Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge..

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
LTS TRN 2
I suck Jew cock
Posts: 8802
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Here

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by LTS TRN 2 »

88 wrote:I favor free market capitalism. But that does not mean I favor gambling, particularly with other people's money. So I am in favor of Glass-Steagal-type regulation. I have said this before. I'll say it again for those like you who apparently cannot read. I recognize that we need the corporate form and also need to provide a market for people to sell and invest in shares of corporations. But we do not need day traders, small or institutional. So I would be in favor of a tax policy that would severly disincentivise that activity. I would strongly favor taxing at 90% all profits gained on the sale of a security held less than one year. And I would never allow anyone to carry losses forward on a security sold in less than one year. That would make day trading evaporate in the United States in a single day. The other measure I would employ would be to tax profits on commodities futures investments at 90% unless the investor had the physical ability to take possession of the commodities at the time the investment was made. This would allow airlines, for example, to invest in fuel futures. But would prevent fuckhead banks and other hedge fund managers from investing in commodities and fucking up the markets.
Well that's an interesting display of gyrations and bendings that seemingly supports a rational regulation of the financial markets. It reminds me of a Thai hooker who could actually smoke a cigarette with her pussy. Seriously, SS, if you're opposed to day trading, what about the massive new aspect of the market, "high-frequency" trading that makes thousands of trades per second? This sort of activity has grown exponentially in recent years and is exactly what David Brooks and the official defenders of Free Market capitalism are defending and promoting as America's new economic model.

And what of the glaring--still ignored fact--that the entire corporate structure of our economy is completely dependent on government intervention in the marketplace? This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare. And this is not just a recent regrettable necessity, but an essential characteristic of its natural development. It's socialism for the corporations, while the citizenry is saddled with massive debt (and that's the Too Big To Fail dynamic precisely) and canards about "opportunity."

As Justice Douglass observed, the granting of personhood to corporations has proven a colossal decision--and it was indeed rendered without any argument at all, just an off-the-cuff assertion by the appointed judge in 1886. It's an absolute disgrace of basic logic as well as practical legal application, and the current radical activist crew of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and apparently the radically veering Kennedy is engaged in decimating the remaining structure of actual democratic process in this nation. Sorry, but simplistic "libertarian" declarations really don't mean jack-shit in this issue.
Before God was, I am
bradhusker
Certified Cockologist
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by bradhusker »

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
88 wrote:I favor free market capitalism. But that does not mean I favor gambling, particularly with other people's money. So I am in favor of Glass-Steagal-type regulation. I have said this before. I'll say it again for those like you who apparently cannot read. I recognize that we need the corporate form and also need to provide a market for people to sell and invest in shares of corporations. But we do not need day traders, small or institutional. So I would be in favor of a tax policy that would severly disincentivise that activity. I would strongly favor taxing at 90% all profits gained on the sale of a security held less than one year. And I would never allow anyone to carry losses forward on a security sold in less than one year. That would make day trading evaporate in the United States in a single day. The other measure I would employ would be to tax profits on commodities futures investments at 90% unless the investor had the physical ability to take possession of the commodities at the time the investment was made. This would allow airlines, for example, to invest in fuel futures. But would prevent fuckhead banks and other hedge fund managers from investing in commodities and fucking up the markets.
Well that's an interesting display of gyrations and bendings that seemingly supports a rational regulation of the financial markets. It reminds me of a Thai hooker who could actually smoke a cigarette with her pussy. Seriously, SS, if you're opposed to day trading, what about the massive new aspect of the market, "high-frequency" trading that makes thousands of trades per second? This sort of activity has grown exponentially in recent years and is exactly what David Brooks and the official defenders of Free Market capitalism are defending and promoting as America's new economic model.

And what of the glaring--still ignored fact--that the entire corporate structure of our economy is completely dependent on government intervention in the marketplace? This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare. And this is not just a recent regrettable necessity, but an essential characteristic of its natural development. It's socialism for the corporations, while the citizenry is saddled with massive debt (and that's the Too Big To Fail dynamic precisely) and canards about "opportunity."

As Justice Douglass observed, the granting of personhood to corporations has proven a colossal decision--and it was indeed rendered without any argument at all, just an off-the-cuff assertion by the appointed judge in 1886. It's an absolute disgrace of basic logic as well as practical legal application, and the current radical activist crew of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and apparently the radically veering Kennedy is engaged in decimating the remaining structure of actual democratic process in this nation. Sorry, but simplistic "libertarian" declarations really don't mean jack-shit in this issue.

