" I am so sick of you liberals and your broken records. We went into Iraq with the full support of Congress on both sides. Bill Clinton talked exhaustively about the need to invade Iraq and the issues with WMDs. Key members in congress on both sides knew about the WMD intelligence long before Bush was even president.

The WMDs were there. What happened to them is still a mystery. Saddam was told to show where they were or prove that they had been destroyed. He did neither and thus Iraq was invaded. We are not playing around with terrorist nations any longer! The Nigerian yellow cake urianium intelligence was cleared by a liberal CIA Clinton appointee for the state of the union. By the way, the UK still stands behind that intelligence. Our CIA could not confirm its validity and the press (who hates Bush) attempted to point the blame at him instead of Tenet where it belonged.

You people are still upset about losing the election (as you certainly will this cycle too because your candidates are ridiculous) and your sour grapes know no end. Bush will be looked on favorably by history. Just like Houston and Lincoln ,who were hated in their time, Bush will be judged as good and wise. At great personal cost, he has planted the seeds of victory and given us an advantage for overcoming terrorists who would have made generations suffer before the USA would have been forced to come to the same end. War. "

" Tarantula you are delusional. Good luck living in fantasy land. "

" Yeah um fantasy. Anyways, did you also know that the reasons all of them dastardly democrats correctly authorized the war had to do with everthing liberals call "lies" today (which, as usual, they are wrong). For example, at the end of the day, Saddam was indeed building weapons of mass destruction. There WAS a 500 ton cache of yellow cake uranium in Iraq http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/about_that_500_tons_of_yellow.html

Hussein was at the top of his game in preparing to cause widespread death and chaos. His disregard for human life had been demonstrated hundreds of thousands of times. Liberals, you simply cannot win the history battle (though you will try your typical revisionistic tactics). The facts are on the Bush Camp's side. The war had nothing to do with money, it had nothing to do with oil, Bush is a good guy who acts from his heart and America will be better off in the end and your children will thank you.

Even Bob Geldoff (King of the hippies) said that Bush was sharp and quick and a good man. Cindy Sheehan said that Bush is a good man to great protest by her supporters. That is because they actually know him. Let go of your hate scumbags and get on the right team for once. "

" tarantula: who the heck is houston? lol

and lincoln would be a liberal today so dont go there

the fact that Congress gave Bush a blank
check for actions against hussein does not
address the rightness or wrongness of the action

havent you heard tar? it has been coming out for a long time that saddam was bluffing and he never had any wmd (this is also the new bush admin rhetorical tact to defend their actions saying, "see he was pretending like he had them - how where we supposed to know?"

and dont quote some right wing think tank
website for evidence of wmd when EVERY reputable news and intelligence organization
has never found any evidence of it

the truth is saddam was a broken man in a broken country...which we broke! he was penned in and harmless (which was part of the reason we went in) and no threat to anyone, but himself

It doesnt matter if Bush is a good man or that he brushes his teeth 3 times per day and kisses the misses before he goes to bed at night - the point is he led america to war on false pretenses and should be impeached

tar did you know that during the worst of
saddam's offenses against his own people
the US was his buddy - actually increased his aid and dual-use technology? so this argument does not jive, and yes it was for the oil and geopolitical positioning - the fact that no one in the bush admin has really mentioned
any of these points is proof enough

not every liberal hates bush tar - we know who is really in charge so why hate the messenger? and even if some do hate him - he is giving them plenty of reasons to - so its his fault for the policies he supports - not for
who he is as a person (note that this distorted view of your allows you to not talk about any issues because there is no need to - the libs are insane people-haters who cannot listen to reason - i.e. adopt my views automatically.

uh what else? who cares about Bob Geldoff
he is one person - do you know what most British people really think about Bush, and most of the rest of the world for that matter (dont say it doesnt matter because you just quoted the opinion of one foreign overthehillrocker that no one cares about) ? "

" Sam Houston was the governor of Texas who attempted desegregation after the Civil War to the great dissatisfaction of his constituency at great cost to his career. His wisdom would only be recognized decades later.

