The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Shocker: GOPer Blocks Effort to Hold Oil Companies Accountable

Kulindahr said:
Just for the record, it's not a matter of "repayment", because it's being levied against all large banks, not just the ones who got bailed out.

That can't really be called "fair".
Click to expand...

All banks, directly or indirectly, benefited from the bailout. Failing mega-banks would have started a domino effect, crushing banks right down the line.
 
LonelyInVenice said:
All banks, directly or indirectly, benefited from the bailout. Failing mega-banks would have started a domino effect, crushing banks right down the line.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. There is absolutely no reason banks that did not take bailout money should have to pay a tax that is meant to punish the banks that did.
 
Kulindahr said:
Where's the vindictive part? The only flaw I find in that is it doesn't primarily target the misbehavers.
Click to expand...

The only reason it was proposed was because the president saw an opportunity to 'punish' the banks in the eyes of the public for having the audacity to pay bonuses to their executives. (regardless of what your opinion on that is, that IS the reason why it was proposed)

It is vindictive in that it punishes companies that either never took bailout money, or took bailout money and already repaid it in full, because of the risks they took in the past. It fits Obama's meme of blaming the entire crisis on the banking industry, and his (seemingly apparent) goal to punish them for it.
 
Droid800 said:
The only reason it was proposed was because the president saw an opportunity to 'punish' the banks in the eyes of the public for having the audacity to pay bonuses to their executives. (regardless of what your opinion on that is, that IS the reason why it was proposed)

It is vindictive in that it punishes companies that either never took bailout money, or took bailout money and already repaid it in full, because of the risks they took in the past. It fits Obama's meme of blaming the entire crisis on the banking industry, and his (seemingly apparent) goal to punish them for it.
Click to expand...

You Republicans think all taxes are vindictive and meant to punish.
 
palemale said:
You Republicans think all taxes are vindictive and meant to punish.
Click to expand...

I'm not a republican. ..|

And if there's a tax that's levied on people or corporations that have done nothing wrong (besides being in the industry they're in), yes, it is vindictive and it is meant to punish.
 
Droid800 said:
The effort has been blocked for now. What's interesting is that the President claims that its being blocked on a partisan basis, when there are democrats that oppose it as well.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37205691/ns/gulf_oil_spill/
Click to expand...

There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. The inane thing about it is that none of them can think up to the level of simple arithmetic: why does a cap have to be a number? why can't it be a formula? Like (for example) ten times their average annual revenue for the last five years?

Congress suffers greatly from not being smarter than a fifth grader.
 
Droid800 said:
I'm not a republican. ..|

And if there's a tax that's levied on people or corporations that have done nothing wrong (besides being in the industry they're in), yes, it is vindictive and it is meant to punish.
Click to expand...

Horse-poo. They're being taxed. So what? How are they being unfairly penalized? Where's the undue burden that would constitute a vindictive penalty? You haven't pointed that out yet. And how does this tax, in any way, relate to the original subject? Remember? We were talking about raising the cap for liability for companies involved in the oil spill. A tax on banks has no relationship, whatsoever. You've made no case to support your assertion that our government is prone to unfairly penalizing corporations. And even if you had, this tax has nothing to do with raising the liability cap.

Next!
 
Kulindahr said:
There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. The inane thing about it is that none of them can think up to the level of simple arithmetic: why does a cap have to be a number? why can't it be a formula? Like (for example) ten times their average annual revenue for the last five years?

Congress suffers greatly from not being smarter than a fifth grader.
Click to expand...

Why should there be any artificial "cap" on liability? If a company commits $100 BILLION in damages, they should be liable for $100 BILLION. They can't afford to pay it? They have to file bankruptcy, lose all assets and go out of business? Boo-hoo. As an investor you might be hurt? Try investing in companies that don't rape the planet or the public, then you won't have to worry about losing your investment over liability issues.

The molly-coddling of corporate America needs to end.
 
Well, Congress tried to lift the artificial and obscenely low cap on oil company liabilities. . . and, as the OP said, the GOP effectively has blocked it. Go figure. To top that, some in the GOP are lobbying for a taxpayer funded BAILOUT for BP!!! I say if we bail 'em out, we own 'em. . . and the assets get sold off to American companies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005333-503544.html
 
LonelyInVenice said:
Well, Congress tried to lift the artificial and obscenely low cap on oil company liabilities. . . and, as the OP said, the GOP effectively has blocked it. Go figure. To top that, some in the GOP are lobbying for a taxpayer funded BAILOUT for BP!!! I say if we bail 'em out, we own 'em. . . and the assets get sold off to American companies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005333-503544.html
Click to expand...

1) They didn't block the effort. They delayed it. If you'd read the article, you'd understand that.

2) Cite for your bailout contention.
 
LonelyInVenice said:
Horse-poo. They're being taxed. So what? How are they being unfairly penalized? Where's the undue burden that would constitute a vindictive penalty? You haven't pointed that out yet. And how does this tax, in any way, relate to the original subject? Remember? We were talking about raising the cap for liability for companies involved in the oil spill. A tax on banks has no relationship, whatsoever. You've made no case to support your assertion that our government is prone to unfairly penalizing corporations. And even if you had, this tax has nothing to do with raising the liability cap.

Next!
Click to expand...

Why should a bank that did nothing wrong pay a tax to repay bailout money they didn't take? THAT is vindictive and THAT is an undue burden. Those companies didn't take any money, so why should they have to pay it back? Can you tell me, or do you just have more poorly thought-out comments to spew?
 
LonelyInVenice said:
Why should there be any artificial "cap" on liability? If a company commits $100 BILLION in damages, they should be liable for $100 BILLION. They can't afford to pay it? They have to file bankruptcy, lose all assets and go out of business? Boo-hoo. As an investor you might be hurt? Try investing in companies that don't rape the planet or the public, then you won't have to worry about losing your investment over liability issues.
Click to expand...

If that's supposed to be a response to my post that you quoted, you should read the thread before typing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top