I quoted what was needed to illustrate the point I was making. If you want to pretend it’s not there, that’s your doing.
I think that’s a commentary on how silly your arguments have been in this thread. Do you know if you know of a corporate charter that refutes her research? Which one?
I’m glad you can skim Wikipedia and become an expert in an academic so quickly!
Is it your position that the Founding Fathers, for example, found that he human conscience had no relevance to them or their work?
Right-click and open in Incognito. It isn’t just for porn.
Thank you.
My 'Net and Browser ignorances are embarrassing. Right-clicking just now I see the only option I’ve ever selected other than ‘Open in New Tab’ is ‘Open in New Window’ and I’ve only clicked it by accident, aiming for ‘New Tab’ but missing! :smack:
There are at least two sides to every debate.
A ULCA professor says otherwise:
And this professor agrees that it is the law, but thinks the law should change.
One cannot cherry pick Lynn Stout’s views and declare them as factual.
Missed edit window.
I messed up the order of my C&P. To clarify, Professor Yosifon from the Santa Clara University School of Law agrees that it is the law, but that the law should be changed.
Lynn Stout is not the final arbiter.
… on a personal note, I do find it amusing that a poster named “D’Anconia” is arguing the merits of a looters bill which would be the envy of Wesley Mouch and Cuffy Meigs.
How is the tax bill in question a “looters bill”?
I have this same question. Like 80% of families are getting tax cuts.
If your main aim was to cut taxes on the middle class, is this the bill you would write?
I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure their main aim was to have an across-the-board tax cut.
Well “looters bill” is hardly a precisely defined concept, however, if you take $1000 out of a club treasury and distribute if by giving $900 to one person and $1 to each of 100 people, I could see someone saying you looted the treasury even though 100% of the members got something.
That’s not a board, that’s a wedge.
A tax cut, at any income level, is NOT “looting the Treasury”. It’s the taxpayers’ money in the first goddamn place.
And you didn’t even loot the treasury, you “looted the future” by borrowing $1.5T dollars. Borrowed money to mostly reduce the taxes of the very wealthy.
Trump’s economic advisor said: ““Any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.” That is the opposite of an ATB tax cut. And even so, the benefits of the bill are clearly tilted to the wealthy.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/12/07/donald-trump-middle-class-tax
Would you support a bill that cuts all taxes by 50%, knowing that it would grow the deficit by about $15 trillion?
Even accepting that, you would have to admit this bill is grossly irresponsible, even worse when a “fiscally responsible” party passes it.
It’s like you opening up a credit card in your child’s name, before they have any say on the matter, to invest in the Moller Skycar because THIS time you think you will make bank on your investment. You know it hasn’t worked for the past 40 years, but by golly, it’s just needs a little more money invested. This tax bill is no different. It’s completely irresponsible.
It is robbery, and not from the tax payer like you seem to imply, but from our future. It’s debt and interest we will have to pay from here on out for no purpose other than to further enrich the rich.
Congress could cut spending, even if they have to change Senate/House rules and even laws. They just won’t. This applies to both parties.
So, yes, you would buy a pig in a poke so long as it is labeled “tax cuts?”
No, and please don’t attribute things to me I haven’t said.
Both taxes and spending should be cut.