What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Corporate America Squealing At Welfare Cuts

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
r-PIGS-huge.jpg


Big Business, GOP Complain That Health Reform Slashes Corporate Welfare

The Republican Party and major corporations have joined forces in the first major rearguard attack on health care reform, charging that the cost of complying with "Obamacare" is resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in added business expenses.

The crime that reform is guilty of: Slashing corporate welfare.

Under the previous system, major corporations were subsidized by the government to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. At the same time, corporations could claim on their tax returns that it was they -- not the taxpayers -- who paid for the drug coverage, and could write the expense off as a tax deduction.

Health care reform cuts out that fat. The corporations still get taxpayer money to help pay for their drug coverage, but they can no longer continue the fiction that they're using their own money to do it.

Being forced to operate on a diet of leaner corporate welfare benefits will make U.S. companies less able to compete, Republicans argue. Removing the benefit will also force large corporations to compete on a level -- or at least closer to level -- playing field with small businesses, who don't get the subsidy. The charge-offs play into the line that Republicans are pushing -- namely that health care reform is a "job killer."

More...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,145
Points
1,830

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Seems like not any more threads on this than on protestors bothering Rove.
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,897
Reaction score
9,724
Points
2,030
Bgfrn, in your ignorance you are uninformed about companies with public stackholders being required to report any major change in financial situations or tax changes. These companies and shortly, many others will be releasing similiar statements. They are following the law.

Congress made the welfare program (medicare support and tax break). I for one have no problem with that program coming to an end. I also have no problem with corporations dropping the benefit. Congress, it seems is the one crying foul. This is what happens when you don't read the bill before it passes and you are making backroom deals to pass crap legislation.
 
OP
Bfgrn

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
Bgfrn, in your ignorance you are uninformed about companies with public stackholders being required to report any major change in financial situations or tax changes. These companies and shortly, many others will be releasing similiar statements. They are following the law.

Congress made the welfare program (medicare support and tax break). I for one have no problem with that program coming to an end. I also have no problem with corporations dropping the benefit. Congress, it seems is the one crying foul. This is what happens when you don't read the bill before it passes and you are making backroom deals to pass crap legislation.

I understand the 'rules'...what you don't understand is the shift in this country that has been going on for years...'A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris.'

Class Struggle

Jim+Webb.jpg

by JIM WEBB

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 A.M. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

More...Wall Street Journal
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,897
Reaction score
9,724
Points
2,030
Bgfrn, in your ignorance you are uninformed about companies with public stackholders being required to report any major change in financial situations or tax changes. These companies and shortly, many others will be releasing similiar statements. They are following the law.

Congress made the welfare program (medicare support and tax break). I for one have no problem with that program coming to an end. I also have no problem with corporations dropping the benefit. Congress, it seems is the one crying foul. This is what happens when you don't read the bill before it passes and you are making backroom deals to pass crap legislation.

I understand the 'rules'...what you don't understand is the shift in this country that has been going on for years...'A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris.'

Class Struggle

Jim+Webb.jpg

by JIM WEBB

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 A.M. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

More...Wall Street Journal

Good job. You voted in one of the most elitist Presidents in a long time. Few consider themselves more entitled than Obama.
 
OP
Bfgrn

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
Bgfrn, in your ignorance you are uninformed about companies with public stackholders being required to report any major change in financial situations or tax changes. These companies and shortly, many others will be releasing similiar statements. They are following the law.

Congress made the welfare program (medicare support and tax break). I for one have no problem with that program coming to an end. I also have no problem with corporations dropping the benefit. Congress, it seems is the one crying foul. This is what happens when you don't read the bill before it passes and you are making backroom deals to pass crap legislation.

I understand the 'rules'...what you don't understand is the shift in this country that has been going on for years...'A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris.'

Class Struggle

Jim+Webb.jpg

by JIM WEBB

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 A.M. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

More...Wall Street Journal

Good job. You voted in one of the most elitist Presidents in a long time. Few consider themselves more entitled than Obama.

Telling me how you FEEL is totally meaningless if you can't back it up with facts...

If you want to compare who is and who isn't 'elitists' and who grew up with a sense of entitlement, you need to look only as far as George W. Bush and John McCain.

The President's son and the Admiral's son...BOTH are prime examples of people who continually failed and yet continued to fall UP, never down...

They are both the real 'Affirmative action' candidates...
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,532
Reaction score
16,064
Points
2,180
the next whine you will hear from the fuctards is "jobs are going overseas" "we just can't figure out why." then I'll just call em a waaaaabalance.
 