LTS, were you making that up about the Thai Hooker being able to smoke a cigarette with her pussy?

That would mean that (IN THEORY) she could suck the cum from your dick without you having an orgasm. IN other words, if she had the powers of suction with her pussy, she wouldnt have to wait for you to cum. I think I'll be checking out Thailand for this years vacation.
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12087
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by mvscal »

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And what of the glaring--still ignored fact--that the entire corporate structure of our economy is completely dependent on government intervention in the marketplace? This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare.
There isn't a single conservative out there who supports the type of government intervention in the marketplace you mention. Such intervention distorts those markets and makes the practice of free market capitalism impossible. Nothing should be too big to fail including (and especially) the federal government.

The problem here is your fundamental ignorance of economic forces. You decry subsidies, yet subsidies are the often only thing enabling small businesses to participate in those sectors. If you eliminate farm subsidies, what do you think is going to happen to the small farmers who depend on them? ADM and Monsanto certainly aren't dependent on them. The elimination of subsidies would only increase their market share. The same thing is true in the energy sector.
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Moving Sale

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Moving Sale »

88 wrote: The reason radio frequencies are regulated like they are is that there are only so many radio frequencies.
So you have gone from …
(2) the First Amendment does not differentiate whether the speech is protected based upon the manner in which it is communicated.
To the speech can be regulated if the manner in which you want to communicate it is 1280AM, because that is regulated.
You are dumb as Appalachian dirt and Appalachian dirt is the dumbest of all the dirts.
What is the other thing I am supposed to respond to?
Your inane notion that speech is speech when the laws of defamation and solicitation and conspiracy clearly show that you are full of shit.
I don't have the energy or interest to sift through your drivel and try to decypher sicwhat it is that you were attempting to inquire of me.
If you learned to read English and pulled your head out of whatever right wing ass it currently residing in, it would help your situation tremendously.
User avatar
Truman
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:12 pm

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Truman »

Moving Sale wrote:
Truman wrote:Have you ever offered to compensate 1280 AM’s owners?
You are dumber than 4 pounds of Mac and cheese. My point is not that I should be able to use 1280’s airwaves without compensation. My point is that the fact that I can’t proves 88 is full of shit when he says there is no difference in the mode of speech. This is a concept you would understand if you didn’t ride the short bus.
Better than being dumber than four pounds of shit. BTW, Buttsey’s turds are taller than you.

So there IS a difference in mode of speech? Pray tell. Looks like Obama appointed the wrong Solicitor General to argue against Citizen’s United. On second thought, strike that. Given a choice between the two, I’d rather see Elana Kagan kicked upstairs than to ever read a Wee Man dissent scribbled from the top of a stack of phone books.
.
Of COURSE you have an argument compelling enough to convince the Supremes that the First Amendment really doesn’t mean what it says. Forgive me, Midget Sale, but every court in this land would find that your radio takes suck every bit as much as the ones you post here, regardless of mode of communication. Trouble is, there are probably laws out there that would put the owners of 1280 behind the walls were they ever to surrender a mic to your junky ass. Call it “obstruction of intelligence,” or “contempt of humanity.”
Moving Sale wrote:
Truman wrote:I wasn’t aware that slavery was still wantonly practiced (Amendment XIII);
Then maybe you should read the amendment again you fucking retard.
I’m thinking that since both the IXth and Xth Amendments so easily defeated you earlier, you are clearly in dire need of interpretation of this one as well. Of course you have examples of active slavery still practiced in this country under the auspices and protection of the United States Congress...

Unless you have a link handy, I believe we’re done here.
The point is that changing the USC will not help if the political will is not there to make sure that the powers that be follow the fucking thing you stupid silly fuck.
Are you truly this stupid? Political will?! I guarantee you, asshat, that the Constitution will not change if the people do not have the political will to, well, change it. No different than Jsc jocking the media-professed popularity of gaylord marriage while conveniently ignoring the “political will” of the people in the 32 states that roundly defeated it.
I think what you are try to say is that you think I signed off on a complete dissent of CU. Ever heard of a justice dissenting to only part of the ruling? Of course you haven’t because you are a stupid tard.
No, I know you signed off on a complete dissent of 88’s take, and got your ass pounded for your trouble. As for partial dissent - ever heard of actually reading a link before posting it, Fuckstick? The Minority was all over the place with their dissent of the ruling. Guess what? All their hand-wringing didn’t change the decision, and it will be more-of-the-same caterwauling we can expect to read from the usual suspects after Obamacare gets kicked to the curb this June.
Moving Sale wrote:
Truman wrote:Ford has more at stake than I do.
Like the possibility of being put to death? How dumb are you?
I suppose if I were to ever commit a capital crime, the possibility of being put to death might be a concern.

