jmog wrote:

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

Foot,

Please add me to you list as well. In addition, here is some interesting reading I recieved in an e-mail recently. Don't know the originator, but found it interesting.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
Although found nowhere in the national archives or known writings of Benjamin Franklin, it is widely accepted that he once said “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

According to the most recent data from the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 50% of all income earners pay just 3.4% of the taxes collected! Conversely, the top 20% of income earners pay a whopping 85% of the taxes collected. In other words, 80% of income earners contribute a miserable 15% of the taxes collected! When you consider that this lower income bracket is totally dominated by politicians that overwhelmingly favor wealth redistribution, Americans are now able to “vote themselves money.” One is left to wonder if we have already begun to “herald the end of the republic.”

Let’s not forget plank number two in Karl Marx’s ten planks toward communism in his Communist Manifesto, which is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Years ago, I came across a great analogy to our system of taxes. The story has been printed and e-mailed many times in different formats, but the basic concept remains unchanged. Although the origins of the story are unknown, everyone agrees that the good ole federal government clearly provided the inspiration.

Here it is:

Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.

One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.

Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.

I guess this is why American businesses have about $10 trillion in offshore deposits. You can’t blame them. After all, they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”

I've seen that before, and when people don't get it, or see it as simple as that, then they are blindly drinking the progressive/liberal kool aid.

I am definitely not in the "90%+" or the 9 or 10 in your argument, but I am around the 75%+ or guy number 7 or 8. So, I am not taxed THAT bad, but I do actually PAY taxes instead of paying zero like guys 1-4 (the lower ALMOST 50% in the US).

I'm afraid of the "number 10 leaving" case, the only way to pay for the US government at that point is to raise taxes on those of us in the middle class (50-75%).

And the progressive tax structure has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

99% of all countries have progressive tax structures. The US has always had a progressive tax structure....at least ever since they collected income taxes. (Civil War period, and the permanent IT initiated in the 1910's)

The biggest advantage international corporations have in leaving North America and Europe has to do with labor, safety and environmental advantages and very little to do with taxation.

eersandbeers wrote:

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

fish82 wrote: Back on semi-topic....it would appear that the public agrees with the decision.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

The majority of Americans are idiots then.

Before the election Americans all complained about the role of lobbyists in politics. This just made lobbying irrelevant as corporations will just outright buy candidates now.

Why? Go back and read my post #47 in this thread. I know you have great respect for the constitution. How could you be against this decision? If we allow corporations to be treated differently under the constitution, without a constitutional amendment clearly defining the Federal government's limitations, liberty would be in great danger. I hope that this shows a majority of Americans are respecters of the constitition.

I'm not against the ability of corporations to buy ads. I'm against the ability of corporations to provide limitless campaign contributions to candidates turning our elections into the highest bidder wins.

I don't see a Constitutional basis for unlimited campaign contributions ever. 1990 and 2003 Supreme Court case affirmed this opinion. For some reason, this one did not.

Funny how you and me are limited in contributing $2300 to our candidate of choice. But organizations, either huge labor unions or international corporations can "donate" all that they want.

Foot, me and you have disagreed on the subject of free markets before, and quite frankly, I don't believe a word you say about the "evils" of big business. When this country was run with a true, self-regulating market (and governments to break up collusion), we prospered. Since the income tax and the Federal Reserve have been created, we have lacked a true self-regulating market.

And as for your response about the tax structures, you couldn't be more wrong. Yeah, they leave for cheaper labor, but only because our government has regulated wages and not let the true natural wages be paid. And it has a lot to do with taxes, and regulations for that matter. All these regulations and "labor laws" have increased the costs for businesses and caused the little businesses to be pushed out by the international corporations who can afford to pay for these regulations and labor laws. And you say 99% of countries have progressive tax structures. Well the interesting thing is that the US didn't in the late 1800's, and that period of time saw one of the largest economic expansions in the history of the world. Hmmm...... maybe there's a reason.

The income tax was a HUGE blow to business in America, as well as the people of America. It allowed for the creation of a welfare state in which it is more profitable (or just easier) to be unemployed than it is to actively look for work. Taxations and regulations have only pushed the businesses in America away, and in turn took the jobs with them.

