|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 18 2014 18:56 plated.rawr wrote:
Terminology aside, this does raise a question which has confused me for a while. Why is spying on the population of other countries become swallowable, but your own population not? It cannot be because it's traditional - there's a difference between spying on governments and spying on populations. It cannot be because it means the population metadata won't be abused by its country - data can be traded.
Is it simply because 'it's not us, so fuck 'em'?
The NSA exists to protect the US and it's population. By spying on its own citizens it is working against its purpose of protecting Its population. By spying on foreign nations it is doing its job of protecting the US. The NSA is responsible for protecting its own populations rights, not the rights of other nations, that is what their government is for.
|
Well, some people subscribe to this silly idea that people are people no matter where they live, and every person should have the same rights, even if they have the misfortune of being born with brown skin in the middle east.
And while it might not be your governments job to protect those rights for other people, it should at least not actively violate them. That would be an ethical stance to take on this subject matter.
|
On November 19 2014 02:47 Simberto wrote:
Well, some people subscribe to this silly idea that people are people no matter where they live, and every person should have the same rights, even if they have the misfortune of being born with brown skin in the middle east.
And while it might not be your governments job to protect those rights for other people, it should at least not actively violate them. That would be an ethical stance to take on this subject matter.
This has nothing to do with skin color. Everyone should have equal rights, but as sad as it may be, that's not how the world works, and I don't believe that if the US stopped spying all threats against us would suddenly disappear. So maybe I'm selfish, but since that is the world we live in, I'd rather the US violate other peoples rights in defense of ours, than risk letting ours being taken away.
|
On November 18 2014 23:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 23:06 oneofthem wrote:
governments, even the most benign ones, are still powerful and thats what defines them really. so no shit the nsa has power. they also are better cordoned than an executive arm like the cia.
Yeah, but maybe you don't know it, but our government's power are also limited by institutions : the vote, the constitution and its legal arms, the media, etc. It's at the basis of our political system. That's even the basis of democracy itself. Since the NSA is a new and shady institutions, it is not controlled (it's the opposite, since the NSA arguably destroyed political carreers of people who were trying to question their behaviors).
I wonder what your position is on the CIA in general, or any highly classified operation that is not (or should not) be well-known to anyone, including congressmen because of the fact that any leaks of relevant information could be highly damaging.
Would you say that, in general, because the CIA's covert operations aren't controlled to the same extent that the other branches of government are, then they should be eliminated? Is there no room for any type of classified operation at all? Because I imagine the only people who really have true oversight of those operations are going to be a handpicked, clandestine group of high-ranking officials, certainly not any reliable democratic control.
But then that is effectively what you have (in theory) with respect to the NSA, its merely transferred to the domain of online data collection of possible threats. I guess the whole thing is a big grey area to me and I don't see why one is so vilified while the other is seemingly ignored (probably because it gets no media coverage). Like you said the CIA was threatening Dr. King in the 60s.
I'm not entirely sure what type of data the NSA is truly collecting, but even if we assume the worst, to what extent does this actually play out in terms of the scenarios you are describing? Is there really a shadow group of people affiliated with the NSA who are blackmailing high-ranking politicians and journalists that they don't like into silence? And none of them speak out about it? It just seems like such an intrinsically dangerous thing for the government to start doing, because then people would speak out and the government would start to feel enormous pressure from the public.
So I guess I can see why it might be dangerous but I'm skeptical that these shadow plots will ever happen with a regular frequency. You would have to have a breakdown in the system in general (no journalism, no freedom of information, no justice) for them to get away with it. The US is nowhere close to that level of totalitarianism, so it seems like most of the extreme fears are misplaced.
So the real question is whether the occasional misuse by a poorly trained employee is worth the safety the system provides, which is a far less dramatic question. Unless you also want to consider 20-30 years down in the future, what if scenarios, like what if US does become totally totalitarian and this system ends up helping them? But that's a bit silly.
|
Seven of the 30 largest American corporations paid more money to their chief executive officers last year than they paid in U.S. federal income taxes, according to a study released Tuesday that was disputed by at least one of the companies.
The study, put out by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government, two think tanks in Washington, D.C., said the seven companies, which in 2013 reported more than $74 billion in combined U.S. pre-tax profits, came out ahead on their taxes, gaining $1.9 billion more than they owed.