Especially if I were to retain you as counsel.

Anyone who would endeavour to kill you, however, would most likely earn a medal.
User avatar
LTS TRN 2
I suck Jew cock
Posts: 8802
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Here

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by LTS TRN 2 »

88 wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Seriously, SS, if you're opposed to day trading, what about the massive new aspect of the market, "high-frequency" trading that makes thousands of trades per second?
I don't care how the trades are made, provided they are traded fairly. That being said, I do not think the "high-frequency" trading programs presently in place are fair at all. I have a friend who is a day trader in NYC. He says that institutional investors and large hedge fund managers know that day traders such as himself are out there waiting to make plays based on various information that is known in such circles. So the big money players intentionally push the market around, either holding it up or holding it down using their money, until they know the smaller traders such as himself cannot hold their plays any longer and have been pushed out and then move the market to the place where they can reap substantial profits. He told me that for him to make money day trading, he has to anticipate what the institutional investors will do to adversely affect day traders such as himself, and then try to make his plays based on that knowledge. That does not seem like a "fair" market to me. It seems like a grossly manipulated market. I would be in favor of reforms to make it fair, or at least make it so non-profitable on a day-trading basis that people would choose to do something else to try to make money.
Okay, another pussy-smoking contortionist act of seemingly agreeing that the modern financial markets have been severely compromised. And you're right to regard the high-frequency trading practices as deplorable. But..this nefarious system now comprises 56% of all equity trading. And that fact should give you a real shiver. Why? Because this fact clearly underscores the essential "house of cards" falsity and instability of the modern markets.

As for the Citzens United ruling, you're first of all ignoring the clear warning of chief justice Douglass, and assuming that the off-the-cuff declaration by the 1886 justices was somehow valid in the first place. And after all there's nothing else to give the notion of corporate personhood any precedent at all.

If you are so blinded by your baby-pool "libertarianism" to not appreciate the drastic and dangerous effects of allowing corporations the rights of individuals, then you have arrived in the precise condition of puppethood that the Koch brothers have carefully prepared for you.
mvscal wrote: There isn't a single conservative out there who supports the type of government intervention in the marketplace you mention. Such intervention distorts those markets and makes the practice of free market capitalism impossible. Nothing should be too big to fail including (and especially) the federal government.

The problem here is your fundamental ignorance of economic forces. You decry subsidies, yet subsidies are the often only thing enabling small businesses to participate in those sectors. If you eliminate farm subsidies, what do you think is going to happen to the small farmers who depend on them? ADM and Monsanto certainly aren't dependent on them. The elimination of subsidies would only increase their market share. The same thing is true in the energy sector.
Now, Mall Cop, in this era of the GOP's Tea Bagging "more right-wing than thou" race to the bottom, who can you possibly name that is a "true conservative"? Who, Mitch McConnell? :shock: Newt? How about the guy you're going to vote for, the corporate robot from Kolob? Yeah, Romney had suggested--as per your "position"--that GM and Ford should be allowed to go bankrupt. So...he's now taking credit for their recovery, how about you?

As for government corporate welfare and subsidies helping small farmers against the monstrosity of Monsanto, this is just the warm melting of the urinal ice that comprises your head space as Limpdick takes a whiz.
Before God was, I am
bradhusker
Certified Cockologist
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by bradhusker »

LTS is in a state of dellusion, and its constant. The democrats of today are brainwashed puppets.
Been to Wisconsin lately?
Its a MOB MENTALITY of sick left wing UNION THUGS. Wisconsin has a governor who has taken a state with billions in debt, and turned it to a surplus!!!
YET, you have the democratic thugs pouring millions of dollars to get rid of this governor?
BUWAHAHAHAHAHA. IT WILL FAIL.

AND this brings us to November. Obama and his left wing mentality will FAIL. The american people are not buying his bullshit anymore.
EVER BEEN TO A BIG UNION RALLY? Its a gathering of sick hate. PURE HATE.
LTS calls the tea party all sorts of disgusting names? SHIT, he's obviously never been to a BIG UNION PROTEST.

