Thread: Google's effective Tax Rate 2.4% - Gotta luv the US Tax Code :( not so much

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Listen, I've made one point, that businesses hire you based on the assumption that they'll profit off of your hire. You, on the other hand, have vacillated between saying that they hire people despite expected losses, and claiming that you've been saying that you agree with me. I asked you for an example of a company hiring someone knowing that they'll lose money. When you finally gave me an example to that question (as opposed to Switch Operator, which ddidn't address the "would hire" part of the question), you've refused to discuss how they are examples. Namely, would the repercussions of not having these people cost less than having them, and if so, why are companies hiring them?

No sir we are done with this. Not even going to read it.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

So in 2007-2008 the US already had Universal health care?

Sadly, it still doesn't........

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

So in 2007-2008 the US already had Universal health care?

What is your point? We had health care prior to him. He wasn't the first one to think of universal health care for this nation. He didnt get signed what he said was going to be health care. Instead he pushed a piece of shit thru just to make his mark in the history books. Your question would be the same as asking what ford thought when he designed and produced the first car. Both are equally incorrect.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

My point is you said, Obama didn't run on Universal Health Care, he ran on change. But if we didn't have Universal Health Care before 2007-2008, then Universal Health Care would be considered change from the current system. I never said he made due on that promise, but it would actually still be running on change.

I meant the main stay of his platform was change. I agree with you on everything else.