Lincoln was not a liberal. Liberals are essentially traitors and would have allowed the secession. Liberals are cowards with no stomach for conflict. Lincoln was fair and believed in personal responsibility which are 2 concepts liberals cannot grasp.

Liberal opponents of the Civil war (also known as "Copperheads"), who were indeed Democrats, criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on the slavery issue. Conversely, the Radical Republicans, an abolitionist faction of the Republican Party, criticized Lincoln for moving too slowly in abolishing slavery.

The Copperheads were a vocal group of Democrats in the North who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates.

The Copperheads strongly opposed the war, for which they blamed abolitionists, and they demanded immediate peace and resisted draft laws. They wanted Lincoln and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American with his despotic and arbitrary actions (sound Familiar?)

Even in an era of extremely partisan journalism, Liberal Democrat (Copperhead) newspapers were remarkable for their angry rhetoric, "A large majority of Copperheads can see no reason why they should be shot for the benefit of n*****s and Abolitionists." If 'the despot Lincoln' tried to ram abolition and conscription down the throats of white men, he would meet with the fate he deserves: hung, shot, or burned."

The situation was dire between Lincoln and the liberal democrats. Copperheads were suspected of disloyalty, and Lincoln often had their leaders arrested and held for months in military prisons.

To say Lincoln was a liberal shows your ridiculous level of ignorance!

Republicans have worked tirelessly toward a free America for all people from the very beginning. Almost all of the America's famous racists were yellow dog southern democrats like George Wallace and KKK bird among countless others (or muderers like Kennedy or rapists like Clinton ect.) Basically they are self indulgent bad people just like the garden variety uppity democrat you find today. "

" "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"

" interesting you chose to devote half your response to a non-issue - lincoln's current political affiliation - instead of the illegal and immoral war in Iraq

the more you learn about lincoln though,
the more he would defy characterization
as belong to one party or another today
to say he is not a liberal - you are partially right, but he was not a conservative either - he was definitely moderate whatever his particular stripe

your characterization of liberals as traitors says alot about your extreme right wing political views - although i am sure from the evidence we have now that if we were in a court of law the Bush administration would be more far more likely to be convicted of war crimes that any liberal for treason

you listing of statements by democrats
about saddam says nothing to the point really

you could probably name any issue and go through the record and find contradictory statements from every member of Congress

not really a rebuttal - everyone knows
that there were only 23 senators to vote
against giving Bush their Constitutional authority to wage war - which history has shown they were led into war on doctored intelligence from cheney's office of special plans (counterterrorism evaluation group) so all your quotes from the establishment do not go to the central question of was it the right decision based on the actual intelligence

they were obviously all wrong

i also reject your empty assertion that libs know nothing of (personal) responsibility
that is bs

they have a different view of it
and a different way of teaching it

for example, you and your conservative bretheren who focus on this kind of ayn randish personal responsibility;

which have some negative consequences
for society - here are but 3 off the top of my head

one
neglect to emphasize enough your connections and responsibilities concerning your fellow citizens and even family

two
supress/ignore the support you received from various community sources

three
demonize the government - yet approve of private corporate tyrannies
(with all the corporate greed, largess, and corruption from Enron to the current financial crisis what makes you think they would manage your retirement better than the government? They would surely charge more to manage your portfolio!)

btw - thanks for the history on the copperheads - very interesting - and i know who SAM houston is you just said houston - like we were supposed to know what you were referring to



"

" also tar
if you are going to plagarize off wikipedia
you should site it as a source - you should know that by now "

" I plagiarized a lot more than Wikipedia by the way. I was not presenting any of this as my personal opinion but rather facts of which I gathered from various sources. Facts are the enemy of liberals. I guess you missed the fact that the WMD discussion started long before Bush. Therefore I ask, who fabricated the pre-Bush WMD intelligence? Why did Tenet put the Nigerian yellow-cake into the State of the Union address?