NEVER in your life, will you see a gathering of people so full of SHEER HATE, as you will at a big government UNION gathering.
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Goober McTuber »

bradhusker wrote:Been to Wisconsin lately?
Have you?
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass

Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
bradhusker
Certified Cockologist
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by bradhusker »

Goober McTuber wrote:
bradhusker wrote:Been to Wisconsin lately?
Have you?
GOOB, Bet ur real proud of UNION THUGS tryin to replace a Governor who takes you from billions in debt, to a surplus!!! Have you been to a UNION protest before? CREEPY hate-filled gatherings, full of the worst intolerance and violence.

U must be real proud!!!

Im gonna laugh and spit in ur face when Walker stays in place!!!!!
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Goober McTuber »

bradhusker wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
bradhusker wrote:Been to Wisconsin lately?
Have you?
GOOB, Bet ur real proud of UNION THUGS tryin to replace a Governor who takes you from billions in debt, to a surplus!!! Have you been to a UNION protest before? CREEPY hate-filled gatherings, full of the worst intolerance and violence.

U must be real proud!!!

Im gonna laugh and spit in ur face when Walker stays in place!!!!!

You have no idea what you are talking about. Which has been your MO from day one. BTW, here’s yet another little “bomb” dropped by our governor:
On a chilly late February evening, the state's deepest-pocketed business lobby held its annual awards event at Milwaukee's Pfister Hotel to celebrate its most successful legislative session in memory.

Members of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce toasted state Sen. Glenn Grothman there for spearheading the "most exemplary public policy initiative in support of manufacturing in more than 35 years," a news release says.

There's good reason WMC was so excited: The new policy effectively eliminates state income taxes for many of Wisconsin's corporations, factory owners and agricultural producers by the time it's fully phased in.

"We had to do something to change the business climate in the state … and this does it big-time," says Grothman, R-West Bend.

Slipped into Gov. Scott Walker's 2011-2013 budget at the last moment, the domestic production tax credit will cost the state $360 million in revenue over the next four years and some $130 million each year thereafter, according to the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Critics warn the impact could be even greater, a key point in a state still struggling with budget shortfalls.

The credit applies to profits derived from manufacturing or agriculture and is available both to corporations and shareholders of limited liability companies, S corporations or others who report business income on their individual tax returns.

As a result, top bracket taxpayers could see their state income tax rate fall from 7.75 percent to less than zero by 2016, when the credit fully kicks in. That's because any unused credits can be counted against other income, like stock dividends, and carried over for up to 15 years.

"It's a total giveaway to the wealthy," says Jack Norman, research director of the Institute for Wisconsin's Future, a Glendale-based watchdog group. "You've got a guy working at the factory making $35,000, paying his share of taxes. Meanwhile, the guy who owns the factory won't pay any state tax and he can also shelter the income of his wife."

Curiously, the new manufacturing credit has received little press coverage — although it's arguably one of the biggest shifts in state income tax policy since Wisconsin first implemented one back in 1911.
Even those who stand to benefit don't know about it. Endres Manufacturing executive Sam Ballweg says he wasn't aware of the credit until Walker mentioned it during a campaign stop at the family-owned Waunakee firm two weeks ago.

"I really don't know much about it, so I better not comment," says Ballweg.

But the credit is now emerging as a wedge issue in the recall election battle between Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Barrett mentioned the production tax credit last month when pressed on what Walker policies he might change if he wins on June 5. Walker jumped on that statement, charging that Barrett is looking to raise taxes on Wisconsin's "job creators."

"Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has repeatedly promised to take Wisconsin backward by repealing tax relief for job creators, but he has failed to say which taxes he would like to raise," says Walker campaign spokeswoman Ciara Matthews. "It is time for Mayor Barrett to come clean and announce his intentions."
Barrett has countered that cutting taxes and boosting credits for selected business owners or investors is not guaranteed to help the broader economy.

"Every tax credit or break must be tied directly to job creation, so everyone in Wisconsin benefits — otherwise the middle-class employees end up paying more, while the wealthy and big business pay less," says Barrett.

The production tax credit was just one of the "gifts" in the budget approved by Walker and the Republican-controlled Legislature last June. Most, if not all, are targeted at corporations, investors, upper-income residents and campaign contributors.

Combined, they will reduce state revenues significantly. Making up the difference, opponents argue, will be average Wisconsin families.

In a report released this week, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign calculates the decrease in state revenues will cost the average family of four $235 in higher taxes beginning in 2013 and nearly $300 by 2021 if all the credits and incentives are fully implemented. Those figures were gathered by dividing the amount of the tax cuts by the state's population.

Meanwhile, despite strict revenue limits and controversial cuts in school aid, property taxpayers statewide saw just an $11 average reduction in their December 2011 bills.