At the same time, the CEOs at each of the seven companies last year was paid an average of $17.3 million, said the study.
The seven companies cited were Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford Motor Company, Verizon Communications, JPMorgan Chase and General Motors.
The report’s co-authors said its findings reflected "deep flaws in our corporate tax system."
In reply, Verizon said it paid $422 million in income taxes in 2013. "We do not provide a breakdown between federal vs. state in that total; however, I am confirming for you that the federal portion of that number is well more than Verizon's CEO's compensation," a spokesman said in an email.
Boeing said its 2013 global tax bill was $1.6 billion, though all but $5 million was deferred due to development and production investments. A spokesman said current tax expense and cash taxes were likely to rise as 787-jet deliveries ramp up.
Source
|
On November 19 2014 03:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Seven of the 30 largest American corporations paid more money to their chief executive officers last year than they paid in U.S. federal income taxes, according to a study released Tuesday that was disputed by at least one of the companies.
The study, put out by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government, two think tanks in Washington, D.C., said the seven companies, which in 2013 reported more than $74 billion in combined U.S. pre-tax profits, came out ahead on their taxes, gaining $1.9 billion more than they owed.
At the same time, the CEOs at each of the seven companies last year was paid an average of $17.3 million, said the study.
The seven companies cited were Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford Motor Company, Verizon Communications, JPMorgan Chase and General Motors.
The report’s co-authors said its findings reflected "deep flaws in our corporate tax system."
In reply, Verizon said it paid $422 million in income taxes in 2013. "We do not provide a breakdown between federal vs. state in that total; however, I am confirming for you that the federal portion of that number is well more than Verizon's CEO's compensation," a spokesman said in an email.
Boeing said its 2013 global tax bill was $1.6 billion, though all but $5 million was deferred due to development and production investments. A spokesman said current tax expense and cash taxes were likely to rise as 787-jet deliveries ramp up. Source
Why do these sort of liberals think it is necessary to use exotic and often flawed methodologies (as in the above) to demonstrate something (falling corporate tax rates) when a sound methodology would work just fine?
Example: + Show Spoiler + Posting effective tax rates is pretty simple, and tells a story on its own. ![[image loading]](http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters14/images/45-2-fig16.gif)
Is it a matter of click baiting? Like they make more money for being 'controversial'? Or are these groups unable to hire qualified staff?
Hrmm, their website has a donate button... bet they got a lot of attention from this...
|
On November 19 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 03:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Seven of the 30 largest American corporations paid more money to their chief executive officers last year than they paid in U.S. federal income taxes, according to a study released Tuesday that was disputed by at least one of the companies.
The study, put out by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government, two think tanks in Washington, D.C., said the seven companies, which in 2013 reported more than $74 billion in combined U.S. pre-tax profits, came out ahead on their taxes, gaining $1.9 billion more than they owed.
At the same time, the CEOs at each of the seven companies last year was paid an average of $17.3 million, said the study.
The seven companies cited were Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford Motor Company, Verizon Communications, JPMorgan Chase and General Motors.
The report’s co-authors said its findings reflected "deep flaws in our corporate tax system."
In reply, Verizon said it paid $422 million in income taxes in 2013. "We do not provide a breakdown between federal vs. state in that total; however, I am confirming for you that the federal portion of that number is well more than Verizon's CEO's compensation," a spokesman said in an email.
Boeing said its 2013 global tax bill was $1.6 billion, though all but $5 million was deferred due to development and production investments. A spokesman said current tax expense and cash taxes were likely to rise as 787-jet deliveries ramp up. Source Why do these sort of liberals think it is necessary to use exotic and often flawed methodologies (as in the above) to demonstrate something (falling corporate tax rates) when a sound methodology would work just fine? Example: + Show Spoiler + Posting effective tax rates is pretty simple, and tells a story on its own. Is it a matter of click baiting? Like they make more money for being 'controversial'? Or are these groups unable to hire qualified staff? Hrmm, their website has a donate button... bet they got a lot of attention from this...
Why do conservatives talk about freedom and free markets when they support neither of those things in theory or in practice?
|
On November 19 2014 04:56 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 19 2014 03:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Seven of the 30 largest American corporations paid more money to their chief executive officers last year than they paid in U.S. federal income taxes, according to a study released Tuesday that was disputed by at least one of the companies.