You are a nimrod with nothing substantioal to offer (as usual for a lib).

What is tar by the way? I will assume it is a shorter version of "tard" which was popular by prepubescent teens a year ago, which itself is short of "retard". I think this says everything we need to know about you. "

" Here is more plagiarized information about the traitorous cowardice liberal Democrat Copperheads who fought against freeing what they called "ni****s" by the dreaded Republican abolitionists. Enjoy!

In 1861 the Democratic Party contained a number of members who were either pro-Southern and/or anti-abolitionists. They never agreed with going to war, choosing to ignore the South firing on Fort Sumter. Their position was that the Union of States should not be maintained by force and the war was wrong. Named the "Peace Democrats", they were the first opposition to the war. Public pressure largely silenced their voice but they were strong enough to force several "War Democrats" into the rank of political generals. Lincoln to ensure bi-partisan support appointed "War Democrats" to counter the voice of the "Peace Democrats" within the party.

At this point, the war was expected to be short, somewhat bloodless and a great adventure. The battle of Bull Run in August 1861 raised questions about these assumptions. Additional demands for men to build the armies, money to pay for the war, the disruption of trade routs, shortages and government measures to protect itself from "traitors' all contributed to destroying these assumptions. The nail in the coffin was the dead and maimed. 1862 opened with Shiloh and the list of dead grew longer each week. Battles seemed to vie for the title of bloodiest, each battle worse than the last. Antietam, took the title in one horrible day that left the country reeling and weeping.

The Copperheads rise to power coincided with the public's perception of the war. While a nation wide movement, they were strongest in what was then the mid-west and North-west. 1862 was a building year for them and they did well in the elections electing several of their number governor and to the House of Representatives. Emancipation was a boon to the Copperheads, allowing them to exploit the racism of nineteenth century America. Taking the position that Abolitionists forced war on America to free an inferior race that would supplant the white workers, they scored impressive gains with the Irish labors in the large Eastern cities. Emancipation coupled with the draft created serious armed resistance that produces real problems for the government. Counties divided and fear gripped many as neighbor turned against neighbor. Violence toward federal Officials became common and many resigned or refused positions out of fear.

With the war stalled in 1864 and the causality lists getting longer each day, the Copperhead movement crested. They managed to capture the Democratic National Convention, inserted a peace at any price plank in the platform and put one of their own on the ticket as vice-president. The fall of Atlanta, Union victories in the Shenandoah Valley and the soldiers standing firm defeated them. Just as the public's perception that the war was not being won, helped the Copperheads. The perception that the war was being won turned them into traitors and defeated them at the ballot box.

The Democrats paid a high price for identification with the Copperhead movement. Grover Cleveland's election as president in 1885 was the next time they would occupy the White House. After Cleveland, they would have to wait until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson was elected. The Union soldiers extracted revenge for what they saw as "fire from the rear" and refused to vote Democrat.

The Copperhead movement suffered excess that were as damaging as winning the war. Excesses in rhetoric, refusal to comprise and working with the enemy all damaged them in the public eyes. Even the Confederacy came to distrust them. Several Copperhead cells made plans to launch attacks on government installations, free Confederate POWs or even take their state out of the Union. All failed, the major reasons being the lack real leadership and members unwilling to risk their lives.
"

" It is amazing how history repeats itself over and over... "

" if you were not presenting it as your personal opinion then you should have cited it as such
but you did not

(its so funny to watch right wingers squirm)

if a so called liberal did that you would have tried to roast them for being a spinless lazy liar

what is FAR more amazing is how right-wingers change to the subject (to the civil war) or resort to name-calling when faced with a real arugment or a substantive threat to their belief system, or their interpretation of events do not mesh with the the facts

"