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,145
Points
1,830
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Entitlement of elites

You're fucking hilarious you know Readers' Digest pays funny people like you money for shit like this.


Let's see who really receives the largess of the fucking government

Obama?s Raid on Wealthy Is More of Awful Same: Kevin Hassett - BusinessWeek

In a study published in 2007, the Tax Foundation examined the tax burdens and government spending receipts across income groups. It found that for every dollar it sent to Washington, the lowest quintile of the income distribution received $14.76 in government spending. By comparison, the highest quintile --at that time, those making more than $99,500 -- received just 32 cents for every dollar paid in federal taxes.

So why do these people, people like you, want the rich to pay even more of their income?

The answer is easy

You and they feel like they are fucking entitled to the fruits of another man's labors.
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,897
Reaction score
9,724
Points
2,030
Telling me how you FEEL is totally meaningless if you can't back it up with facts...

If you want to compare who is and who isn't 'elitists' and who grew up with a sense of entitlement, you need to look only as far as George W. Bush and John McCain.

The President's son and the Admiral's son...BOTH are prime examples of people who continually failed and yet continued to fall UP, never down...

They are both the real 'Affirmative action' candidates...

Your opinion piece had some facts, but you failed to look behind them. Seems like the separation of classes is a result of Congressional and Presidential meddling in international agreements that shift manufacturing jobs out of America. You also fail to realize that ALL taxes ultimately are paid by the middle class. We will buy the bulk of services and products offered for sale. This means all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price. What you are promoting is socialism. Move to Canada.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,436
Reaction score
19,022
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
More ignorant spin from the OP.

The corporations provide prescription drug benefits to their retirees. They are allowed to deduct this expense just as they do other health care expenses. The 2003 bill gave them an incentive to continue paying for this coverage instead of dumping the seniors into Medicare.

Now, ObamaCare gets rid of the 2003 incentive. The extra taxes the corporations will pay are less than half what the additional cost to Medicare will be to cover these retirees.

How does that bend the cost curve down, bub?
 
OP
Bfgrn

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
Telling me how you FEEL is totally meaningless if you can't back it up with facts...

If you want to compare who is and who isn't 'elitists' and who grew up with a sense of entitlement, you need to look only as far as George W. Bush and John McCain.

The President's son and the Admiral's son...BOTH are prime examples of people who continually failed and yet continued to fall UP, never down...

They are both the real 'Affirmative action' candidates...

Your opinion piece had some facts, but you failed to look behind them. Seems like the separation of classes is a result of Congressional and Presidential meddling in international agreements that shift manufacturing jobs out of America. You also fail to realize that ALL taxes ultimately are paid by the middle class. We will buy the bulk of services and products offered for sale. This means all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price. What you are promoting is socialism. Move to Canada.

I'm the socialist? Your 'premise' that 'all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price' is fallacious...There's this THING called a 'market place'. Do you honestly FEEL that businesses are holding back on increasing profits out of altruism? If they COULD raise prices, they WOULD...they don't need your 'we are not worthy' Monica Lewinsky worship of the elite...

Corporations have been able to buy socialism and welfare for themselves...It is the new Republican Utopia.

We don't live in a bubble, you need to educate yourself on corporations externalizing their costs onto the backs of We, the People...

...external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

Parasite hosts are generally helpless to alter the destructive behavior of the parasites that have invaded their systems-a limitation that is often fatal. Humans, in contrast, can regain control and shape the role of the corporation to benefit the host rather than destroy it.

When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,897
Reaction score
9,724
Points
2,030
Telling me how you FEEL is totally meaningless if you can't back it up with facts...

If you want to compare who is and who isn't 'elitists' and who grew up with a sense of entitlement, you need to look only as far as George W. Bush and John McCain.

The President's son and the Admiral's son...BOTH are prime examples of people who continually failed and yet continued to fall UP, never down...

They are both the real 'Affirmative action' candidates...

Your opinion piece had some facts, but you failed to look behind them. Seems like the separation of classes is a result of Congressional and Presidential meddling in international agreements that shift manufacturing jobs out of America. You also fail to realize that ALL taxes ultimately are paid by the middle class. We will buy the bulk of services and products offered for sale. This means all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price. What you are promoting is socialism. Move to Canada.

I'm the socialist? Your 'premise' that 'all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price' is fallacious...There's this THING called a 'market place'. Do you honestly FEEL that businesses are holding back on increasing profits out of altruism? If they COULD raise prices, they WOULD...they don't need your 'we are not worthy' Monica Lewinsky worship of the elite...