The study, put out by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government, two think tanks in Washington, D.C., said the seven companies, which in 2013 reported more than $74 billion in combined U.S. pre-tax profits, came out ahead on their taxes, gaining $1.9 billion more than they owed.
At the same time, the CEOs at each of the seven companies last year was paid an average of $17.3 million, said the study.
The seven companies cited were Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford Motor Company, Verizon Communications, JPMorgan Chase and General Motors.
The report’s co-authors said its findings reflected "deep flaws in our corporate tax system."
In reply, Verizon said it paid $422 million in income taxes in 2013. "We do not provide a breakdown between federal vs. state in that total; however, I am confirming for you that the federal portion of that number is well more than Verizon's CEO's compensation," a spokesman said in an email.
Boeing said its 2013 global tax bill was $1.6 billion, though all but $5 million was deferred due to development and production investments. A spokesman said current tax expense and cash taxes were likely to rise as 787-jet deliveries ramp up. Source Why do these sort of liberals think it is necessary to use exotic and often flawed methodologies (as in the above) to demonstrate something (falling corporate tax rates) when a sound methodology would work just fine? Example: + Show Spoiler + Posting effective tax rates is pretty simple, and tells a story on its own. Is it a matter of click baiting? Like they make more money for being 'controversial'? Or are these groups unable to hire qualified staff? Hrmm, their website has a donate button... bet they got a lot of attention from this... Why do conservatives talk about freedom and free markets when they support neither of those things in theory or in practice?
So because some conservatives lie you need to have liberals lie to somehow balance the books?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 19 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 03:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Seven of the 30 largest American corporations paid more money to their chief executive officers last year than they paid in U.S. federal income taxes, according to a study released Tuesday that was disputed by at least one of the companies.
The study, put out by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government, two think tanks in Washington, D.C., said the seven companies, which in 2013 reported more than $74 billion in combined U.S. pre-tax profits, came out ahead on their taxes, gaining $1.9 billion more than they owed.
At the same time, the CEOs at each of the seven companies last year was paid an average of $17.3 million, said the study.
The seven companies cited were Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford Motor Company, Verizon Communications, JPMorgan Chase and General Motors.
The report’s co-authors said its findings reflected "deep flaws in our corporate tax system."
In reply, Verizon said it paid $422 million in income taxes in 2013. "We do not provide a breakdown between federal vs. state in that total; however, I am confirming for you that the federal portion of that number is well more than Verizon's CEO's compensation," a spokesman said in an email.
Boeing said its 2013 global tax bill was $1.6 billion, though all but $5 million was deferred due to development and production investments. A spokesman said current tax expense and cash taxes were likely to rise as 787-jet deliveries ramp up. Source Why do these sort of liberals think it is necessary to use exotic and often flawed methodologies (as in the above) to demonstrate something (falling corporate tax rates) when a sound methodology would work just fine? Example: + Show Spoiler + Posting effective tax rates is pretty simple, and tells a story on its own. Is it a matter of click baiting? Like they make more money for being 'controversial'? Or are these groups unable to hire qualified staff? Hrmm, their website has a donate button... bet they got a lot of attention from this...
the focus on ceo compensation is not the best move agree, but it is more effective at motivating the public than drab, impersonal stats on cap gains tax and whatnot
|
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/rise-extreme-daycare-working-24-hour-children-school-93860/
Marisol, for instance, is raising the girls on her own, working at a supermarket from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. and at Home Depot from 6 to 10 p.m., six days a week. The girls are at the Hogans’ for both of her shifts, and she’s with them between 2:30 and 5:30 p.m. each day. “I worked one job 29 hours a week, so I got a second job, as I can’t afford to take care of my kids—I need more money to be surviving,” says Marisol, a slim young woman with glasses and pulled-back hair who came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was four. Marisol works 29 hours at each of her jobs. This is common. If an employee works more hours, her employer is required to provide health insurance. “With car payments coming up, I applied for Home Depot,” she says. “The Hogans are very open about my schedule and were willing to work with me.”
|
On November 19 2014 05:29 IgnE wrote:http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/rise-extreme-daycare-working-24-hour-children-school-93860/Show nested quote +Marisol, for instance, is raising the girls on her own, working at a supermarket from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. and at Home Depot from 6 to 10 p.m., six days a week. The girls are at the Hogans’ for both of her shifts, and she’s with them between 2:30 and 5:30 p.m. each day. “I worked one job 29 hours a week, so I got a second job, as I can’t afford to take care of my kids—I need more money to be surviving,” says Marisol, a slim young woman with glasses and pulled-back hair who came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was four. Marisol works 29 hours at each of her jobs. This is common. If an employee works more hours, her employer is required to provide health insurance. “With car payments coming up, I applied for Home Depot,” she says. “The Hogans are very open about my schedule and were willing to work with me.”