" Pfft! where was your real argument or threat to my belief system? I must have missed that. I am stating facts. Where are yours.? I assure you, you could not make me squirm. There are actually people on your side that can thoughtfully defend their wrong position and I assure you, you are not one of them. I nuke them in debate too simply because the facts are on my side. I was simply addressing your "don't go there" comment on Lincoln and demonstrating how the current situation in Iraq is very similar to the Civil War. Which, of course, Bush will be appreciated by future generations as is Lincoln today. History is a fair judge. History has already started to judge Clinton for the scumbag he is. I am sorry if I offended you with the name calling maam? "

" If memory serves me, back in January I read an article that compared the Iraq War to WWII. I thought you two would find some of these points interesting so here goes...

-Bush had reason to believe that Saddam was looking for yellow cake to use in making WMDs.
-Roosevelt had reason to believe that Hitler was hording uranium which could be used to create atom bombs. (His source was a letter from Albert Einstein in August of 1939)
-In both cases the intel was wrong.

-9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda, but we declared war on both Al Qaeda & Saddam, the later of which had no connection to 9/11.
-Pearl Harbor was carried out by Japan, but we declared war on both Japan and Germany, the later of which had no connection to Pearl Harbor.

Next, I'd like to address what Avolakiteshvara had to say about "some negative consequences" of "ayn randish personal responsibility"

Your first 'negative consequence' was "neglect to emphasize enough your connections and responsibilities concerning your fellow citizens and even family"... I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but as far as responsibilities go the only responsibility one has to his fellow citizens is to not infringe upon their rights (life, liberty, and property)

Your second point was "supress/ignore the support you received from various community sources"... The way you worded that leads me to conclude that no one has ever achieved anything (great or small) without support from others. Is that what you really think? Besides that, objectivists do not believe in lying about how much or little support one had in reaching some goal... objectivists give credit where credit is due.

And finally, "demonize the government - yet approve of private corporate tyrannies"... You need to flesh out what you mean by corporate tyrannies, but for the moment I'll assume you mean coercive monopolies. "Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. (Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason)" In regards to demonizing government, the government was created to protect our rights, not force one group of citizens (the wealthy) to give their money to another group (the poor) and not to assume the responsibilities of its citizens (universal healthcare, medicare, medicaid, and various welfare programs)... these actions, among many others, violate individual rights and that is why objectivists, libertarians, and other like-minded who believe in rights and personal responsibilities consider the government a threat and rightfully demonize it for any such actions.

I know this is an Iraq themed conversation and I think my e-mail will be shown, so if you or anyone else would like to continue talking elsewhere about anything related to my post I'd be more than happy to continue via e-mail.

Have a nice day! "

" I guess it didn't display my e-mail, so here it is: DanUF11@aim.com "

" dan thanks for your comments - i am sure there are more parallels with ww2
as well

as far as your last comment about the governments hand in establishing and supporting corporate monopolies - i agree, but your premise bespeaks of a separation between the two - i do not agree - we should see them as
complementary entities working together

also, a corporate tyrrany may include
markets where a handful of companies dominate a market and work together to set prices, influence government, etc.
airline industry, oil and gas, automobile industry, defense are but a few examples of this
(due to their close relationship with government these sectors are also heavily subsidized and usually do not pay a fair share of their taxes, among other things)

the second comment about community support - i challenge you to give me one example of any great accomplishment one may have, or has had in ilife, that he did solely on his own - it just doesnt happen

the first about personal responsibility
of course i believe, to a certain extent, in this abstraction, but this must be balanced with ones other responsibilities

for example, when I use a park if i take my dog i shouuld clean up after him before i leave and keep him on a leash if he might get aggressive to try to run - just as when a company uses public resources they have a responsibility to take care of it or if it produces pollution they have a responsibility to clean up after themselves - so one has responsibilities that go beyond just the personal - in fact too much focus on personal responsibilites is a sign in society that the other responsibilities
are being neglected and possibly deliberately avoided "

