Corporations paid no income tax because...they had no income. That is why they call it an income tax.

__________________
Obama The Naive: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’’ The Iranian response? “The Great Satan now has a black face.’’

what does that have to do with the guy making 250 ?
Nothing.

Nothing like a little hyperbole is there ?

Corporations had no income cause people stopped buying, people stopped buying cause their jobs were outsourced more and more.

As for energy you got a lot about oil down, suppose you tell us what happened to the reserch money that was given to oil companies during a record profit year???

Perhaps you should actually read the article I posted:

"Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4342535.shtml

This appears to be a tacit admission that you, too, do not appreciate the difference between four-and a half percent and four-and-a half percentage points.

An increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (the previous top marginal rate) is actually an increase of 13.1-plus percent.

If you truly believe that an increase of more than 13.1 percent upon high earners is justified, then please feel free to say so. But it is really not quite candid to refer to it as a mere "4-1/2%" increase. It is almost three times that.

And your apparent implication one must be deeply opposed to America's high earners in order to be supportive of "the American worker" smacks of class warfare.

First, I am not really comfortable with the implication that any couple with a household income of greater than $250,000 per year is "rich"--especially in California, New York, DC, or other communities with a very high cost of living.

Moreover, I do not have much use for the politics of envy; and the sentiment you have just expressed, in this regard, seems to be grounded in exactly that.

Sadly, some who express almost Jacobin sentiments appear far less animated by any desire to help the middle class (or even the working class) than they are by the desire to punish the wealthy, as some sort of emotionally satisfying end in itself.

At what point did you stop reading what I actually said?

As I further noted in the post to which you are alluding, the alternative is that American corporations will "reduce employment opportunities; or reduce the number of hours worked by wage-per-hour employees; or some combination thereof."

Do you consider these to be happy outcomes?

I read it, and what changed? You do realize that sales do not equal profits do you not? Or that S Corps pay taxes through the owners personal taxes? Apparently the two dem cranks who waisted the taxpayers money on this study do not. Amazing some of the things the dems fall for.

__________________
Obama The Naive: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’’ The Iranian response? “The Great Satan now has a black face.’’

You'll be long dead before corporations run out of loopholes. Their Republican and Democratic politicians in Washington will see to that.

There won't be a laugh because the stats will change insignificantly even if this alleged loophole was closed. The number would still be well over half. That's because the facts don't take into consideration dem hacks (these politicians) who have no idea what they're talking about. The formula is very simple, no income equals no tax.

__________________
Obama The Naive: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’’ The Iranian response? “The Great Satan now has a black face.’’