Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

They should pay at least that much in taxes, probably more to protect what they have.

Remember when President Obama was lambasted for saying "you didn't build that"? Turns out he was right, at least when it comes to lots of stuff built by world's wealthiest corporate behemoths. That's the takeaway from a new study of 25,000 major taxpayer subsidy deals over the last two decades.

Entitled “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” the report from the taxpayer watchdog group Good Jobs First shows that the largest corporations in the world aren't models of self-sufficiency and unbridled capitalism. To the contrary, they continue to receive tens of billions of dollars in government handouts. Such subsidies might be a bit more defensible if they were being doled out in a way that promoted upstart entrepreneurialism. But as the study also shows, a full "three-quarters of all the economic development dollars awarded and disclosed by state and local governments have gone to just 965 large corporations" -- not to the small businesses and startups that politicians so often pretend to care about.

The true beneficiaries of subsidies are often hidden under layers of holding companies, shell firms and complex ownership agreements. But Good Jobs First did the tedious work of connecting the subsidies to the parent firms. In the process, the group discovered that a whopping $110 billion -- or 75 percent of cumulative disclosed subsidy dollars -- are going to these 965 large companies.

Fortune 500 firms alone receive more than 16,000 subsidies at a total cost of $63 billion. Additionally, eight out of the top 20 firms receiving U.S. taxpayer subsidies are not even U.S. companies, meaning American taxpayers are being forced to directly subsidize foreign firms.

These kind of handouts, of course, are the opposite of anything having to do with a “free market.” They are the definition of government intervention in the market. Yet, the free-market image of companies is rarely tarnished when those companies accept the huge welfare payments.

Consider Koch Industries. Despite the Koch Brothers being the biggest financiers of the anti-government right, and despite their billing as libertarian “free market” activists, their company has relied on $88 million worth of government subsidies.

Similarly, behold the big tech firms. They are often portrayed as self-made up-from-the-bootstraps success stories. Yet, as Good Jobs First shows, they are among the biggest recipients of the subsidies.

Intel, for instance, leads the tech pack with 58 subsidies worth $3.8 billion. Next up is IBM, which has received more than $1 billion in subsidies. Most of that is from New York - a state that is right now in the middle of a full-scale advertising campaign proudly promoting its handouts.

Then there's Google's $632 million and Yahoo's $260 million, most of both companies' subsidies derived from data center deals. Microsoft has pulled in $95 million primarily from Washington State's tax handouts.

There is also Silver Lake Partners, which owns Dell and has by extension benefited from $482 million in corporate welfare payments.

And not to be forgotten is 38 Studios, the now bankrupt software firm that received $75 million in Rhode Island taxpayer cash at the very moment that state was cutting public workers’ pension benefits.

Along with propping up firms that are supposedly free-market icons, the subsidies are also flowing to financial firms that have become synonymous with never-ending bailouts and a perverse kind of corporate socialism. Indeed, firms like UBS, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup - each of which were given massive taxpayer subsidies during the financial crisis -- all are the recipients of tens of millions of dollars in additional subsidies tracked by Good Jobs First.

All of these handouts, of course, would be derided as welfare if they were going to poor people. But because they are going to extremely wealthy politically connected conglomerates, they are typically promoted with cheery euphemisms like "incentives" or "economic development." Those euphemisms persist even though so many of these subsidies do not end up actually creating jobs or generating a net gain in public revenues.

In light of that, the Good Jobs First report is a reality check on all the political rhetoric about dependency. Most of that rhetoric is punitively aimed at the poor. That’s because, unlike the huge corporations receiving all those subsidies, the poor don’t have armies of lobbyists and truckloads of campaign contributions that make sure programs like food stamps are shrouded in the anodyne argot of “incentives” and “development.”

But as the report proves, if we are going to have an honest conversation about dependency and “free markets,” then all the billions of dollars flowing to politically connected companies need to be part of the discussion.

Take a look at some of the excuses Baldimo has come up trying to avoid the question of what we are supposed to do to prevent the top 1%, (which have increased their share of the country's wealth in the last 37 years from 24% to 43%), from owning 99% of the country's wealth in forty years, for that is the rate they have been taking the wealth from the rest of us since 1980.