" Avolakiteshvara, can you please elaborate on your belief that government and businesses should work together? For instance, can you point out some problems or issues that can not be resolved in a free market by natural market forces?
Your idea of a corporate tyranny, one that sets its own price, cannot exist in a free market. A monopoly can only set its own price, irregardless of market forces, if there are barriers to entry in the market... if there are no barriers then any smart business would rush in to produce the same or similar product for less. As to government influence... were the government restricted to solely protecting our basic rights, we wouldn't need to worry about government heavily subsidizing companies left and right. Were government and business separate, then we wouldn't have the problems you mention.
You mentioned companies not paying their “fair share” of taxes... two questions. Do companies pay taxes? What exactly (give me a number or percentage) is a “fair share” when it comes to paying taxes?
About your great accomplishment challenge... we need to define terms. I believe when alcoholics, drug addicts, and smokers quit their habits they have achieved something great. Sure, many of these people need the love and support of family and friends to successfully fight their addictions, but not all of them needed that kind of intervention. I need your definition of community support before I can honestly address this challenge. Sir Edmund Hillary wasn't alone in his great achievement, but does the help of a Sherpa mean he had “community support?”

About an individual's responsibilities to others... You mention cleaning up after one's dog at a public park, keeping one's dog on a leash, and companies cleaning up any pollution they create... okay, I see now what you mean by these “other responsibilities”. Now I'll address them.

Piles of dog feces in a public park is an obvious threat to the health/life of fellow park goers... so cleaning up after your dog in a public park isn't an additional responsibility, it's just an example of your responsibility to not infringe upon the health of other citizens. The same goes for keeping your dog on a leash just in case and companies cleaning up any pollution they create.

Personal responsibilities includes the responsibilities you have to not infringe upon the rights of others... the term 'personal responsibilities' means all of an individual's responsibilities, not just his responsibilities to himself.

Have a great day! "

" Dan22 - The concept that corporations do no pay taxes (Boortz?) is entirely too sophisticated for this person to understand. I would avoid that conversation all together. "

" I didn't realize this was posted here... otherwise I would have responded to it earlier.

To the writer of the letter: you're seeing exactly what you were supposed to see in following WMD. The weapons of mass destruction were a public rationale for the war and nothing more. The case was very effective--support for the war got up to around 70%. The administration obviously did very well with its PR, but the true policy goal was what I stated in my article.

As for the discussion going on here... wow. You've all taken some substantial leaps.

I will offer a comment on corporate income taxes though. Let's note that American car companies and American airlines don't pay taxes because they don't make any money. Most of them are worth very little money.

Toyota paid $7 billion in taxes on $18 billion in income for the last year data is readily available. Exxon paid $30 billion on $72 billion in income. Let's not say they don't pay taxes. "

" Matthew Young- THe idea that corporations do not pay taxes goes like this. When you trace the dollar taken from the corporation. It will eventually come down to have been taken from the pocket of individuals in the form of dividends, profit, ect. Basically the issue is that the government has created a complex and convuluted tax system which facilitates and promotes the redistribution of wealth from individuals to individuals which is exactly the truth.

Just like when your company has to match your social security contribution each paycheck. That is really just you paying twice for your social security but only being informed about half. In a competitive wage environment this is a deceptive fraud.

The whole idea is to mask how much tax you actualy pay which has been expertly done. (7% sales, $0.60 to $1.00 per gallon fuel, Fica, Medicaid, All service taxes, property taxes, imbedded taxes, import, luxury and tricky taxes-like corporate taxes) A typical worker will easily send 35% to 60% of their income to the government when money is accounted for properly.

If we had to write a check at the end of the year for the exact same tax we actually paid that year, there would be an immediate tax revolt.


"

" Obviously if there were no taxes corporations would have vastly reduced costs and offer lower prices. But there are taxes and those taxes do create higher costs. If you want to say that corporations don't pay taxes because they generate more cash to pay taxes, fine.

