Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[boedicca]

Hmmmm.....

I'm not sure what your point is here....

Yes, Al Gore is rich. He invested well. Why do you hate rich people?[/QUOTE]


The issue is that Al Gore wishes to "transform" our economy so that others do not have the same opportunities to improve their lots in life that he has enjoyed.

(There is also the aspect that much of his wealth accumulation has been do to political cronyism, not productive work.)

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't hate people for what they have or don't have Doc. That's a pretty big leap, even for you Doc. I don't even hate Al, Google, or Exxon. I think Al's greatest moment was kissing his wife on SNL. I advertise with Google, I buy Exxon gas. I would like to see the Fed's treat Exxon as good as they do Google. What part do you think the drilling moratorium played in the recession over the last 30 years, Stevie Wonder?

I do support fair taxation, loose the hidden fee's and surcharges, lose the preferential treatment, in relation to Government regulation.

You might want to consider healing humans rather than manipulating response. Get it ... Got it... Good. Think Malpractice.

First of all, it was a joke. It's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.

Second, what was your point in posting how much money Al Gore has? What did that have to do with the fact that Exxon didn't pay taxes in 2009?

And I feel that the drilling moratorium had NO part to play in the recession - the recession started from bad business practices on Wall Street - and there is no "shortage" of oil - it's an artificial shortage. If drilling had been opened up back when gas was $4 a gallon, it wouldn't have lowered gas prices.

LOL!!!

Wow Doc! I sure missed that joke!




Damn near spit up my beer all over the key pad and wet my pants!!! You should be on TV man!!!

Wow! Acording to You, I hate rich people, I have no sense of humor, that's 0 for 2. Want to try for 3? What is your kill count on misdiagnoses man? Now thats funny

The blockade on energy development and resources is the root of why we can't compete brother. That and the fact that we cannot compete with slave labor around the world and refuse to do anything about it. You throw stones at wall street, yet they are a product of bad management, both in the State, the Culture, and the private industry.

You jump on wall street, yet are silent on Andrew Cuomo, Fannie, Freddie, Franks, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, to name a few. House of cards. Built on other peoples money. Buy, Buy, Buy, raise those property taxes and interest. How does credit card interest compare to savings or investment interest. Talk about a smoking gun. Who makes the rules? Who sets the terms. We were close to $4.50 a gallon in NYC, thats when the change hit Doc, the straw that broke the camel's back. Your team wiped out disposable income, pretty much for everyone but Government and Union workers. Systematically prices are raised, packaging becomes smaller, less value for the bang across the board, comrade. Good plan for the select few.

My team?

Now what team would that be?

 

[Rick]

the rich benefit most from everything

 

[Barb]

When did any of them ask for all that "benevolent patronage" of Big Daddy Big Gubmint?

Dude, seriously? Corporate lobbyists are just like Santa clause, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy? Who knew?

Who is signing the checks of the people signing those checks Barb? Go ahead and ring the door bell. When Anderson Cooper answers, ask him. Search out the names on those Corporate boards Barb. Study the who, why, how, when, and where. Who is related to who.

I took two undergraduate courses dealing with wealth and power in America, tense, and I'm pretty well versed on the incestuous nature of boards, trusts, and bureaucracies. What's your point?

 

[Gadawg73]

Who wrote the Tax Laws? Who is the authority behind what is being done? If these companies are in compliance with tax law, the problem isn't the companies but the law makers.



HOUSTON -- As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.





Yahoo! BuzzAvoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

In Pictures: What The 25 Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

How did this happen? It's complicated. GE's tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year--some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.

Inside you'll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else--maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like--would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company.


Read All Comments (27)Post a CommentIt's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital's equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch.

But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.

Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software.

As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft's ( MSFT - news - people ) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates).

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com



"Corporations are paying lower amounts of their profits in taxes now than in the past," says Douglas Shackelford, who teaches tax law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Other countries have been lowering their rates, but not the U.S."

Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP - news - people ) likewise recorded similarly high effective tax rates. The oil companies are oddities among the multinationals because many of the oil-rich countries where they do business levy even higher taxes than the U.S.



Yahoo! BuzzExxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."

Naturally the Obama administration wants to put an end to this. It has proposed doing away with tax deferrals on overseas income. If the plan passes, a U.S. company that pays a 25% tax on profits in China would have to pay an additional 10% income tax to Uncle Sam to bring it up to the 35% corporate rate. "Eliminating deferrals would put U.S. companies on an unlevel playing field," says the Tax Foundation's Hodge, "especially if competing with the likes of Germany, which only taxes companies on domestic operations."

Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ - news - people ) and others among the top 25 state in their annual reports that if Obama's tax measures pass it would mean a certain tax hike, probably amounting to billions of dollars.


Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. "The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes," says Hodge, "because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments."

In the same vein, JPMorgan Chase ( JPM - news - people ) Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has spoken out against an Obama proposal to levy a special tax on banks to recoup bailout costs. "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," said Dimon. "All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers."

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com

Corporations never pay taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. People own corporations.
A corporation is an entity that the stock holders own.
When a corporation pays a low tax that is a very good thing.

 

[edthecynic]

What part do you think the drilling moratorium played in the recession over the last 30 years, Stevie Wonder?

And I feel that the drilling moratorium had NO part to play in the recession - the recession started from bad business practices on Wall Street - and there is no "shortage" of oil - it's an artificial shortage. If drilling had been opened up back when gas was $4 a gallon, it wouldn't have lowered gas prices.

The blockade on energy development and resources is the root of why we can't compete brother.

The "blockade" is the oil companies capping the oil they find in the US. Whether in Alaska or the Gulf, as soon as they drill and come up with oil they cap the well and never bring the oil to market to artificially inflate the price. That is why when they asked for more leases from the government to search for oil because they said there was no oil on the old leased land and they were told they could have new leases if they returned the old, THEY REFUSED.

There is plenty of oil in the US from wells already dug and proven that simply has to be uncapped to bring to market.

 

[Intense]

First of all, it was a joke. It's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.

Second, what was your point in posting how much money Al Gore has? What did that have to do with the fact that Exxon didn't pay taxes in 2009?

And I feel that the drilling moratorium had NO part to play in the recession - the recession started from bad business practices on Wall Street - and there is no "shortage" of oil - it's an artificial shortage. If drilling had been opened up back when gas was $4 a gallon, it wouldn't have lowered gas prices.

LOL!!!

Wow Doc! I sure missed that joke!




Damn near spit up my beer all over the key pad and wet my pants!!! You should be on TV man!!!

Wow! Acording to You, I hate rich people, I have no sense of humor, that's 0 for 2. Want to try for 3? What is your kill count on misdiagnoses man? Now thats funny

The blockade on energy development and resources is the root of why we can't compete brother. That and the fact that we cannot compete with slave labor around the world and refuse to do anything about it. You throw stones at wall street, yet they are a product of bad management, both in the State, the Culture, and the private industry.

You jump on wall street, yet are silent on Andrew Cuomo, Fannie, Freddie, Franks, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, to name a few. House of cards. Built on other peoples money. Buy, Buy, Buy, raise those property taxes and interest. How does credit card interest compare to savings or investment interest. Talk about a smoking gun. Who makes the rules? Who sets the terms. We were close to $4.50 a gallon in NYC, thats when the change hit Doc, the straw that broke the camel's back. Your team wiped out disposable income, pretty much for everyone but Government and Union workers. Systematically prices are raised, packaging becomes smaller, less value for the bang across the board, comrade. Good plan for the select few.

My team?

Now what team would that be?

Progressives. Statists.

 

[Intense]

Dude, seriously? Corporate lobbyists are just like Santa clause, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy? Who knew?

Who is signing the checks of the people signing those checks Barb? Go ahead and ring the door bell. When Anderson Cooper answers, ask him. Search out the names on those Corporate boards Barb. Study the who, why, how, when, and where. Who is related to who.