You anti-business sector progressives make me sick. Blame all the ills of the common man on big business and want the federal government to pass regulations to "protect" individuals, when the federal government is just a big business who can afford to run on a negative balance. Competition is the key of the world, in all walks of life. It's amazing people can't relate that to business as well.

Footwedge wrote:

And the progressive tax structure has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

99% of all countries have progressive tax structures. The US has always had a progressive tax structure....at least ever since they collected income taxes. (Civil War period, and the permanent IT initiated in the 1910's)

The biggest advantage international corporations have in leaving North America and Europe has to do with labor, safety and environmental advantages and very little to do with taxation.

Come on, only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate than the US and you really think there is ONLY a labor cost you are dreaming.

Its not the progressive tax structure that makes people upset, its when it gets out of hand like in some more "socialistic" European countries AND when those paying the top amount are demonized.

Reread the story, nothing in the story complained about the progressive taxation, the people complain that when there was a "tax cut" it benefited the highest 10% the most (imagine that, it benefits the ones that actually pay taxes) and they demonize the biggest earners.

THAT'S when conservatives get pissed. If you don't see that "demonization" of the rich in the US right now, ESPECIALLY from our President, then you haven't been paying attention.

Didn't read all the posts, wayyyy too many, but is a news organization considered a corporation? if so will NBC, ABC, and CBS get even worse with their liberal leaning ways?

Footwedge wrote: Since when does the freedom of speech claim encompass foreign entities buying American lawmakers?

It don't. This ruling by the court does not allow foreign entities to contribute either. This ruling struck down previous rulings that prohibited corporations/groups from using their money out of their general funds for electioneering communication or using those funds to advocate for or against a candidate without filtering the money through a PAC.

Corporations/groups are still prohibited from giving directly to federal candidates. The only difference is they are no longer forced to create PACs in order to spend money on electioneering (ads, literature advocating for or against a candidate).

It also struck down the utterly unconstitutional provision under Mccain/Feingold that prohibited the running of political ads by theses groups 30 day befor a primary and 60 days before an election. With all due respect footwedge, how can you be for allowing congress the power to pass a law, that orders groups like the Sierra Club/NRA from running ads 60 days prior to an election (the critcal stage)? This can be interpretted no other way than political censorship by congress.

Footwedge wrote: Quite a stretch there...under the blanket of the first ammendment. What a crock. The entire political process has a price tag on it today. Is that what the Constituruion wanted?

Absolutely not. But the primary purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government, not corporations. I just think you are stretching this ruling a little to far here. There are already federal law regulating foreign donations on the books today. This decision did not strike them down.

Review it for yourself.
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/110-donations-expenditures-disbursements-510-19623173

Here are a couple of sections from the Federal statutes.

(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in 11 CFR 100.29.

(i) Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

Footwedge wrote: Kudos to Obama for calling out the SC for the traitorous slimeballs that they are.

Incredible. But don't worry. The bin Ladin tycoons will close their ads by stating..."we approve this message".

One note about Obama's call out of the SCOTUS, doing so during the State of the Union equated to politically poking them in the eye. They are a co-equal branch and will remember it. You really can't believe they are committing treason. Especially based on the federal law they did not strike down reguarding restrictions of foreign involvement.

As for Bin Ladin tycoons that would be against Federal law. Which by the way the supreme court did not strike down in this case.

It don't. This ruling by the court does not allow foreign entities to contribute either.

It absolutely does allow foreign entities to contribute. If Citgo, a U.S company (owned by Hugo Chavez) decides they want to spend hundreds of millions on advocacy issue/candidate backing ads they are now free to do so when before they weren't.

The loophole created by the supreme court means that foreign owned U.S subsidiaries will be able to exploit the ban on foreigners from contributing to candidates. As long as they are chartered in the United States, they are going to receive the same protections/opportunities as other U.S corporations.

IggyPride00 wrote:

It don't. This ruling by the court does not allow foreign entities to contribute either.

It absolutely does allow foreign entities to contribute. If Citgo, a U.S company (owned by Hugo Chavez) decides they want to spend hundreds of millions on advocacy issue/candidate backing ads they are now free to do so when before they weren't.

