"You didn't get there on your own"

[saveliberty]

So now you are saying corporations who benefit 25% from infrastructure contribute NOTHING to building infrastructure.
Thank you.

Roads are paid by gas tax and property tax dimwit. Thanks for showing us your lack of knowledge on this subject. You're probably pretty happy about your strawman huh? Fail.

 

[Barb]

Funny.....I have owned small businesses since the 80's...and my companies were vendors to small businesses....and I did not struggle due to any DEM or GOP policies whatsoever...nor did my clients.

However, I am now retired (54 years old...seems I really didnt get hurt)...but still in touch with my clients who became friends....and from what I hear, they are petrified by Obamacare...and not surprised that Obama has such a negative feeling towrd business owners.

FYI...small businesses THRIVE when large corporations do well. Most industries are oligopolies...and the anchors of oligopolies (large corporations) set the tone of the industry...they do well, the entire industry does well.

Sadly, you and Obama dont seem to want to understand that.

Small businesses are overtaken, out priced, and put under by conglomerates.

See a lot of mom and pop hardware stores lately? What's sad about that is the SERVICE that is lost. Remember customer service? Do you remember when you could go into a store with a broken part, hand it to a familiar face behind the counter, and that person would find the replacement for you, AND, for no extra charge give you a few tips what to look for and avoid when replacing it? I do.

Not for nothing,

After fighting a bloody war for independence from King George, over the unbridled power of the East India Trading Company, “the states passed hundreds of laws restricting and restraining corporations.” The war was not about tea; the colonists had an aversion to ginormous corporations that (rather than who) put local businesses and small trades people at a disadvantage.
Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections. (Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101)

The “we want our county back” folks might want to revisit these parts of our glorious past.

Now you are talking about something completely different. Sure, I miss those days where the local merhcant knew your name, asked how you folks were doing and truly cared about your needs. I miss it so much, I use my local vendors here on Long Island anytime I can.

But lets be honest here...Government has nothing to do with the big conglomerates. Demand does. We, the people have found that "one stop shopping" trumps customer service. If I had a nickel for everytime I went to my local hardware store to find out they did not carry what I needed...to then find it in quantity at the Home Depot...I would be a wealthy man.

Likewise....prices...we prefer lower prices as consumers.....and the mega stores offer lower prices. And yes..the prices are much lower in the mega stores than they are in the local stores. I am OK with it...I can afford to pay 3% more for something...and I do...but many people cant...so they go to the mega stores.

But we are talking about retailers.....

There are thousands of non retail businesses that NEED the larger companies...for as I said earlier...most industries are oligololies..and the smaller companies follow the lead of the larger firms......BY CHOICE.

So I am confused about the point you are making. Is it large companies you dont like or the fact that large companies get certain breaks that helkp the industries...including the smaller companies that capitalize on the success of the anchor firms?

True equity of trade rests on the assumption that trade is voluntary. Savvy? Where there is no choice, there is no equity.

Please, for the love of whatever you find holy, please do not pretend you don't understand that.

 

[edthecynic]

So now you are saying corporations who benefit 25% from infrastructure contribute NOTHING to building infrastructure.
Thank you.

Roads are paid by gas tax and property tax dimwit. Thanks for showing us your lack of knowledge on this subject. You're probably pretty happy about your strawman huh? Fail.

So now we have confirmation that corporations contribute NOTHING to the building of infrastructure.
Thank you again.

 

[Vast LWC]

See if you can wrap your head around this...

The corporation lobbied the British parliament to levy a tax, so the British government could use the funds garnered to subsidize the corporation's operations.

Which is extremely similar to half the shit that goes on in Washington today.

Ding, ding, ding. True. Though you're ignoring the same problem occurs with Unions and other both right and left wing special interest groups as well.

Now, let's consider our approaches to this problem.

I want to weaken government, which weakens their ability to do anything regardless of how much they lobby.

You want to strengthen government while whining that people with money are lobbying it to do things you oppose. Strengthening government will protect us.