I took two undergraduate courses dealing with wealth and power in America, tense, and I'm pretty well versed on the incestuous nature of boards, trusts, and bureaucracies. What's your point?

Blood Lines, Bar, and their relationship with big government, and their part in the Oligarchy.

 

[edthecynic]

LOL!!!

Wow Doc! I sure missed that joke!




Damn near spit up my beer all over the key pad and wet my pants!!! You should be on TV man!!!

Wow! Acording to You, I hate rich people, I have no sense of humor, that's 0 for 2. Want to try for 3? What is your kill count on misdiagnoses man? Now thats funny

The blockade on energy development and resources is the root of why we can't compete brother. That and the fact that we cannot compete with slave labor around the world and refuse to do anything about it. You throw stones at wall street, yet they are a product of bad management, both in the State, the Culture, and the private industry.

You jump on wall street, yet are silent on Andrew Cuomo, Fannie, Freddie, Franks, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, to name a few. House of cards. Built on other peoples money. Buy, Buy, Buy, raise those property taxes and interest. How does credit card interest compare to savings or investment interest. Talk about a smoking gun. Who makes the rules? Who sets the terms. We were close to $4.50 a gallon in NYC, thats when the change hit Doc, the straw that broke the camel's back. Your team wiped out disposable income, pretty much for everyone but Government and Union workers. Systematically prices are raised, packaging becomes smaller, less value for the bang across the board, comrade. Good plan for the select few.

My team?

Now what team would that be?

Progressives. Statists.

As opposed to Regressives. Hateists.

 

[Intense]

Texas Oil Firms Oppose California Climate LawBy JOHN M. BRODER and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: April 7, 2010
.
The Valero Energy Corporation, a San Antonio-based company that is one of the nation’s largest independent oil refiners and retailers, has contributed $500,000 to a ballot initiative that would halt the carrying out of the California climate law known as Assembly Bill 32, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed in 2006. At least one other Texas oil company, Tesoro, with operations in California and a prominent antitax group are helping to finance the petition drive to place the initiative on the November general election ballot.

The California law, the first of its kind in the nation, is intended to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases by 15 percent below current levels by 2020 through a variety of means, including a regional cap-and-trade system. The bill also calls for greater efficiencies in buildings and transportation, more use of renewable sources of energy and greater reliance on clean-burning fuels. These are all major elements of climate change proposals now being discussed in Washington.

The fine points of the California plan, including the critical questions of how emissions permits would be allocated and how any revenues would be distributed, are still being worked out.

The ballot initiative would prevent the law’s taking effect until unemployment in California falls to 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. The state’s current unemployment rate is 12.5 percent. The average statewide unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.9 percent.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has said he considers the climate change law one of the signal achievements of his administration and wants to see it put in place. He said recently he believed the petition drive was fueled by the “greed” of out-of-state energy companies.

“I think that the California people are outraged about the fact that Texas oil companies, Texas oil companies, are coming to California and trying to change laws and policies in California,” he said at a green technology exhibition in Sacramento last month. “I mean, it’s outrageous.”

But the governor has also expressed concern that the new law, scheduled to take effect in 2012, not harm the state’s crippled economy and cause additional job losses.

The California Jobs Initiative, the group collecting petition signatures to upend the California law, has raised just under $1 million, according to a spokeswoman for the group. Most of the money came from oil companies, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, founded by the father of California’s antitax movement, contributed $100,000.

A Valero spokesman, Bill Day, said costs would rise at the company’s two large refineries in California under the new emissions law because refineries use a lot of electricity and natural gas to heat and refine crude oil. Electricity prices would go up under the law, he said, and the consumption of natural gas produces carbon emissions that would be penalized under the legislation.