But that would also apply to individuals. Your income goals consider after-tax amounts. If those taxes suddenly disappeared, people would need far less income and wouldn't be pricing their tax burden into the picture. Corporations wouldn't hand you their share of the FICA tax--they'd use it to further reduce their costs.

So by that logic no one actually pays taxes. This is a pretty meaningless and utterly irrelevant idea.

As for that tax revolt, certainly not. The vast majority of the population enjoys decent roads, old age benefits, schools, fire service, national defense, and so forth. "

" MatthewYoung - Do you know how much money is wasted? Goes to foreign aid and massive entitlement programs? Hell, if all we were paying for is roads and defense, this country would be doing real good. All taxes come down to coming from the pockets of individuals. I am discouraged in this discussion with you because you cannot grasp that simple fact. I appreciate your opinion but you are clearly too clueless for a real debate. . "

" dan i hope you are not under the impression that we actually have a free market here in the US or anywhere in the world - we do not -
it is only a theoretical figment in the mind of certain economists

also, when politicians talk about bringing freedom and democracy to another country this is usually what they are really referring to - free markets, now what free markets REALLY means the opening up of the country to foreign investment and ownership, restructuring the laws to favor these businesses - basically subordinating the whole country - its people and resources - to the whims of these outside forces - raw materials, products, and labor exported at cheap prices to max profits for their shareholders - which wouldnt be so bad
if the shareholders were of that country and the resources were redistributed in a more equitable fashion

even if one existed their would still be the need for outside controls and regulation

i think, to a certain extent, government and businesses can work together within strict boundaries, but the problem is the ownership class in this country have far too much influence over our government - in many instances - to the detriment of the average working american

if you look at the breakdown of most industries in the US they fall into two general types; one-company dominated to monopolistic control (like microsoft in software or DeBeers in diamonds - less common, some markets are functionaing state, regional, or sectional monopolies like Cox Cable in the), and two-relatively equal market share among a handful of competitors -oligopoly (airlines, auto, beer tobacco, aircraft, defense, media, etc. - more common)

both types are prone to strong abuses
and are in need of outside regulation and oversight

we see what has happened in the energy sector with California and Enron and the rest, in the housing and mortgage markets, and in the financial sector which has all occurred under decreasing regulation

as far as corporate taxes goes it is a FACT
that corporate tax revenues have been sharply declining for years - mostly because of tax breaks and aggressive tax sheltering by companies; for instance the Treasury Dept.
reports that in 2000, corporate tax revenues were 207 billion dollars, and in 2003 the shrunk to 132 billion

these loopholes need to close and we should legislate against companies originating and doing most of their business in the US taking their HQ's offshore to avoid paying their fair share of taxes

"

" if anyone is concerned with government waste -
we should be far more concerned with the billions
and billions of dollars we are wasting on the bloated defense department's budget and their"forays" overseas, the national debt and the money we are paying for interest on the national debt, and wall street's corruption than any other factors

also, since the major corporate tax reforms under Reagan the statutory tax rates for corporations has been 35%
(the fact that exxon-mobile's reported its tax rate to be 41% is a clear warning sign)

in FACT, the actual average effective tax rate of corporations in the US has been in decline since that period - in 2002-3 it was effective 17

exxon-mobile is not actually paying the amount of taxes you quoted - 23 billion of those taxes owed are being deferred "

" if anyone is concerned with government waste -
we should be far more concerned with the billions
and billions of dollars we are wasting on the bloated defense department's budget and their"forays" overseas, the national debt and the money we are paying for interest on the national debt, and wall street's corruption than any other factors

also, since the major corporate tax reforms under Reagan the statutory tax rates for corporations has been 35%
(the fact that exxon-mobile's reported its tax rate to be 41% is a clear warning sign)

in FACT, the actual average effective tax rate of corporations in the US has been in decline since that period - in 2002-3 it was only around 17% and still shrinking to this day

"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." - Alex Carey



exxon-mobile is not actually paying the amount of taxes you quoted - 23 billion of those taxes owed are being deferred "

" When your posts get really short and you start talking about how clueless I must be, I think we all know who isn't capable of having a real debate. Instead of sticking to facts and taking up most of what I said, you retreated. "

" Avolakiteshvara:

Your numbers are misleading. It's very interesting that you would use numbers more than 4 years old when the numbers for the past 4 years are available.