The loophole created by the supreme court means that foreign owned U.S subsidiaries will be able to exploit the ban on foreigners from contributing to candidates. As long as they are chartered in the United States, they are going to receive the same protections/opportunities as other U.S corporations.

I disagree. If Hugo Chavez decides he wants to indirectly spend hundreds of millions on issue/candidate backing ads to influence an election it would be illegal. Take another look at this part of the federal statute I listed above.

(i) Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

If the legistlative branch feels they need to tighten any restrictions on foreign influence the SCOTUS left the door open for them to do so.

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

And the progressive tax structure has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

99% of all countries have progressive tax structures. The US has always had a progressive tax structure....at least ever since they collected income taxes. (Civil War period, and the permanent IT initiated in the 1910's)

The biggest advantage international corporations have in leaving North America and Europe has to do with labor, safety and environmental advantages and very little to do with taxation.

Come on, only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate than the US

Your statement here is wrong. The US falls somewhere in the middle in comparison to other countries. The US has a progressive corporate tax structure. Don't use the top margin...use the average.

and you really think there is ONLY a labor cost you are dreaming.

Reread my post. I said labor, safety laws, and environmental laws. If you want to debate, then get the quote right. Like I said, the so called "higher tax argument" is incredibly weak, when talking about America's corporations going offshore. Look it up.

Its not the progressive tax structure that makes people upset, its when it gets out of hand like in some more "socialistic" European countries AND when those paying the top amount are demonized.

Wrong yet again. Compare and contrast the progressiveness to other North American and European countries. The US DOES NOT have THAT progressive of a tax structure. In fact, the present day "progressiveness" is less than it's been for many decades. If you want to argue tax credits or negative tax payments, then OK...I'll buy that.

Reread the story, nothing in the story complained about the progressive taxation, the people complain that when there was a "tax cut" it benefited the highest 10% the most (imagine that, it benefits the ones that actually pay taxes) and they demonize the biggest earners.

And yet only the top 10% of income earners has seen any increase in overall purchasing power since 1973. Demonize the rich? Most Americans would like to see the continuation of a middle class. Over the past 40 years, we have experienced the gradual erosion of such. Look up the numbers.

THAT'S when conservatives get pissed. If you don't see that "demonization" of the rich in the US right now, ESPECIALLY from our President, then you haven't been paying attention.

I'm conservative on a lot of things. The people on Wall Street need to not only be demonized, but many thrown into the slammer. And there are plenty of conservatives that agree with me in blaming Wall Street for the economic mess we find ourseves in.

Not all spew the right winged blogged talking points. They read books and investigate. For example, Rush Limbaugh made the outrageous claim that the economic crises was 100% the fault of Freddie and Fannie. Many conservatives actually believe that nonsense.

Just so you know, I do pay very close attention.

bigmanbt wrote: Foot, me and you have disagreed on the subject of free markets before, and quite frankly, I don't believe a word you say about the "evils" of big business. When this country was run with a true, self-regulating market (and governments to break up collusion), we prospered. Since the income tax and the Federal Reserve have been created, we have lacked a true self-regulating market.

The "evils" of big business has everything to do with magamergers and the size of today's corporations. Not the corporate structure in itself. Adam Smith forewarned that his system would by default become ruined if business size was not corraled. Adam Smith was correct. Antitrust laws were initially implemented about 100 years ago. The US grew to become the greatest economic success story in the history of the world. The most recent problems can be directly attributed to the liberalization of these very regulations. Most economists believe that...not just "liberals".

Glass Steagle was passed in 1934. From 1934 through 2007, there was only one government financial bailout...that being the Savings and Loan people when Reagan was in power.

Glass Steagle was repealed in 1999. And look what happened.

And as for your response about the tax structures, you couldn't be more wrong. Yeah, they leave for cheaper labor, but only because our government has regulated wages and not let the true natural wages be paid. And it has a lot to do with taxes, and regulations for that matter. All these regulations and "labor laws" have increased the costs for businesses and caused the little businesses to be pushed out by the international corporations who can afford to pay for these regulations and labor laws. And you say 99% of countries have progressive tax structures. Well the interesting thing is that the US didn't in the late 1800's, and that period of time saw one of the largest economic expansions in the history of the world. Hmmm...... maybe there's a reason.