“Like the national cap-and-trade legislation, it does nothing at all to alleviate the problem of climate change, but it would have tremendously bad impacts on the California economy,” Mr. Day said. “This is exactly the wrong time to be implementing a cap and trade program that will further hurt consumers and cause more job loses. We are supporting a measure that would give California voters the chance to express their opinion on whether this legislation should be implemented now.”

Valero has also been active in opposing federal cap-and-trade regulations. In response to the climate bill passed by the House last June, Valero organized a “Voices for Energy” campaign against the bill and placed signs at its gas stations around the country depicting Uncle Sam warning drivers that the legislation would increase gasoline prices.

Steven Maviglio, spokesman for Californians for Clean Energy & Jobs, an alliance supporting the climate bill, said he had little doubt the organizers of the initiative would collect the required 434,000 signatures by mid-April to win a spot on the November ballot. He said his organization, representing technology firms, environmental advocates and public health groups, had raised nearly $1 million to defend the law. But he said both sides in the fight would probably raise tens of millions of dollars for what he called an environmental “battle royal” in the fall.

“Valero has been very outspoken on the national level against climate change regulation,” said Mr. Maviglio, who served as spokesman for Gray Davis, the Democratic governor whom Mr. Schwarzenegger succeeded in a lively recall election in 2003. “This is a strategic effort by the oil companies to try to unravel this law before it spreads throughout the country. The theory is if they can kill it here, they can kill it everywhere.”

There are already signs of economic and political unease in state capitals about climate change legislation. Arizona announced this year that it was pulling out of an embryonic regional greenhouse gas emissions trading group, and more than a dozen state attorneys general have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate global warming gases.


John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.
Texas Oil Companies Oppose California Climate Change Law - NYTimes.com

 

[Intense]

And I feel that the drilling moratorium had NO part to play in the recession - the recession started from bad business practices on Wall Street - and there is no "shortage" of oil - it's an artificial shortage. If drilling had been opened up back when gas was $4 a gallon, it wouldn't have lowered gas prices.

The blockade on energy development and resources is the root of why we can't compete brother.

The "blockade" is the oil companies capping the oil they find in the US. Whether in Alaska or the Gulf, as soon as they drill and come up with oil they cap the well and never bring the oil to market to artificially inflate the price. That is why when they asked for more leases from the government to search for oil because they said there was no oil on the old leased land and they were told they could have new leases if they returned the old, THEY REFUSED.

There is plenty of oil in the US from wells already dug and proven that simply has to be uncapped to bring to market.

Good argument. Both sides need to be brought to light so the truths and the exaggerations are revealed for what they are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

LOL!!!

Wow Doc! I sure missed that joke!




Damn near spit up my beer all over the key pad and wet my pants!!! You should be on TV man!!!

Wow! Acording to You, I hate rich people, I have no sense of humor, that's 0 for 2. Want to try for 3? What is your kill count on misdiagnoses man? Now thats funny

The blockade on energy development and resources is the root of why we can't compete brother. That and the fact that we cannot compete with slave labor around the world and refuse to do anything about it. You throw stones at wall street, yet they are a product of bad management, both in the State, the Culture, and the private industry.

You jump on wall street, yet are silent on Andrew Cuomo, Fannie, Freddie, Franks, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, to name a few. House of cards. Built on other peoples money. Buy, Buy, Buy, raise those property taxes and interest. How does credit card interest compare to savings or investment interest. Talk about a smoking gun. Who makes the rules? Who sets the terms. We were close to $4.50 a gallon in NYC, thats when the change hit Doc, the straw that broke the camel's back. Your team wiped out disposable income, pretty much for everyone but Government and Union workers. Systematically prices are raised, packaging becomes smaller, less value for the bang across the board, comrade. Good plan for the select few.

My team?

Now what team would that be?

Progressives. Statists.

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Glad we cleared that up....

 

[Foxfyre]

There are already signs of economic and political unease in state capitals about climate change legislation. Arizona announced this year that it was pulling out of an embryonic regional greenhouse gas emissions trading group, and more than a dozen state attorneys general have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate global warming gases.


