TakeYouToTasker

That's demonstrably untrue. Trump has incredible difficulty winning closed primaries, where only registered Republicans can vote. He's winning all the open primaries where he's being carried by independents and cross-over Democrats.

The personnel trend, both staff and player.

The costs through the VA are subsidized by higher costs outside the VA.

Because of the trend.

Dust off your paper bags, folks.

It's an addiction

That's hilarious.

You know exactly who Dunbar is. He's the coach with vitiligo, which causes issues with pigmentation. WGR has picked up the story as well, but doesn't seem to have any source other than Martin.

Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. It's illegal at the federal level. That's why it's a banned substance. And that's addiction.

Gary Johnson wasn't allowed into the 2012 debate because it didn't benefit the people hosting the debate.

Then don't use the internet. Seriously.

!@#$ you, you steaming pile of dog ****. You have no answers and no arguments, so you lay unfounded charges of racism as a substitute. You're a person of low character, a liar, and an ideological hack. If not for the fact that your head and neck can support the weight of a hat, you would be completely useless. Now bugger off.

You could have gone with Obama.

OK, I'll dole out some rare love for the Swift reference.

This is a fantastic **** pretzel.

No, it shouldn't. However, the reality is that political influence is a valuable commodity, and as long as the government is empowered to conduct policy generally as it sees fit in a way that has very little restraints, that influence will always be purchased. The way to eliminate this is to drastically reduce the scope of what the government is permitted to do, which dries up the commodity. With nothing to purchase there, money will exit politics. Conversely, what "campaign finance reforms" accomplish is to shut out the ability of certain groups that liberals don't like to engage in free political speech. All they want to do is make it so opposition voices are excluded from the conversation.

The system is not broken. Speech is speech. What you are attempting to do is censor political speech that you don't agree with. There is no other way of looking at it. Saying that "the system is broken" is a lie. You have the same rights as anyone else, your only objection is that you don't like what they have to say, so you're trying to shut them out of the conversation. It's no different than the garbage happening on American college campuses today.

So you don't believe in the importance of Free Speech? I know it's popular on the American left to chant that money isn't speech, but in reality, it represents the most important kind of speech in a free society. Political speech. No one would ever try to argue that holding a sign on the State House lawn isn't protected speech. Likewise you can't argue that an add in a news paper, or writing a book, or publishing an OpEd or magazine article, or taking our a TV add, or creating a social media post isn't protected speech. They are all mediums for speech, and should be protected. The thing is, each medium of speech has different costs associated with it; and just because one member of society may lack the means to utilize a type of speech another person can does not mean the second person should be disallowed from doing so. Both people are equally free to use whatever medium they want to speak in, but the inability of you to afford to run multi-million dollar ads during the Super Bowl doesn't somehow mitigate the rights of someone who can afford to do so. Money is speech. Now, can this be problematic? Sure. However the alternative: a system in which the government is empowered to censor, obstruct, or make illegal political speech, is a far worse situation.

It's part of the cost of production in a line item. It is absolutely passed on to the consumer. Money not earned in America, that never enters America, should be taxed in America because why exactly? It will flow into both, and both are good for the middle and working class. What do you think 401k dollars are invested in?

For new dollars generated going forward, absolutely. I'm speaking more to the dollars currently offshored. Create an amnesty window of 6 months, opening one year from the announcement date in order to allow for corporate planning. During that window allow those dollars to come into the domestic economy tax free. Once the window closes, I agree that the rates should be the same for both for exactly the reason you stated.

I left that out because I was only speaking to a flat corporate tax rate of 16%. I'm not sure what the plan would be for the repatriation of those offshored dollars. If it were me, I'd propose an amnesty on those dollars to allow them to flow freely back into the domestic economy.

...

Corporate taxation is nothing more than a line item cost of production to a business. That cost is passed along to the consumer in the price of goods and services. Lowering the corporate tax does two things for the economy which benefit the middle, working, and lower classes: 1. It puts downward pressure on prices, which makes the consumer dollar go further. 2. It makes the expatriation of corporate dollars less advantageous, and keeps those dollars in the domestic economy.

Trump is a liberal, so why wouldn't his supporters be liberals?

A "flat tax" is not a regressive tax, it's a progressive tax. With a flat tax of, say, 20% someone earning $50,000 would pay $10,000, while someone earning $1,000,000 would pay $200,000. A fixed fee tax, where everyone was assessed the same amount, say $10,000 regardless of earnings would actually be a flat tax. A regressive tax is a tax where individuals earning less would pay a higher dollar figure in taxes than someone earning more.