Irrelevant and wrong. The wealthy has been accumulating an additional fifth of the economy in the past 3+ decades during times of high growth and low growth, so that dodge won't work. And when Obama first took office, the previous quarter under the previous administration the economy DECLINED-not grew-at annual rate of -8.3%. Obama's last quarter the economy grew at an annual rate of +1.7%. That's an increase of a 10.0% annual rise in GDP-hardly the slowest recovery in history. In order to match Obama's improvement in the economy, Trump has to average a GDP increase of 11.7% per year during his term, however long that is. He won't come near that.

Again, this response fails to deal with the issue being discussed, which is how do we prevent the wealthiest 1% from owning 99% of the country's wealth in forty years, because that is the rate they are gobbling up the nation's wealth.

I don't care if the top ten wealthiest people are democrats or republicans, I just don't want 1% of the people owning 99% of the wealth in the country, for that will bring them total political control as well as economic control.

That's odd, there are plenty of countries that have a high amount of freedom yet their 1% doesn't own 99% of their economy like our 1% is slated to do at the present rate. You have a strange idea of what the economic world looks like.

Quite the opposite, I made clear that I don't mind if some people are quite wealthy

as long as the economy improves so the 99% improves as well. However, the problem-which you are scrupulously avoiding answering-is that while the economy continues to grow, the wealthy 1% keep taking a bigger and bigger piece of it every year so the 99% ends up with little to no improvement in their standard of living. And you won't even address the issue.

What lovely stirring words! Unfortunately, those candidates who promote the interests of the 99% won't be able to mount a serious campaign due to lack of funds, since the only source of funding will be the 1% who own everything. Who won't fund Mr, (Ms), 99%.

Really? You don't think economic power translates into political power?

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16

Elections cost money-hell, even getting nominations costs money. Once the 1% take over 99% of the country's wealth, virtually all nominees with the money to win will be getting almost all their financial support from the 1%, since they will be the only people in the country with the wherewithal to contribute to political campaigns.When the 1% owns 99% fo the wealth, they will not be challenged politically.

What lovely stirring words! Unfortunately, those candidates who promote the interests of the 99% won't be able to mount a serious campaign due to lack of funds, since the only source of funding will be the 1% who own everything. Who won't fund Mr, (Ms), 99%.

Very successful businessmen will join the 1%, and proceed to own their individual share of 99% of the wealth in America. So how does this change anything?

Yes, and they have been accumulating taking all the wealth of the country away from the 99% for the past 37 years.

Along with those in older industries like oil, of course.

So how does this prevent the wealthy 1% from accumulating 99% of the wealth of the country, as they are on schedule to do in 40 years?

It doesn't. You continue to dodge my question, because you are fine with the 1%, you think they're your kind of people.

Still no answer from you, Baldimo, as to what we should do to prevent the top 1%, which owned only 24% of the country's wealth in 1980, from owning 99% of the country's wealth in forty years. In 37 years, they have already increased their share of the country's wealth from under a quarter to nearly a half, and at this accelerating pace will they will own 99% of the wealth in four decades. Check the chart, Baldimo:

So far, all we've heard from you is so what, the rich earned it all by working hard, if the wealthiest one percent end up owning virtually all the wealth in the country, fine with you. And anyone who objects is guilty of class envy and should work harder. In addition, you have made clear that, in your book, the 1% owning 99% of everything in the country is nothing to be alarmed about, you doubt that it will lead to total political control by that same 1% which own nearly half now and will own everything in 40 years if present trends continue. As far as you're concerned, there is no chance that, once the top 1% actually achieve ownership of 99% of the country, they'll be able to get lawmakers elected who will consolidate the one percent's political power and keep them on top and the rest of us on the bottom.

America is moving toward becoming like one of those island nations where there are a few very wealthy with expansive homes on the beach which are surrounded by hills full of peasants who live in shacks and mud huts who work for them. Most people would find that vision of America appalling, but thanks to talk radio and right wing "news" sources you have come to identify with the multi-millionaires to such a degree that you are embracing that vision. The multimillionaires are your heroes, the average American is a slob who should shut up and work harder so that he too can join the 1% and enjoy the vast wealth that class enjoys. One percent owning 99% of the country's wealth is perfectly all right with Baldimo.