Pfft, obviously that's just a bunch of conservative lies 
|
On November 19 2014 05:13 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 19 2014 03:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Seven of the 30 largest American corporations paid more money to their chief executive officers last year than they paid in U.S. federal income taxes, according to a study released Tuesday that was disputed by at least one of the companies.
The study, put out by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government, two think tanks in Washington, D.C., said the seven companies, which in 2013 reported more than $74 billion in combined U.S. pre-tax profits, came out ahead on their taxes, gaining $1.9 billion more than they owed.
At the same time, the CEOs at each of the seven companies last year was paid an average of $17.3 million, said the study.
The seven companies cited were Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford Motor Company, Verizon Communications, JPMorgan Chase and General Motors.
The report’s co-authors said its findings reflected "deep flaws in our corporate tax system."
In reply, Verizon said it paid $422 million in income taxes in 2013. "We do not provide a breakdown between federal vs. state in that total; however, I am confirming for you that the federal portion of that number is well more than Verizon's CEO's compensation," a spokesman said in an email.
Boeing said its 2013 global tax bill was $1.6 billion, though all but $5 million was deferred due to development and production investments. A spokesman said current tax expense and cash taxes were likely to rise as 787-jet deliveries ramp up. Source Why do these sort of liberals think it is necessary to use exotic and often flawed methodologies (as in the above) to demonstrate something (falling corporate tax rates) when a sound methodology would work just fine? Example: + Show Spoiler + Posting effective tax rates is pretty simple, and tells a story on its own. Is it a matter of click baiting? Like they make more money for being 'controversial'? Or are these groups unable to hire qualified staff? Hrmm, their website has a donate button... bet they got a lot of attention from this... the focus on ceo compensation is not the best move agree, but it is more effective at motivating the public than drab, impersonal stats on cap gains tax and whatnot
It did help me realize that Buffet makes more in a day than 99%+ of people will make in a lifetime of hard work. Doesn't matter if they work as a dishwasher or a neuro-surgeon neither will likely make as much in their lifetimes as Buffet in a single good day.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well there's quite a difference between an investor like buffet and a CEO like tim cook or something.
|
On November 19 2014 06:45 oneofthem wrote:
well there's quite a difference between an investor like buffet and a CEO like tim cook or something.
Yeah doesn't really matter what you are doing, I don't think there are 'jobs' that warrant making more in a day than a brain surgeon makes in a lifetime.
Not sure the best way to fix it, but I would rather it be considered a flaw not a feature.
|
In an unrelated note: NORAD is tracking something unknown which is believed to have been launched by Russia.
|
United States44316 Posts
On November 19 2014 07:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In an unrelated note: NORAD is tracking something unknown which is believed to have been launched by Russia.
Historically speaking there's a good chance that it's the moon. It's happened before.
|
On November 19 2014 07:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In an unrelated note: NORAD is tracking something unknown which is believed to have been launched by Russia.
Santa's out early, that's all 
http://www.noradsanta.org/
|
HA! Keystone Pipeline fails to get 60 votes in the Senate!
|
On November 19 2014 09:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
HA! Keystone Pipeline fails to get 60 votes in the Senate!
Yep, and Barb lied her ass off to help make that happen:
Several Democrats spoke against the Keystone extension during a floor debate before this afternoon's vote.
"We're going to see higher gas prices because of this," said Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, predicting that oil from the Keystone project would be exported instead of being used to supply American markets.
Edit: Fixed
|
On November 19 2014 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 09:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
HA! Keystone Pipeline fails to get 60 votes in the Senate! Yep, and Pelosi lied her ass off to help make that happen: Show nested quote +Several Democrats spoke against the Keystone extension during a floor debate before this afternoon's vote.
"We're going to see higher gas prices because of this," said Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, predicting that oil from the Keystone project would be exported instead of being used to supply American markets.
I'm missing why you said Pelosi, then quoted Barbara Boxer?
EDIT: Was going to say what did the house have to do with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