At the same time that the Walker budget cuts taxes for upper-income residents, it stings lower-income filers by making cuts to the earned income tax credit and the homestead tax credit.

State Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar, calls the GOP approach "shifting the shaft," meaning that it shifts the tax burden off one group — in this case business owners and the wealthy — and leaves everyone else to pick up the difference.

"In the 1 percent vs. 99 percent debate, this is a graphic example," says Jauch. "They have completely sold their souls on any concept of common wealth."

• • • •

One of the most outspoken critics of the production tax credit is Mark Harris, the Winnebago County executive. Struggling to balance the budget in his own manufacturing-heavy county in the face of shrinking state support, Harris has been sounding the alarm on the issue for months but has generated little interest, in part because of its complex nature and its highly charged political implications.

An accountant by training, Harris says the tax credit as written is flawed and could lead to a series of unintended consequences — such as companies scrambling to have their business reclassified as manufacturing to avoid paying state taxes. He warns that future reductions in state tax collections will be passed on to cities, counties and villages.

"My point is that this tax cut is very large and it may threaten funding for K-12 education, the university system and municipalities," he says. "My goal is to get this legislation moderated before it ever takes full effect."

So just how large is the production tax credit?

At $129 million annually, that's roughly 18 percent of the $852 million in corporate tax collections in Wisconsin last year, although some of the credit would count against the $6.7 billion in individual income tax collections.

But Grothman maintains that any drop in tax collections will be more than offset by the resulting increases in business activity. He projects that restaurant owners, retailers and all taxpayers will benefit down the line as the entire state economy grows.

"This credit is going to generate so much added economic activity that any cost will be dwarfed by all the new money coming in," he predicts.

The fiscal bureau has estimated the GOP tax cuts will cost the state $2.3 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

It's not clear how Wisconsin will make up the difference.

"They keep piling these things on with no idea how they will pay for them," says Dale Knapp, research director of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. "That's why they phase in tax cuts and credits so they don't have to worry about it until down the road."

Walker campaign spokeswoman Matthews declined to comment on how the governor would pay for the tax cuts for business. She referred those questions to Walker's staff spokesman Cullen Werwie, who did not return phone calls or emails.

In theory, reducing taxes for factory owners is a way to lure companies from other states to Wisconsin.
James Buchen, vice president of government affairs for WMC, says eliminating taxes for factory owners will begin to level the playing field for Wisconsin against states like Texas or Florida, which are among seven that have no state income tax at all.

"The policy was intended to enhance the competitiveness of all Wisconsin manufacturing companies as they compete in national and global markets," he says. "It will cement the state's position as a center of manufacturing for years to come and ensure there will be a ready supply of good-paying manufacturing jobs for our families and communities."

But Harris is skeptical that simply eliminating taxes will spark any burst of hiring. Drawing upon his years in the private sector, Harris says business owners hire based on whether adding staff will increase profits — not on tax policy.

"My gut feeling is that any tax cut will just go back into the owner's pocket," says Harris, who also holds a law degree from the University of Michigan.

As an example, Harris points to U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, whose family owns the PACUR manufacturing company in Oshkosh. Johnson paid $645,000 in state income taxes on income of $9.5 million from 1997 to 2008, according to campaign finance reports. Under the production credit, Johnson would have seen his state income taxes eliminated — with enough left over to shelter some of his investment income.

"I'm not trying to single out Senator Johnson ... but that is just one example of how wrong this thing is," says Harris.

Whether Wisconsin factory owners are in dire need of an income tax cut is open to debate.
Manufacturing is one of the only sectors of the state economy to show much recovery from the recession, adding 12,000 jobs over the past 14 months. Longer-term, the state has been losing manufacturing jobs along with the rest of the country — but at a slower pace. From 1990-2011, manufacturing employment in Wisconsin fell 15 percent vs. a 34 percent drop nationwide. From 2007-2011, it fell 12 percent in Wisconsin compared with 16 percent nationwide.

It's even harder to make a case that eliminating income taxes for agricultural producers will spark the broader economy. Farmers can't simply pull up their operation and move it across state lines because taxes are lower.

Actually, it's unclear how agricultural activity was added to the tax credit program in the first place. Some speculate it was to generate support for the tax cut among rural lawmakers.
"We weren't involved," says Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation lobbyist Paul Zimmerman. "At this point, we're not sure if Joe Farmer milking cows would even qualify."

