Rangel, Franken, Geithner, Dashole , Kerry , Kennedy, etc ) balk at paying even more of the tab for the 47%er that do nothing but whine about those that pay their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.