Say huh?

At what point did I say I want to "strengthen government"?

Also, you're ignoring the fact that in the East India Company example, it's a corporation controlling a government, not the government controlling a corporation.

And yes, the founding fathers did in fact hate the East India Company. Jefferson hated corporations with a passion.

This contradicts nothing that I said

True enough. I read fast. My bad.

 

[Barb]

Here is a simple reality, simple enough for democrats to comprehend.

It is only democrat street operatives still claiming that businesses didn't achieve on their own. obama is trying to run away as fast as he can.

It is actually beneficial that democrats keep this going because it does point out that obama is a liar when he denies that what he said is what he meant. What he meant was perfectly understood by democrats still carrying the message.

Are you still running on a quote taken completely out of context? I'd say good luck with that, but sadly, especially in view of what I've seen here, misdirection and the reliance on the stupidity of the masses are still winning strategies.

Goddamned shame, but it is what it is.

 

[Murf76]

The hole in your argument, Barb, is that the 1% who cover the cost of that infrastructure aren't the only ones making use of it.

The top 20% of earners pay 94% of the federal income tax. That means that the bottom 80% are paying virtually nothing. And those small business owners are typically a part of that 20%. It's not true that the"1% use up 25% of outlay". If it was, they'd be the only ones allowed to use the infrastructure and the only ones protected by national defense. But they MORE than pay for it, as we see.

What's more, and I'd really like to see somebody, anybody, provide an answer to this question.... This administration has behaved irresponsibly with our tax dollars to begin with. We have NO budget and NO attempt to reform our unsustainable entitlements, which are eating up two-thirds of federal spending. Instead, they've given us another, even more expensive entitlement, costing three times what we were told it would. And they've driven the national debt to nearly 16 trillion.

WHY should even one American, no matter how filthy rich, give another red cent to this administration when it's obvious that they're not doing the job they were elected to do???

That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth. And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas.

This chart is from 2007. The disparity has grown significantly since then.

And, of course, as usual, you're only including income tax in your figures.

But, putting that aside, how much of the infrastructure do you think a minimum wage worker uses, in comparison to a multi-millionaire with multiple investments in various corporations?

First off... 20%+85% would be 105%. So, there's a problem right off the top with your math. But as we saw in Zombie's work-up earlier, even if the top 1% used the infrastructure and national defense exclusively... they're ALREADY paying more than enough for it at 37% of revenue.

None of that answers my question though... Washington has behaved with complete disregard toward its responsibility to spend our money wisely. We have no budget and no attempt to fix our broken entitlements. There's no equivocation on the word "unsustainable". It means what it means. Why should ANYONE have to pony up even one more red cent until politicians do their jobs?

We all know that wealth is not evenly distributed in this country. We accept that to some extent, that's just the nature of human beings... some will be more successful than others. But that doesn't mean that it has to be as lop-sided as it is now. The thing is though, that it's your ideology which creates the extremes of it. The more power that you give to politicians and bureaucrats, the more they can USE that power to enrich themselves and their friends. You CREATE the very crony capitalism that you hate.

It's not possible to "redistribute the wealth" by means of government intervention. It's not possible, because they WILL skim the cream off the top. That's human nature too. Greed is as innate to us as compassion. Go back to kwc57's post #298 and consider that her example of "Jose the Tamale Salesman" could not engage the marketplace in today's business climate. He wouldn't be able to raise the start-up costs he'd need in order to be properly licensed, inspected, and insured. His opportunities are not limited by Big Business. They're limited by politicians and bureaucrats who are often politically indebted to Big Business, or who are useful idiots of the Nanny State.

It's not Wall Street which writes the rules. It's the politicians we send to Washington. Neuter them, and you neuter special influences. Big, bloated government is where cronyism is born. It's where opportunities for the poor and middle class are sacrificed.
LIMIT government, and wealth will redistribute organically as it was meant to.

 

[Vast LWC]

Um...OK. ???