The US wages are in fact artificially inflated...as they are in Canada, and most European nations. There is in fact a "social safety net" that is built into the American system. And yes, these social costs are an added overhead charge.

However, the "natural wage" as Adam Smith put it, is never actually achieved. Wages will be below market values through collusion of the employee...or as Smith put it...the "'masters".

And that is what's happening in the sweatshops of China, and other SE Asian countries. Their is no "natural wage" over there. There are wages that are artificially deflated.

The income tax was a HUGE blow to business in America, as well as the people of America. It allowed for the creation of a welfare state in which it is more profitable (or just easier) to be unemployed than it is to actively look for work. Taxations and regulations have only pushed the businesses in America away, and in turn took the jobs with them.'

I agree that there is a cost of the welfare state. There is also a cost to the warfare state as well. Virtually all developed countries have the overhead of their own welfare state. American politics implemented these programs initially in the 30's, and then expanded them in the 60's. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want to rid our country of the socail nets in place. They only disagree on the level of these nets.

Let me add this...to say that the social safety nets are simply for the lazy in not working is a pile of shit. In the Depressiuon years, unemployment was 30/35%. While they starved to death, were they being lazy? Or was it that the private sector did not have enough jobs to employ people? I suppoze the 17% of Americans on unemployment are all lazy asses, eh? And save me the BS on the minimum wage. Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workers in the 1910's...and much to the dismay of the Wall Street investors, his automobile business out and out boomed.

Explain that one.

So now you have international conglomerates utilizing countries that force artificially deflated wages, with no safety net at all, no safety laws and no environmental laws....at the cost of American jobs, livelyhoods and living standards.

I believe that allowing the status quo to continue, our country will feel the wrath in the very near future.

You anti-business sector progressives make me sick. Blame all the ills of the common man on big business and want the federal government to pass regulations to "protect" individuals, when the federal government is just a big business who can afford to run on a negative balance. Competition is the key of the world, in all walks of life. It's amazing people can't relate that to business as well.

I am not a progressive, slick. There are thousands of conservatives that share the exact same view regarding collussion controlled oligopolies that I do. Thousands. Was Adam Smith also a liberal? Adam Smith hated the thought of what could happen in his laissez-faire economic system. How about Paul Craig Roberts, a one time editor of the Wall Street Journal, and recognized father of Reaganomics? Or Pat Buchanan for that matter?

Sounds to me that you're OK with American unemployment hitting 30% within the next decade or so. Isn't it nice that your generation and my generation will coyly avoid the carnage?

Maybe I do make you sick. Well.... others that refuse to see the writings on the wall make me sick. So touche. Especially those who generalize and call all those that think on their own, read on their own, decide for themselves, flaming liberals.

Gabor Steingart wrote a really great book on the real costs of globalization. You ought to pick up a copy and understand there are viable options. As for the author...he absolutely hates Obama. So my guess...you and Steingart would have a lot in common.

chs71 wrote: New huddle, yet I haven't read the rules

-LJ

Delete my post if I break the rules, but don't post something under my name.

Footwedge wrote: Since when does the freedom of speech claim encompass foreign entities buying American lawmakers?

Except that the SC ruling very pointedly does not say that. Contributions by foreign entities are still illegal. What BHO said in the SOTU was factually wrong.

Which is worse, that the White House not understand what the Court said, or that the White House does understand but wanted to score some propaganda points at the Court's expense?

chs71 wrote:

chs71 wrote: New huddle, yet I haven't read the rules

-LJ

Delete my post if I break the rules, but don't post something under my name.

Or you could just review the rules and be sure to not break them from now on.

I understand what you are saying foot, I am just saying it isn't practical for todays world right now. Labor laws and business regulations are a noble idea (as are other Progrssive ideas), but they hinder this American economy from being the best it can be. Until they day where we can get every single country around the world to practice the same labor and regulatory laws that we have, we will be at a competitive disadvantage. That day, where every country has labor laws and regulations, is VERY far away, and until that time, the country that has the fewest labor laws and regulations will have a competitive economic advantage over the rest of the world. That's just a fact of the world right now.