John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.
Texas Oil Companies Oppose California Climate Change Law - NYTimes.com

In my opinion, this is highly pertinent to the thread title because Cap & Trade, and its equally ambiguous lesser applications in some of the states, is targeted at the more affluent entities and will almost certainly be a job destroyer and will hurt the less aflluent the most.

And yet except for the Tea Partiers, Tax Protesters, and 9/12ers and similar groups, none of which are strongly focusing on this kind of madness, the American people seem to be just meekly submitting as they did on the healthcare overhaul.

I noted a "Maxine" cartoon recently expressing the following:

Back in 1990, the Government seized the legal Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting the economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry, our healthcare, and possibly control of all energy resources to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey?!

What the Hell are we thinking?

 

[Intense]

My team?

Now what team would that be?

Progressives. Statists.

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Glad we cleared that up....

Okay...

In fairness what is your position in Unalienable Rights?

What is your position on fairness and justice when it relates to the individual V.S. the State?

What is your position on Private Property?

What is your position on enumerated Powers?

What is your position on Due Process, on the rule of law?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Progressives. Statists.

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Glad we cleared that up....

Okay...

In fairness what is your position in Unalienable Rights?

That they're unalienable, I guess. You're going to have be a little more specific, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

What is your position on fairness and justice when it relates to the individual V.S. the State?

Still don't know what you're asking here.

What is your position on Private Property?

Still not sure what you're saying. Are you asking if I believe in private property rights? Yes.

What is your position on enumerated Powers?

Am I a strict Constitutionalist? No - the Constitution was written in a different era, and I believe in a liberal interpretation of enumerated powers. But I am very distrustful of government in most situations, I strongly believe in the enumerated restrictions of the government (the Bill of Rights).

What is your position on Due Process, on the rule of law?

Still don't understand your question.

But I would rather see a hundred guilty people get set free than see one innocent man go to prison.

 

[Intense]

Intense: In fairness what is your position in Unalienable Rights?

Doc: That they're unalienable, I guess. You're going to have be a little more specific, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Intense: There are Rights between each individual and our maker that are beyond the jurisdiction of society or state. A just society realizes that. See the Declaration Of Independence.The Statist, the Progressive, denies this.


Intense: What is your position on fairness and justice when it relates to the individual V.S. the State?

Doc: Still don't know what you're asking here.

Intense: Which takes precedence, convenience? Expedience? Self Interest? the truth of the matter?



Intense : What is your position on Private Property?

Doc: Still not sure what you're saying. Are you asking if I believe in private property rights? Yes.

Yes. Even to the extent that Government needs to show justification, cause, and due process, before confiscation. Eminent Domain strictly limited.



Intense: What is your position on enumerated Powers?

Doc: Am I a strict Constitutionalist? No - the Constitution was written in a different era, and I believe in a liberal interpretation of enumerated powers. But I am very distrustful of government in most situations, I strongly believe in the enumerated restrictions of the government (the Bill of Rights).


Intense: You should study the Federalist Papers deeper. The Constitution is a legal document subject to change through the amendment process. Judicial Interpretation is limited to clarification of original intent, not manufacture. You are just in being distrustful of totalitarian ends. Ideals chance very little over time. The mechanism or vehicle may change through discovery, realization, invention, not the Principle. Let's not confuse purpose with the means constructed to serve it.

Federalist Papers




Intense: What is your position on Due Process, on the rule of law?

Doc: Still don't understand your question.

Intense: These, in our case are the rules allowed by the consent of the governed, as a whole, for the betterment of society. They should be guarded vigilantly, from both abusing the innocent, and being undermined by selfish intent from any power, state or private interest. That includes, in part, both corporate and government abuse. Understanding precedence is part of the equation.

Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, all put Conscience first. That is a strong foundation. It separates each of us from pack mentality. Just a thought.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Intense: In fairness what is your position in Unalienable Rights?