Corporate tax revenues suffered a huge decline after the dot com bubble fell apart and the 9/11 attacks took place. After hitting a low of $131 billion in 2003 they surged to $190 billion, $280 billion, $350 billion, and finally $370 billion for 2007. Corporate tax revenues have skyrocketed, not fallen into steep decline. (The current subprime crisis and the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars by corporations as well as the likely recession will cause another huge decline in corporate tax revenues. This is solely a reflection of economic conditions; corporate income taxes always suffer a huge decline during economic recessions.)

You should realize that in checking Exxon's tax bill I found the same page you're getting your information from. You're citing an unsourced comment as fact.

It's very possible that the accounting and payments are very different, but Exxon took $30 billion off the table as income tax. How and when this is to be paid is irrelevant--it's not in their pockets as profit.

In lifting the comment about Exxon's tax rate you fail to consider state income taxes and extraordinary income taxes that differ from the basic corporate rate. The average effective tax rate for the oil sector is above 38%.

I don't know where your 17% number comes from for corporations in general. The actual average is above 30%. Perhaps you're pulling data from recession/extraordinary terrorist attack years again. "

" Retreated? From you. Oh C'mon now Matt. You cannot grasp simple concepts and it is therefore futile and too exhausting to argue with people like you. Ordinary people of average intelligence who are convinced they are of above average intelligence (similar to most liberals and devout secularists). Besides, this conversation has gone into a boring direction. "

" I will make one comment just to illustrate my previous post.

Matt, you said, "but Exxon took $30 billion off the table as income tax. How and when this is to be paid is irrelevant--"

WHEN is irrelevant??? Do you have no concept of the time-value of money? especially $30 billion?

Please just give up now. "

" i cant believe i am saying this...but...lol...tar is right
current tax law allows companies to defer a substantial amount of their taxes

this is but one way that companies minimize their tax burden (or get out of paying their taxes depending on your viewpoint)

there are two meanings of tax deferral, but just for arguments sake i will stick to the simple of meaning of just "deferring the taxes you owe to a later date" which can have several benefits - two of main ones are that even with a low level of inflation putting off these payments every year will save you money based on the simple fact that the amount owed will stay the same but your money will be worth less in the future (what tar was saying) - so you will actually be paying less in taxes, but sadly in practice companies can also seemingly defer much of these taxes in perpetuity "

" Matt you are correct in saying that the dot.com bubble and the 9/11attacks
negatively effected US business, and therefore corporate tax revenues, but at the same time while revenues have gone up in the last few years the IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE LEVEL OF THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE - WHICH, INARGUABLY, HAS BEEN IN DECLINE

so the revenues you rightly report have been going up recently - but the point is they should have been even higher!
"

" Tarantula:

Once again you make no argument. You're making my statement apparent to everyone.

Since you wrote something of substance on Exxon, I will address that.

"WHEN is irrelevant??? Do you have no concept of the time-value of money? especially $30 billion"

I said it was irrelevant because that money was off the books and not profit. I was about to jump into bed, so i didn't have time to investigate the Exxon claims further.

Now I have, and I will deal with them in my next post to Avolakiteshvara. "

" Avolakiteshvara:

Once again you're citing an unsourced claim that was made in a comment on an article. That should say enough about how reliable it is.

You can talk about tax deferral all you like, but Exxon's finances are a matter of public record. You're free to consult EDGAR or any of the other resources out there.