Still, owners of corporate dairy farms, cranberry growers or any agricultural producer with a sharp-eyed accountant could see their income taxes cut or eliminated altogether under the credit. Wisconsin counted more than $2 billion in agricultural income last year, but it's unclear how much the credit would affect tax collections.

Grothman, whose district includes both manufacturing and agriculture, says farming was included because agriculture is such a key piece of the state economy. But he admits the credit favors two sectors over many other business categories in the state.

"Hey, I'd like to cut everybody's taxes, but with the budget crisis we can't afford to do that," says Grothman. "The point is that manufacturing and agriculture are the leading industries in Wisconsin and we should be doing all we can to support them."

• • • •

The production tax credit kicks in beginning in 2013, giving businesses classified as manufacturing or agricultural a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of 1.875 percent on reported income. The credit increases to 3.75 percent in 2014, 5.526 percent in 2015 and 7.5 percent in 2016 and beyond.

As written, however, the policy would end up providing more in tax credit than taxes owed. That's because Wisconsin's income tax rate doesn't hit the 7.75 percent maximum level until a tax filer reaches $300,000 in income.

At $300,000, for example, there would be enough credit left over to shelter another $39,400 in outside income. In fact, the amount of credit exceeds state taxes due until a filer hits $1.5 million in income.
Department of Revenue Secretary Rick Chandler has been touring the state touting the credit as yet another example of Wisconsin working with business rather than against it.

"Manufacturing and agriculture have historically been the twin drivers of Wisconsin's economy," says Chandler. "They are poised to thrive in the future, if we have the right policies in place to encourage their vitality. Supporting manufacturing and agriculture has been a long-standing bipartisan approach. If these sectors do well, so do all other sectors of the economy."

In addition to the manufacturing and agricultural tax credits, higher income tax filers in Wisconsin next year will also begin reaping the rewards of broad exemptions on capital gains — money made from stocks, bonds, real estate or other investments.

Right now, Wisconsin exempts 30 percent of capital gains on assets held at least one year and allows 100 percent exclusion for gains on the sale of business assets to a family member. Walker's budget makes all capital gains free from state income tax as long as the money is reinvested in a qualified Wisconsin business for at least five years.

Of course, capital gains tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit those at the top. According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, almost 80 percent of taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 reported some capital gains income, while only about 20 percent of all taxpayers with incomes below $200,000 reported any. For the vast majority of taxpayers, the only significant capital gain in their lifetime comes from the sale of a house — and that gain is already exempt from state and federal taxes up to $250,000.

Once fully phased in over the next several years, capital gains tax collections would fall by more than $100 million annually, the fiscal bureau estimates.

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, in its report titled "Special Interest Smorgasbord," says the production credit and capital gains cuts are the largest of 55 policy changes that collectively will cost the state $335 million in 2013 and at least $439 million by 2021.

"Don't be fooled when the Republicans tell you they're for smaller government," says Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee. "These policies are just an excuse to kill education and health care for the middle class while putting corporate executives on permanent and extremely costly life support. It's ironic, it's dishonest, and it's cruel."
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass

Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
bradhusker
Certified Cockologist
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by bradhusker »

You are so dellusional and fucked in the head, I must step aside, lest I become you. goodnight.
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
User avatar
Truman
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:12 pm

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Truman »

Goober McTuber wrote:BTW, here’s yet another little “bomb” dropped by our governor
No it isn't. It's yet another little "bomb" thrown by Mike Ivey, business (opinion) columnist for the Capital Times, now an online rag due to poor circulation and stupid liberal business acumen, and that has touted itself as "Wisconsin's Progressive Newspaper" since its founding.

Guess you forgot all that before you Cntrl-Cuda'd your take.

This is the same Loser who, no less than two months ago, bitched in an op-ed that Wisconsin was worst in the nation in new jobs creation.

So the Wisconsin Lege responds in kind, passes a budget designed to create a brand-new, business-friendly environment and stimulate new jobs, and in return we get a nonagenarian whose only claim to fame is a shaved-and-shrivelled nutsack racking the harrangue of a dyed-in-the-wool leftist.

Just STFU and take your beating next month, Goobs. You'll have another shot come November. And stop feeding the damn troll.
Snake
Elwood
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:27 pm

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Snake »

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:And what of the glaring--still ignored fact--that the entire corporate structure of our economy is completely dependent on government intervention in the marketplace? This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare.
There isn't a single conservative out there who supports the type of government intervention in the marketplace you mention. Such intervention distorts those markets and makes the practice of free market capitalism impossible. Nothing should be too big to fail including (and especially) the federal government.