Doc: That they're unalienable, I guess. You're going to have be a little more specific, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Intense: There are Rights between each individual and our maker that are beyond the jurisdiction of society or state. A just society realizes that. See the Declaration Of Independence.The Statist, the Progressive, denies this.

I don't believe in a "maker". But to me "rights" is just a word that governments use to infringe on the free will of the individual. "Rights" imply that those enumerated rights are all we've got - I'll go so far as to say that I have the ability to do whatever I want, whether or not government allows it - with the understanding that I will face whatever consequences come from my actions.

Intense: What is your position on fairness and justice when it relates to the individual V.S. the State?

Doc: Still don't know what you're asking here.

Intense: Which takes precedence, convenience? Expedience? Self Interest? the truth of the matter?

Fairness to the individual. The "truth of the matter", I guess.

Intense : What is your position on Private Property?

Doc: Still not sure what you're saying. Are you asking if I believe in private property rights? Yes.

Yes. Even to the extent that Government needs to show justification, cause, and due process, before confiscation. Eminent Domain strictly limited.

Then we agree on this.

Intense: What is your position on enumerated Powers?

Doc: Am I a strict Constitutionalist? No - the Constitution was written in a different era, and I believe in a liberal interpretation of enumerated powers. But I am very distrustful of government in most situations, I strongly believe in the enumerated restrictions of the government (the Bill of Rights).


Intense: You should study the Federalist Papers deeper. The Constitution is a legal document subject to change through the amendment process. Judicial Interpretation is limited to clarification of original intent, not manufacture. You are just in being distrustful of totalitarian ends. Ideals chance very little over time. The mechanism or vehicle may change through discovery, realization, invention, not the Principle. Let's not confuse purpose with the means constructed to serve it.

Federalist Papers

I feel that divining the founder's "intent" is based on opinion - specifically the opinion of the court at the time. The root of our disagreement on this issue comes from different opinions of what the founder's "intent" was.

Intense: What is your position on Due Process, on the rule of law?

Doc: Still don't understand your question.

Intense: These, in our case are the rules allowed by the consent of the governed, as a whole, for the betterment of society. They should be guarded vigilantly, from both abusing the innocent, and being undermined by selfish intent from any power, state or private interest. That includes, in part, both corporate and government abuse. Understanding precedence is part of the equation.

I agree with this as well.

Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, all put Conscience first. That is a strong foundation. It separates each of us from pack mentality. Just a thought.

This really does cut to the root of it. My major problem with websites like this is the overwhelming compulsion to lump anyone who disagree with me into a catagory - this is a symptom of both the right and the left.

The truth of the matter is infinitely more complicated than that - I may fall on the left on many questions, but that doesn't mean that I agree with, say rdean, on everything. In fact, I'm sure that you and I have as many views in common as I do with the average liberal poster on this board.

Reality is much more complicated than left/right.

 

[Gunny]

They make the most money, have the biggest share in the wealth, and pay the most taxes. But don't they also benefit the most from what the tax money goes towards?

They benefit from an educated and skilled workforce that help their companies flourish. THey benefit from roads and strong infrastructure to move their product and assist in their business, which allowed them to . THey benefit from the US military and police force to protect their assets and provide a relatively safe and stable country to have their business flourish. THey may even have benefitted from student loan programs getting them their education in the first place. Many benefit from new scientific discoveries funded by government research grants which helped them discover an innovative new technology based on those discoveries. They benefit from legislation and justice system that protects their innovative products from patent infringement. I'm sure there are plenty more.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Total asshattery.....

 

[Intense]

My team?

Now what team would that be?

Progressives. Statists.

As opposed to Regressives. Hateists.

Progressive and Statist are not derogatory. They describe an Ideal I don't subscribe to. They are not insulting.

Conservatism is not based on regression, but original intent, there are actions that find harmony with original intent and there are constructions that are incompatible with original intent.

Hateists? Where do you even get that? Seems like Negative Profiling, to me Edth. A bit left wing extremist. Who are you trying to fire up?