I'm saying your chart is excluding and and it shouldn't. Hint, that's what I said.

The chart is a measure of total wealth, which would include wealth tied up in investment.

And, as I said, the figures displayed in the chart have become much more lopsided since the Great Recession began in 2007.

However, you are correct in that I misinterpreted your exact meaning. As I said before, I read that too fast.

 

[saveliberty]

We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%. Don't let that stop you Barb.

 

[Vast LWC]

Here is a simple reality, simple enough for democrats to comprehend.

It is only democrat street operatives still claiming that businesses didn't achieve on their own. obama is trying to run away as fast as he can.

It is actually beneficial that democrats keep this going because it does point out that obama is a liar when he denies that what he said is what he meant. What he meant was perfectly understood by democrats still carrying the message.

I don't care if 99% of the people in the nation believe that the rich achieve everything they do on their own, without any help from society.

It still wouldn't be true.

 

[Murf76]

See if you can wrap your head around this...

The corporation lobbied the British parliament to levy a tax, so the British government could use the funds garnered to subsidize the corporation's operations.

Which is extremely similar to half the shit that goes on in Washington today.

Ding, ding, ding. True. Though you're ignoring the same problem occurs with Unions and other both right and left wing special interest groups as well.

Now, let's consider our approaches to this problem.

I want to weaken government, which weakens their ability to do anything regardless of how much they lobby.

You want to strengthen government while whining that people with money are lobbying it to do things you oppose. Strengthening government will protect us.

Say huh?

And yes, the founding fathers did in fact hate the East India Company. Jefferson hated corporations with a passion.

This contradicts nothing that I said

(bold is mine)

Wish I had some rep to give. We're on the same wavelength today.

 

[saveliberty]

Here is a simple reality, simple enough for democrats to comprehend.

It is only democrat street operatives still claiming that businesses didn't achieve on their own. obama is trying to run away as fast as he can.

It is actually beneficial that democrats keep this going because it does point out that obama is a liar when he denies that what he said is what he meant. What he meant was perfectly understood by democrats still carrying the message.

I don't care if 99% of the people in the nation believe that the rich achieve everything they do on their own, without any help from society.

It still wouldn't be true.

^^^^
True believer!

Interesting that he fails to recognize that the businesses help society and allow the government to continue.

 

[edthecynic]

We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%. Don't let that stop you Barb.

And now we have confirmation that "zombie" was dishonest in using the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS to show that corporations pay more in federal infrastructure taxes than they benefit from the infrastructure.
Thank you yet again.
Murf76, you should gag this guy!!!

 

[Murf76]

Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.

Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and “stabilize” (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom

Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

Are those your words or a book quotation? Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.

In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that. He gives you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%. It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay. At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.

Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty. Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year. This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.

We should ALL be pissed about that. This guy RAN on unity.

Maybe the in your link can deceive a gullible fool like you, but his slick lies have no chance with a Cynic.

As you can see from the highlighted part, he claims that BUSINESSES benefit 25% but when he tries to lie about BUSINESS overpaying taxes the slick professional deceiver SHIFTS to the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS. If he were honest he would compare the share of CORPORATE taxes paid to the federal government. Corporate taxes account for 7.4% of total federal revenue.

Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)
Capital gains tax 45
Corporate income tax 132
Individual income tax 794
Social Security taxes 713
Total revenues 1,782
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.

Ed. Go read the entire article. You'll find that he's being overly generous in conceding points to the utterly ridiculous claims of the left. IOW, for the sake of argument, he takes them at face value.

Obama's not talking about only raising the corporate rate anyway. He's talking about raising income taxes which will affect small businesses, typically LLCs and S Corps. Further, as he kicks out the "third leg of the stool", we find that state and local taxes pay the bulk of local infrastructure.

 

[Barb]

We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%. Don't let that stop you Barb.

They aren't treated the same by the right and those who have bought their own red carpet to those who write government policy and tax code, although they ARE used for political cover. But don't let THAT stop you, SL.