So having said this, which would you rather have...... jobs created by monopolistic corporations or no jobs at all cause we push them out the door? IMO, and probably many others, monopoly jobs > no jobs.

And I also truly believe that no American corporation can be a monopoly today, and if they do become one, the government should have the power to break them, and has done so in the past (didn't the US break up Microsoft in the late 90's?).

About the unemployment levels and people not working, I don't feel that all 30% in the 30s and all 17+% now are just lazy. Many of them are out there looking for work and just can't find it. But there are those who will never work even though they are capable of working, and they are a drain to the system. My point is that no American citizen, or American business, owes anything to those people who won't help themselves. I blame these people on FDR, he single-handedly changed the outlook of America from being independent and self-reliant to a population who expects handouts from their government now.

Like I've said about a fiat monetary policy, labor laws and regulations are good in theory but are bad when put into practice because it takes certain conditions for the practice to work and we don't have those conditions right now (by the way, your endorsement of what Ford did in 1910 further proves my point that we don't need the wage laws for people to be compensated correctly nowadays. Businesses, and markets, are self-regulating like I've always said. It was efficient for Ford to raise the wages, and his business prospered because of it. If slashing wages was always efficient, like you seem to claim by saying that all big businesses would do just that, then Ford would have went out of business with the wage hikes. The problem with wage, labor or regulatory laws is that they assume every situation is the same, when they 100% are never the same).

Oh and your generation and mine probably aren't as close as you think. I'm 23, and being 23 I am only worried about 1 thing, jobs. Jobs = economic growth, and we should know by now that we aren't entitled to those jobs, we have to have the conditions available in the business world to entice the jobs here. That's what we did in the late 1800's and we had massive economic growth and a huge raise in the standard of living. People tend to ignore the standard of living, but that is one of the biggest things business influences. There was a day when people had to fight for their own lives, had no running water, no electricity, no way to heat their homes and sometimes no idea how to get their next meal. All of the advances in these categories, and others as well, all came from the business sector. The poor live like the rich in only a few generations. People take this for granted and think things will always be improving, but with the innovators (businesses) fleeing the country, they won't continue to improve.

For me, and hopefully others as well, monopoly and oppressive jobs >>>>>>>> no jobs; monopoly jobs are greater than no jobs, no doubt about it. I'd rather see peaceful strikes (groups like the Pinkertons would be illegal) over wages (we have made unions almost obsolete we have so many regulations) than see American families starving because they can't find a job.

bigmanbt wrote: I understand what you are saying foot, I am just saying it isn't practical for todays world right now. Labor laws and business regulations are a noble idea (as are other Progrssive ideas), but they hinder this American economy from being the best it can be. Until they day where we can get every single country around the world to practice the same labor and regulatory laws that we have, we will be at a competitive disadvantage. That day, where every country has labor laws and regulations, is VERY far away, and until that time, the country that has the fewest labor laws and regulations will have a competitive economic advantage over the rest of the world. That's just a fact of the world right now.

So having said this, which would you rather have...... jobs created by monopolistic corporations or no jobs at all cause we push them out the door? IMO, and probably many others, monopoly jobs > no jobs.

And I also truly believe that no American corporation can be a monopoly today, and if they do become one, the government should have the power to break them, and has done so in the past (didn't the US break up Microsoft in the late 90's?).

About the unemployment levels and people not working, I don't feel that all 30% in the 30s and all 17+% now are just lazy. Many of them are out there looking for work and just can't find it. But there are those who will never work even though they are capable of working, and they are a drain to the system. My point is that no American citizen, or American business, owes anything to those people who won't help themselves. I blame these people on FDR, he single-handedly changed the outlook of America from being independent and self-reliant to a population who expects handouts from their government now.

Like I've said about a fiat monetary policy, labor laws and regulations are good in theory but are bad when put into practice because it takes certain conditions for the practice to work and we don't have those conditions right now (by the way, your endorsement of what Ford did in 1910 further proves my point that we don't need the wage laws for people to be compensated correctly nowadays. Businesses, and markets, are self-regulating like I've always said. It was efficient for Ford to raise the wages, and his business prospered because of it. If slashing wages was always efficient, like you seem to claim by saying that all big businesses would do just that, then Ford would have went out of business with the wage hikes. The problem with wage, labor or regulatory laws is that they assume every situation is the same, when they 100% are never the same).