The problem here is your fundamental ignorance of economic forces. You decry subsidies, yet subsidies are the often only thing enabling small businesses to participate in those sectors. If you eliminate farm subsidies, what do you think is going to happen to the small farmers who depend on them? ADM and Monsanto certainly aren't dependent on them. The elimination of subsidies would only increase their market share. The same thing is true in the energy sector.


god your stupid. click your heels three times and go straight too OZ....
User avatar
LTS TRN 2
I suck Jew cock
Posts: 8802
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Here

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by LTS TRN 2 »

"Don't be fooled when the Republicans tell you they're for smaller government," says Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee. "These policies are just an excuse to kill education and health care for the middle class while putting corporate executives on permanent and extremely costly life support. It's ironic, it's dishonest, and it's cruel."

This succinctly sums up exactly what the Koch brothers' spiraling agenda is all about. The perverse irony of these reckless, feckless, amoral profit mongers being completely dependent upon corporate (tax-payer funded) welfare while droning (Limpdick, Hannity, O'Reilly) some cockeyed mantra of dog-eat-dog social Darwinism is surely the most disgusting feature of America's current , uh...dilemma..

Okay..we'll cut education and health care so the Job Ceators can regain their confidence...oh shit, I liked that hand...
Image
Before God was, I am
bradhusker
Certified Cockologist
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by bradhusker »

LTS TRN 2 wrote:"Don't be fooled when the Republicans tell you they're for smaller government," says Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee. "These policies are just an excuse to kill education and health care for the middle class while putting corporate executives on permanent and extremely costly life support. It's ironic, it's dishonest, and it's cruel."

This succinctly sums up exactly what the Koch brothers' spiraling agenda is all about. The perverse irony of these reckless, feckless, amoral profit mongers being completely dependent upon corporate (tax-payer funded) welfare while droning (Limpdick, Hannity, O'Reilly) some cockeyed mantra of dog-eat-dog social Darwinism is surely the most disgusting feature of America's current , uh...dilemma..

Okay..we'll cut education and health care so the Job Ceators can regain their confidence...oh shit, I liked that hand...
Image
And Obama lies and tells the nation that he is for helping the middle class. Meanwhile, taxes will indeed go up for everyone, EXCEPT for poor blacks.
Obama lies and tells us that only the super rich will see their taxes go up. WHEN IN REALITY? The entire middle class will see higher taxes.
A president who lies like this? Isnt worth a fuckin damm.
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
bradhusker
Certified Cockologist
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by bradhusker »

Truman wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:BTW, here’s yet another little “bomb” dropped by our governor
No it isn't. It's yet another little "bomb" thrown by Mike Ivey, business (opinion) columnist for the Capital Times, now an online rag due to poor circulation and stupid liberal business acumen, and that has touted itself as "Wisconsin's Progressive Newspaper" since its founding.

Guess you forgot all that before you Cntrl-Cuda'd your take.

This is the same Loser who, no less than two months ago, bitched in an op-ed that Wisconsin was worst in the nation in new jobs creation.

So the Wisconsin Lege responds in kind, passes a budget designed to create a brand-new, business-friendly environment and stimulate new jobs, and in return we get a nonagenarian whose only claim to fame is a shaved-and-shrivelled nutsack racking the harrangue of a dyed-in-the-wool leftist.

Just STFU and take your beating next month, Goobs. You'll have another shot come November. And stop feeding the damn troll.
Truman? First, im not a troll, your mom is. Second, he's not feeding me, your mom is.
Third, I knew that he was posting shit from a leftist rag before your mom sucked me off.
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
Moving Sale

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Moving Sale »

88 wrote: In case you haven't noticed, this thread relates to LTS TRN 2's ridiculous attacks on the Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court correctly concluded that Congress does not have the power to regulate political speech based upon the identity of the speaker and/or the manner in which the speaker chooses to communicate the political speech.
So speech isn’t speech. Gotcha. So what is political speech? The 1st amendment says Congress can’t regulate speech and yet they do. Why can they regulate non-political speech? I want to communicate my political speech on 1280 AM here in my local market, why is it ok to regulate THAT manner of speech when you just said Congress does not have that power? How can you back the Team Nutsack’s ruling in CU when you don’t believe in Marbury?