Here are Exxon's actual cash taxes paid for each quarter of 2007:

8,395.00 5,565.00 8,384.00 3,998.00

This is not balance sheet income tax expense. As I stated, this is cash taxes paid. I get approximately $26 billion for 2007 alone.

If you would like to advance theories about corporations constantly deferring heir tax burdens and never paying up, fine, but don't let the facts get away from you. "

" Avolakiteshvara:

Please post your data. I can't find anything demonstrating your claims about the effective corporate tax rate. "

" Maththew: alhtough i understand your inherent desire to have your baseless opinions supported, however, this lies in direct contradiction to the actual FACTS of the matter (and if you couldnt find anything about effective tax rate it is because you did not look)

you asked for sources - i found plenty in about 2 minutes - here you go;

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/tax/taxbreif.php

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf

http://www.fairtaxes4all.org/

http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

http://www.ctj.org/

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-25.htm

http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fy09presidentbudget/budgetrelease_index.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Tax_page/Freeloaders_BushTaxes.html

even pro business pubs like the Wall Street
Journal, Financial Times, Business week, etc will tell it like it is sometimes - the put it into a more positive frame however

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_13/b3826058.htm

ciao "

" Avolakiteshvara:

I had no issues finding the information you provided. The problem is that the information is old (I didn't review all of your sources... only around half of them because they all said similar things. If one has more recent data, please point it out to me).

You said that the effective tax rate is in decline. This was true in the years that you've provided, and I already agreed. The collapse of the internet bubble, the recession, and the 9/11 attacks all had a substantial effect on corporate income taxes for several years.

I'm talking about the last five years, however, not just 2003 and further back. In reality corporate income taxes as a percent of GDP hit their highest levels since the 1970s in 2007 and the effective tax rate has not been in the massive decline you claimed.

According to you, the effective tax rate has still been in decline over the past five years. This isn't true; none of your data indicates that it is true. You're using extraordinary data from five years ago to make a case about reality over the past five years and in the present. "

" matt many of those sites were only a few years old, and as tax information does not come in until the year after they are calculated, and then takes time to sift through them there is a lag of about 1 1/2 years or more...but here are a few more up to date sites and after you have gathered all this info and you still think that - as a percentage - that corporations are paying more, and not less as a general trend over the last two decades (at least) as pretty much every source has concluded, then you can go back and join the flat earth society because there is really no help for you

http://www.itepnet.org/pb16corp.pdf

2006
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15704.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00390.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/rost11212006.html
2007
http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/show/2216.html

frontline did a piece on it as well;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/interviews/mcintyre.html

remember we dont even have the 2007
tax information yet...

btw this does not even factor in the tax cuts
for wealthy individuals; cuts in capital gains
taxes, tax havens, and the like

even billionaire Warren Buffet rags on the USs tax system which allowed him to pay less taxes than his secretary!;
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

also there is the elephant in the room no one talks about which is underreporting of income - which by some industry estimates can approach 50% or more

here is another good one -albiet from 2004
http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf "

" No, they weren't only a few years old. They used data from 2003. It is now 2008. The data from 2001, 2002, 2003 is vastly different from the years following--it is tainted by massive dot com losses and economic recession. Obviously data from an economic bubble and recession will differ with the trend over decades.

I already posted information that showed the difference in good economic times. Corporate tax collections in 2007 hit their highest levels since the 1970s--two decades ago. Let me repeat that for you: just now--in 2007--corporate tax revenues hit their highest level in almost 30 years. This is not 2001 or 2002 when the economy was suffering, this is last year. It is absolute fact.

It is also absolute fact that the number has been trending upward. What you're posting is irrelevant--you're refusing to acknowledge that after the economic recession and terrorists attacks--when good economic times returned--so did corporate tax revenues.

NBER has all of the data you could possibly want. I suggest you consult it; when you do you won't have anything left to say. "