Oh and your generation and mine probably aren't as close as you think. I'm 23, and being 23 I am only worried about 1 thing, jobs. Jobs = economic growth, and we should know by now that we aren't entitled to those jobs, we have to have the conditions available in the business world to entice the jobs here. That's what we did in the late 1800's and we had massive economic growth and a huge raise in the standard of living. People tend to ignore the standard of living, but that is one of the biggest things business influences. There was a day when people had to fight for their own lives, had no running water, no electricity, no way to heat their homes and sometimes no idea how to get their next meal. All of the advances in these categories, and others as well, all came from the business sector. The poor live like the rich in only a few generations. People take this for granted and think things will always be improving, but with the innovators (businesses) fleeing the country, they won't continue to improve.

For me, and hopefully others as well, monopoly and oppressive jobs >>>>>>>> no jobs; monopoly jobs are greater than no jobs, no doubt about it. I'd rather see peaceful strikes (groups like the Pinkertons would be illegal) over wages (we have made unions almost obsolete we have so many regulations) than see American families starving because they can't find a job.

For being only 23 years of age, you are very knowledgeable and very well read.

Your post is well thought out and well stated as well. Kudos to you for that.

And for what it's worth, when I was 23, I shared the exact same sentiments that you share. Only I was even further to the right on all issues. I hated all liberals. And I even hated my economic professors that shared their concerns regarding the collapse of our economic system. As it turned out, they were clairvoyant and spot on.

Not going to go line by line in offering rebuttals again. I agree with a lot of what you say above. But you make a mistake of using the either/or scenarios as absolutes. Our situation is not an either/or absolute.

Taking the time in reading a book is tough to do today. If you were to read Gabor Steingart's book, at the very least, you would come to appreciate that there are those that have compromising views, that may in fact make sense.

You, or anybody else that is interested in saving America's future, read this book and see that there are other options out there, WITHOUT PROECTIONISM.

http://businessbooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/book_review_war_for_wealth_by_gabor_steingart

I voted for Ron Paul....because I thought Paul was head and shoulders above any of the other candidates in overall philosophy. Ron Paul would make many of the same arguments that you do.

I'll give it a shot, it never hurts to know all sides to a situation and it can only further my ideas. Gotta finish my Dawkins book first but I'll pick it up after that and see what it's all about.

Interesting...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Captain Cavalier wrote: Interesting...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Despite the howls from the left that big business dominates politics via its donations (which all goes to Republicans...two fallacies) -- the fact has pretty much always been that unions were the ones that give the most, and pretty much exclusively to Democrats.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Captain Cavalier wrote: Interesting...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Despite the howls from the left that big business dominates politics via its donations (which all goes to Republicans...two fallacies) -- the fact has pretty much always been that unions were the ones that give the most, and pretty much exclusively to Democrats.

Only hacks make this into a partisan issue. Who cares which party receives more from corporate donations? The fact is its bad for Americans in general.


I'm also sick of people who can't understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism. Being anti-corporatism is not anti-capitalism.

eersandbeers wrote:
I'm also sick of people who can't understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism. Being anti-corporatism is not anti-capitalism.

Somebody here gets it.

The Declaration and Constitution is for mankind, otherwise known as an entity created by the Creator with a soul. Corporations are an artifical entity without a soul. Many of our founders would be outraged by corporations buying large influence in government and having in some ways more rights than American citizens (being able to contribute more money to candidates), who the Declaration and Constitution were meant for. The money in politics at least lends to the argument that if we aren't an oligarchy today that we are well on the road to becoming so. The two parties have put tons of road blocks for opposition parties, are bankrolled by the money players in this country and internationally through companies registered here and seem to do their biding a lot - free trade - when it doesn't benefit the general welfare which the government is supposed to use its narrow powers for.

^^Another one who also gets it. But it's not just the founding fathers, but the people who wrote books on the capitalist system possibly running amuk....through absolute money power...which will corrupt absolutely.

^ Agree. What many people defend as capitalism is really corporatism or I'd argue a form of fascism.