My Beliefs revisited

Frank, doing color commentary on this thread.

I forgot to comment on this. Money bills originate in the House. You know, that dysfunctional loony bin of teabaggers and other lunatic fringe people from the right? Why don't you get your guys to decide to change it.

Oh . . . oh . . . wait . . . i know, they could lower the taxes on the highest brackets, and then refuse to extend the debt ceiling, sending the entire world spiraling off into an economic depression the likes of which has never been seen before.

Man, you guys are just a bunch of fun-loving party animals!

Damn!

You've just provided us with irrefutable proof that all tea-baggers are morons.

That picture is interesting. Patriotic to whom? Remember, one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. In England that man would have been considered an outlaw, assuming that is a freedom fighting colonist.

Patriotism is an outgrowth of nationalism and is a most dangerous motivator.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

-- Samuel Johnson

Proof positive that the OccupyWallStreet protesters are anti-Semitic!

Frank, I really don't think max was offering this photo as a catalyst for a discussion on patriotism.

First, thank you for a more reasoned response in the form I expected from you.

My business is incorporated for the very reason of protecting my assets from my company assets/liabilities. So far, I have made $0 from capital gains, but then my business is in a "in case of emergency break glass" mode right now waiting on a winning lottery ticket.

But, lets say for this example that it suddenly became a prosperous business because I got lucky and made a widget that people wanted and couldn't live without. It is my sweat and work that starts the business. It's my forward thinking, advertising and ideas that have made that widget what it is. I hire people based on need to make more widgets and then I ship them out. I buy gas and that gas is taxed at point of sale. That gasoline tax is paid. When I file my corporate taxes, I claim that as a part of business and claim it as a deduction on my federal taxes owed. Now, follow that Set. The gas tax is paid, just because I deduct it from my annual federal taxes has zero bearing on the amount of money that is paid into the Highway Trust Fund as it is the retailer of the gasoline that pays that.

Your own link says " although vehicles will travel more miles in the future (therefore consuming more taxable fuel), rising fuel efficiency standards and congressional refusal to increase the fuel tax or tie it to the rate of inflation means that the fund receives less money."

Nothing in there about businesses using a deduction of money on federal taxes being the reason.

Now, back to the business... I employ myself as CEO of my company and draw a wage just like every other employee. Whether that is $1 or $250,000, that is up to the company. If I am wise and keep it a private company then I don't have any external people deciding what that could be. So, I am at that point just another wage earner. Paying my taxes, driving my car, using the police and fire depts just like every one else.

If I am profitable and do not need to turn over every bit of profit back into the company (which happens a lot) then hey, great for the company! That's how people get bonuses. Companies I've worked for had a standing rule that 20% or profits at end of year after everything is taken care of would be distributed amongst all employees. Heckuva deal and great for morale and to keep people in the business of keeping the business profitable. After all, one of the key principles of business is to keep the business in business. No business, no money, no employees, no taxes, no nothing.

Despite all that, I agree that corporations get away with waaaay too many loopholes in the tax code. I agree with you completely, but at the same time I think that business would be crazy not to take advantage of them. I seem to recall that Obama enjoyed a majority in both the Senate and House for his first two years as President... yet the corporate tax code didn't change. Most of the people in the tea-party, you know those guys you hate, really want to see the tax code revised. I know, "They don't want the rich taxed!!!", but what they want is to see that the rich aren't being punished because they are rich. One of the principles of America is that anyone can become one of those evil rich people... Sam Walton, self made, Bill Gates, self made, Facebook guy, self made... see what I mean? It's a dream, but it has that magic to keep people interested in America.

Bah, I am rambling and even I have lost track of WTF my point was now dangit. I'll try to take another whack tomorrow when I am less tired. I'll just leave off with " I disagree with you and therefore you are a poopyhead."

Gallup thinks you're wrong. Most of the people they poll self-identify as conservatives. As of May 2013, the breakdown they find is 41% conservative, 37% moderate, 17% liberal.


George Bush, for whom you voted twice I believe, didn't govern "least". Barack Obama, for whom you didn't vote, presided over the slowest growth of federal spending in decades. So forgive me for not believing that you really believe that.


That's an unhelpful approach because the constitution's words are vague exactly when the issues are most important. For example, the government cannot take people's lives, liberty, or property without due process. What does "due" mean. The federal government is to guarantee a republican form of government within each state. Where is the line between a republican form of government and an oligarchy of a few rich people. What does "equal protection of the law" mean? Lots of people can read the words of the constitution, and yet lots of reasonable people disagree on what the words mean.


Empty sloganeering.


Which presumably is why no first-world country imprisons as great a share of its population as the land of the free. Bravo!


Empty sloganeering.


Empty sloganeering.