I know it is hard for you to focus when there are so many shiny things to see, but if you try to do so I promise you will appear less stupid to those who pause to pay brief attention to you.
You are a POS with dirt DNA and shitty logic skills so take your condescending BS and shove it up your ass.
Moving Sale

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Moving Sale »

Truman wrote: So there IS a difference in mode … or “contempt of humanity.”
If I don’t have the qualifications to argue the point then how the fuck do you? You do realize that argument cuts both ways right? Of course you don’t because you are a retard.
Truman wrote: Of course you have examples of active slavery still practiced in this country under the auspices and protection of the United States Congress...
It’s called prison you fucking dolt. You have read the 13th Am right?
Unless you have a link handy, I believe we’re done here.
We are done. How does it feel to have your ass handed to you?
I guarantee you, asshat, that the Constitution will not change if the people do not have the political will to, well, change it.
That is not what I said. Learn to read.
No, I know you signed off on a complete dissent of 88’s take, and got your ass pounded for your trouble.
By whom?

The Minority was all over the place with their dissent of the ruling. Guess what? All their hand-wringing didn’t change the decision,
That is why it is called a dissent you stupid fat flyover fuck.
I suppose if I were to ever commit a capital crime, the possibility of being put to death might be a concern.
And yet Ford has nothing to worry about. Yea corps and people are the same.
Anyone who would endeavour (sic)to kill you, however, would most likely earn a medal.
If you can’t beat ‘em kill ‘em. Nice debating skills you cock juggling fuckseat.
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Goober McTuber »

Truman wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:BTW, here’s yet another little “bomb” dropped by our governor
No it isn't. It's yet another little "bomb" thrown by Mike Ivey, business (opinion) columnist for the Capital Times, now an online rag due to poor circulation and stupid liberal business acumen, and that has touted itself as "Wisconsin's Progressive Newspaper" since its founding.

Guess you forgot all that before you Cntrl-Cuda'd your take.

This is the same Loser who, no less than two months ago, bitched in an op-ed that Wisconsin was worst in the nation in new jobs creation.

So the Wisconsin Lege responds in kind, passes a budget designed to create a brand-new, business-friendly environment and stimulate new jobs, and in return we get a nonagenarian whose only claim to fame is a shaved-and-shrivelled nutsack racking the harrangue of a dyed-in-the-wool leftist.

Just STFU and take your beating next month, Goobs. You'll have another shot come November. And stop feeding the damn troll.
What Walker is tying to do is create North Mississippi. Unfortunately, he's succeeding.
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass

Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
bradhusker
Certified Cockologist
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by bradhusker »

Moving Sale wrote:
88 wrote: In case you haven't noticed, this thread relates to LTS TRN 2's ridiculous attacks on the Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court correctly concluded that Congress does not have the power to regulate political speech based upon the identity of the speaker and/or the manner in which the speaker chooses to communicate the political speech.
So speech isn’t speech. Gotcha. So what is political speech? The 1st amendment says Congress can’t regulate speech and yet they do. Why can they regulate non-political speech? I want to communicate my political speech on 1280 AM here in my local market, why is it ok to regulate THAT manner of speech when you just said Congress does not have that power? How can you back the Team Nutsack’s ruling in CU when you don’t believe in Marbury?

I know it is hard for you to focus when there are so many shiny things to see, but if you try to do so I promise you will appear less stupid to those who pause to pay brief attention to you.
You are a POS with dirt DNA and shitty logic skills so take your condescending BS and shove it up your ass.


HEY moving sale? YOU are the condescending Prick HERE, not 88. Just because you dont like free speech, does NOT mean shit to myself and 88.

Dont try to make distinctions on certain speech, while leaving other speech alone. FUCK YOU.

Sure you cant yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and you cant incite a riot. WE ALL KNOW THIS.
BUT, the kind of free speech that 88 and I are talking about? ITS FREE you sick fuck.

STOP being a sick piece of shit. YOU and LTS are so disturbed in the fuckin' head, its pitiful.

TODAY, the Governor of NEW YORK took another dangerous step in the liberal sickness movement.
NO SODA POP OVER 16oz allowed to be sold. WHAT THE FUCK!!!!! So we have to be sneaky and just buy two 16 oz drinks to meet our thirst level of 32 oz???

THIS is becoming a dangerous country due to left wing sick thinking.
I'll pull you out of that one bunk hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. The warden, shawshank redemption.
Moving Sale

Re: Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge

Post by Moving Sale »

bradhusker wrote: Sure you cant yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater...
Brad,
While I absolutely love your Colbert like persona, I must correct you on that point. That is not what Holmes said in Schenck. You can yell fire in a crowded theater all you want as long as you don’t cause a panic.
Post Reply