Corporations have been able to buy socialism and welfare for themselves...It is the new Republican Utopia.

We don't live in a bubble, you need to educate yourself on corporations externalizing their costs onto the backs of We, the People...

...external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

Parasite hosts are generally helpless to alter the destructive behavior of the parasites that have invaded their systems-a limitation that is often fatal. Humans, in contrast, can regain control and shape the role of the corporation to benefit the host rather than destroy it.

When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute

Well, your Democrats are in the majority in Congress, have them end the corporate welfare. I have no problem with that. Quick question, that WAS your guys that passed the $785b. stimulus plan right? Single largest corporate welfare move EVER. Just saying.
 
OP
Bfgrn

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
Your opinion piece had some facts, but you failed to look behind them. Seems like the separation of classes is a result of Congressional and Presidential meddling in international agreements that shift manufacturing jobs out of America. You also fail to realize that ALL taxes ultimately are paid by the middle class. We will buy the bulk of services and products offered for sale. This means all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price. What you are promoting is socialism. Move to Canada.

I'm the socialist? Your 'premise' that 'all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price' is fallacious...There's this THING called a 'market place'. Do you honestly FEEL that businesses are holding back on increasing profits out of altruism? If they COULD raise prices, they WOULD...they don't need your 'we are not worthy' Monica Lewinsky worship of the elite...

Corporations have been able to buy socialism and welfare for themselves...It is the new Republican Utopia.

We don't live in a bubble, you need to educate yourself on corporations externalizing their costs onto the backs of We, the People...

...external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

Parasite hosts are generally helpless to alter the destructive behavior of the parasites that have invaded their systems-a limitation that is often fatal. Humans, in contrast, can regain control and shape the role of the corporation to benefit the host rather than destroy it.

When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute

Well, your Democrats are in the majority in Congress, have them end the corporate welfare. I have no problem with that. Quick question, that WAS your guys that passed the $785b. stimulus plan right? Single largest corporate welfare move EVER. Just saying.

Ah, Faux Snooze misinformation propaganda...you must be talking about Bush and Paulsons' TARP

The Stimulus - The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill.
wiki
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,897
Reaction score
9,724
Points
2,030
I'm the socialist? Your 'premise' that 'all taxes the businesses paid are passed on to us in the price' is fallacious...There's this THING called a 'market place'. Do you honestly FEEL that businesses are holding back on increasing profits out of altruism? If they COULD raise prices, they WOULD...they don't need your 'we are not worthy' Monica Lewinsky worship of the elite...

Corporations have been able to buy socialism and welfare for themselves...It is the new Republican Utopia.

We don't live in a bubble, you need to educate yourself on corporations externalizing their costs onto the backs of We, the People...

...external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever.

Parasite hosts are generally helpless to alter the destructive behavior of the parasites that have invaded their systems-a limitation that is often fatal. Humans, in contrast, can regain control and shape the role of the corporation to benefit the host rather than destroy it.

When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute

Well, your Democrats are in the majority in Congress, have them end the corporate welfare. I have no problem with that. Quick question, that WAS your guys that passed the $785b. stimulus plan right? Single largest corporate welfare move EVER. Just saying.

Ah, Faux Snooze misinformation propaganda...you must be talking about Bush and Paulsons' TARP

The Stimulus - The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill.
wiki

I was waiting for the blame Bush reply. Yeah, I remember the executive order Bush signed to make TARP law. Oh, I'm sorry, seems like a bunch of Democratic Congress people voted that through, telling us it was necessary and would keep unemployment under 8%. You own the problem fix it.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Entitlement of elites

You're fucking hilarious you know Readers' Digest pays funny people like you money for shit like this.


Let's see who really receives the largess of the fucking government

Obama?s Raid on Wealthy Is More of Awful Same: Kevin Hassett - BusinessWeek

In a study published in 2007, the Tax Foundation examined the tax burdens and government spending receipts across income groups. It found that for every dollar it sent to Washington, the lowest quintile of the income distribution received $14.76 in government spending. By comparison, the highest quintile --at that time, those making more than $99,500 -- received just 32 cents for every dollar paid in federal taxes.

So why do these people, people like you, want the rich to pay even more of their income?

The answer is easy

You and they feel like they are fucking entitled to the fruits of another man's labors.

I can't disagree with your entitlement statemnent. However you are comparing apples with caviar. the lowest income group with the highest? Lots more dollars are realized by the highest regardeless of the ratio of return per each dollar.

LIke giving a 3% raise in a corporation, the janitor gets .25/hr and the execitives get many $ per hr.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top