Empty sloganeering


Empty sloganeering


How did that work for you in the case of Iraq?


Empty sloganeering


That's just plain false. The freedom of speech includes the freedom to stay silent. The freedom to organize a protest includes the freedom to stay at home. The freedom to hold and bear arms includes the freedom to be a pacifist. And by the same token, the freedom of religion includes the freedom from having religion shoved down your throat.


I agree on this one.


Agreed.


And if you fail at your job, it's the government's job to liberate them from you. Hillary Clinton was right when she proclaimed: "It Takes a Village".


Agreed


Agreed


Agreed. Though we probably disagree on what constitutes negative and irresponsible behavior.


Empty sloganeering, and false.


If consumed in moderation, yes.


Disagreed. I consider laziness a virtue.



Empty sloganeering.

Well, you wanted a reaction. This is mine.

It is someone else giving away the money you earned that is the problem.

The comments i have here is that i seriously doubt that you qualify as "wealthy" by the standards of the highest tax bracket. You're ignoring the transfusions of cash to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent. You're ignoring the local and state taxes and the Federal block grants which all contribute to highway maintenance--and the point is that all this money is needed because of the serious wear and tear by over-the-road transports, which do the most damage to the highways. That traffic benefits wealthy people, who manage to pay as little tax as possible, and certainly not an amount commensurate with the benefits they receive from government. As i've already shown (reliable link attached), taxes in the highest bracket have been reduced by fractionally more than 60% since 1950. Taxes in the lowest bracket, however, have been reduced in the same period by fractionally less than 43%. Who do you think is paying for this dog and pony show, and who do you think derives the most benefit?

EDIT: That line about businesses using a tax deduction being responsible for the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund is a straw man--i made no such claim. The Highway Trust Fund is insolvent because the fuel taxes are not sufficient to meet the obligations of the fund.

Thomas...it has been a while since I have agreed with you so completely as I did in your masterful reply to Mysteryman.

You were right on the button.

f.

Frank that post was an amazingly spot-on supportive reply to Thomas' reply to Mysteryman. I agree with you completely about agreeing with him completely.

This reminded me that i had wanted to respond to that, too. Contrary to popular perceptions, people whom we would call conservative supported the revolution in America. The Sugar Act and the Stamp Act alarmed them because they threatened to do away with old, established and successful ways of doing business. The Boston Port Act alarmed them even more--they were asking themselves "When are they coming for me?"

More than that, though, one needs to look at the history of immigration to the United States. All the old shibboleths about escaping religious and political repression represent a small proportion of our immigrants. Most of them came here for the opportunity to own property, whether it was land or to practice their trade without being oppressed and exploited by bureaucrats and aristocrats. It is a fairly obvious truism that once people own property, they become conservative--they don't want things to change, they see change as a threat to what they've got. This can be seen in the counterrevolution in France after 1794, and in the distribution of land by the Peasants Party and the Social revolutionaries in Russian in 1917. Stalin understood that for land owners, the revolution is over. That's why he carried out his anti-"Kulak" campaign and set up the collective farms. He didn't want widespread land ownership because it undermined the authority of the putatively ongoing revolution.

The only reasons for progressive legislation in the United States have been a strong tradition of anti-authoritarianism and labor unions. The David and Goliath attitude of small holders and small tradesmen against politicians and the "money men" can be seen from the so-called Era of the Common Man onward. Jackson exploited that sentiment cannily in his political organization which created the modern Democratic Party. Organized labor in the United States fought courageously for better working conditions which everyone enjoys, including conservatives who bad-mouth the unions.

The historical traditions of immigration to the United States have made political conservatism inevitable.

My comment wasn't directed at Max, but the guy holding the sign. I suspect she agreed with me.

I agree with you completely, Max.

I don't agree with any of you jokers . . . that's my polemical position, and i'm stickin' to it!

Shall we define the subject matter of the conservation??
The old values were authoritarian.
Like Athena, springing full-armed from the mind of Zeus,
the American Revolution rose from the spirit of the Sons of Liberty.
The successful revolutionaries were very liberal qua subservience to government
i.e., thay chose to TURN AWAY from that, preferring and enshrining a libertarian, Individualist
mentality and ideology in the fundamental and Supreme Law of the Land: the US Constitution.
The ascendant libertarians lovingly conserved their cherished values.
Some of us do so now.





David

But you see McG you are getting MORE from the infrastructure than someone who just works for a living. If there was no infrastructure you couldn't ship your widgets anywhere. You get a return on the infrastructure with every widget you ship. You also get a return on the infrastructure with every employee that can use it to get to work.

Let's assume for a moment that all the infrastructure went away tomorrow. Who would lose more from that loss? You or the employee that works for you? If you are honest, you would admit it is you because the value of your company would be lost, not just your wage from the company.