I don't have an answer for your false issue [of the wealthiest 1% headed for owning 99% of the wealth].

Once again you are basing your flawed opinion that there is a limit to the wealth to be created and that only the people who are there now will be the only people there. Yes, it is indeed class envy if you can't explain how the wealthy got wealthy...

You continue to base your point on 1% vs 99% and that is the failure of your point, you are ignoring that the 99% are made up of so many different economic levels that most of the people in the US don't care about the 1%.

It's not a false issue, the chart illustrates that is exactly where we are headed-a banana republic where the wealthiest live quite nicely, surrounded by tons of poor people living in cardboard shacks. The concentration of wealth increasingly in the hands of the 1% will also concentrate political power in the hands of the 1%, with the result of America turning into a totalitarian state. But you have admitted that you are simply unconcerned, the 99% deserve to chase after the 1% the wealthy leave for them because they didn't work hard enough.

Political power is largely derived from economic power, if one small group has almost all the wealth they will have almost all the political power as well. And you are pretending not to see it.

Math and logic are clearly not your strong points. I'm well aware that wealth grows over time, I've posted plenty of charts illustrating that.

But what you fail to see is that if most of the new wealth flows to the 1% wealthiest every year, then every year the percentage of the total wealth the 1% holds will grow a little more, and the percentage of the total wealth the 99% holds will shrink a little more.

After a suitable amount of time, the wealthy one percent have 99% of the wealth. That point will be reached, at the present rate, in forty years. And you don't care, because you think that the one percent got their wealth by working hard, so you're just pleased as Punch that the wealthy are setting things up so that they own 99% of the country's wealth in a few years.

And you don't care, because you think that the one percent got their wealth by working hard, so you're just pleased as Punch that the wealthy are setting things up so that they own 99% of the country's wealth in a few years.

Regardless of the economic levels among the 99%, it's the 1% the chart illustrates will own virtually everything in forty years.

Yes, the 1% the wealthy leaves for the hoi polloi might not end up being distributed equitably either, but that doesn't change the fact that in forty years, the wealthy one percent will own ninety-nine percent of everything. And you clearly feel that's fine, when in fact it will be a disaster for the American way of life.

You continue to prove Marx proud with your continued use of this mantra.

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Marxism uses a methodology known as historical materialism to analyze and critique the development of capitalism and the role of class struggles in systemic economic change. According to Marxian theory, class conflict arises in capitalist societies due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed by the bourgeoisie to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class who own the means of production and extract their wealth through appropriation of the surplus product (profit) produced by the proletariat. This class struggle that is commonly expressed as the revolt of a society's productive forces against its relations of production, escalates into a crisis which inevitably forces the transformation from capitalism to socialism.

The class envy against what the wealthy have

This fear mongering of what the 1% is taking from the 99%.

You will notice that not once does Glitterbag think those in the 1% earned what they have, it's all worded but not declared as theft.

Here's your problem. You see all this as nothing more than envy and greed, as if the masses are sitting around secretly coveting the rich's stuff.

It's not about that at all. It's about ******* survival.

There's nothing 'fear-mongering' about it.

It's a fact that in our lifetimes, the vast majority of ALL new wealth generated in this country has gone to the wealthy - and the current tax bill simply accelerates the process. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, you get that right?

I haven't read everything in this thread, so I can't speak to that.

But I wouldn't say that the 1% didn't 'work' for their money.

They have invested heavily in politicians and that's paid off tremendously for them

They have invested heavily in politicians but what has been the payoff?

Example, I'm totally against Net Neutrality as it has no effect on the companies who actual control and store our digital content, it just places stupid controls on the pipeline our data takes. I am much more concerned with who holds the data then the path it takes to my internet device.

Are you... are you serious?

The payoff has been ever-lower tax rates for the wealthy,

regulations that favor their businesses

, and the reduction of social services and protections for non-wealthy citizens.

Not to mention funneling massive amounts of government spending to their companies.

I mean, this is simply a matter of ignorance on your part. It doesn't matter who holds data if the people who control the path to get it to you deny you the ability to see it, for their own profit.