 

[Murf76]

We are also discussing small business owners, not the top 1%. Don't let that stop you Barb.

And now we have confirmation that "zombie" was dishonest in using the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS to show that corporations pay more in federal infrastructure taxes than they benefit from the infrastructure.
Thank you yet again.
Murf76, you should gag this guy!!!

Nope. We have confirmation that you don't READ, Ed.

 

[saveliberty]

Ed, a liar, stupid or both? You be the judge.

 

[Vast LWC]

First off... 20%+85% would be 105%. So, there's a problem right off the top with your math. But as we saw in Zombie's work-up earlier, even if the top 1% used the infrastructure and national defense exclusively... they're ALREADY paying more than enough for it at 37% of revenue.

Ummm, I said:

That's because the top 20% of the nation owns 85% of the wealth. And that's not even including the money they've been hiding overseas.

Where would adding 20 and 85 come into the equation?

None of that answers my question though... Washington has behaved with complete disregard toward its responsibility to spend our money wisely. We have no budget and no attempt to fix our broken entitlements. There's no equivocation on the word "unsustainable". It means what it means. Why should ANYONE have to pony up even one more red cent until politicians do their jobs?

We all know that wealth is not evenly distributed in this country. We accept that to some extent, that's just the nature of human beings... some will be more successful than others. But that doesn't mean that it has to be as lop-sided as it is now. The thing is though, that it's your ideology which creates the extremes of it. The more power that you give to politicians and bureaucrats, the more they can USE that power to enrich themselves and their friends. You CREATE the very crony capitalism that you hate.

No sir. The right is just as guilty as the left in that regard.

The left wants government to control business.

And the right wants business to control government.

Between the two, they have created a system where all politicians are on the corporate payroll, and all corporations are beholden to government to keep their immoral policies legal.

It's not possible to "redistribute the wealth" by means of government intervention. It's not possible, because they WILL skim the cream off the top. That's human nature too. Greed is as innate to us as compassion. Go back to kwc57's post #298 and consider that her example of "Jose the Tamale Salesman" could not engage the marketplace in today's business climate. He wouldn't be able to raise the start-up costs he'd need in order to be properly licensed, inspected, and insured. His opportunities are not limited by Big Business. They're limited by politicians and bureaucrats who are often politically indebted to Big Business, or who are useful idiots of the Nanny State.

It's not Wall Street which writes the rules. It's the politicians we send to Washington. Neuter them, and you neuter special influences. Big, bloated government is where cronyism is born. It's where opportunities for the poor and middle class are sacrificed.
LIMIT government, and wealth will redistribute organically as it was meant to.

It IS Wall Street that writes the rules. They just use politicians as puppets.

And if government were taken out of the equation completely, we would become a nation where corporations could do whatever they want, without any fear of retribution whatsoever.

At least with elected officials supposedly regulating industry, we can vote them out of office. With corporations, you need to have voting shares in order to have any say at all about what they do.

 

[Jarhead]

Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...

The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.

The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.

 

[Vast LWC]

Here is the bottom line....and putting politics and politicians and their campaigns aside...

The day that the employees, the community and the government share in the losses a small business owner suffersa when his/her small business fails, is the day that I will agree that a small business owner did not get there on his/her own.

The risk of failure is the number one burden sitting on the shoulders of a small business owner.

Ummm... you mean Chapter 11?

Happens all the time.

It's one of the benefits of being a Corporation.

 

[deaddogseye]

Scott Brown has produced a great ad using the Obama and Warren remarks on this point. Even if you accept Obama at his word for his clarification, the disdain for the individual success is so clear especially juxtopposed to the remarks from Kennedy Johnson and Clinton -- and of course the Gipper . Warren's hostility is even more palpable (and when she say the rest of us paid for that she ignores the fact that the people she is attacking have paid the most for all that with their taxes and its a lot of her base who pay nothing for these things but get the benefit.

here is the link - dont know why is doeasnt show up

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDIjGsBEP8[/ame]