Takers vs the Makers

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik300
Erik300's picture

Thom introduced an interesting twist yesterday. The GOP uses the Takers vs the Makers meme as the ones on public assistance and the public sector workers as the Takers and the ones who work in the private sector and pay taxes as the Makers. 

America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers

By 

Published July 12, 2012

FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/12/america-coming-civil-war/#ixzz20zpq4GnW

 But Thom said yesterday the Takers are the billionaire Investor class who TAKE massive dividend payouts  and the Makers are the actual people doing the work and actually making things.  17 Billionaire Takers are now making more campaign donations thant the entire rest of the Makers. They are actually buying off our government with their constant and massive "cash whipping" of our politicians as Ed Schultz puts it to legislate in THEIR interest and not ther Makers interest.

 Just yesterday they Takers cash whipped the Republicons into voting against the Disclose Act so we cant find out who is donating or what they are donating to.  

The Takers have cash whipped the government to give them much lower tax rates than the Makers increasing their wealth even more by 3 fold over the past 30 years.. 

THey have cash whipped the govt to get rid of regulations that protect the Makers from the industry of the Takers. 

OneTaker  family the Walton family now owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans.  They are  a dynasty that uses their immense wealth to benefit them and not the Makers. Its them vs us.   

 

Comments

polycarp2
Well, if someone didn't

Well, if someone didn't "take" a portion of what people make or do as a profit, a job wouldn't exist unless a worker owned their own workplace.

Obama should have sold the nearly worthless GM stock to GM workers. Then they'd be makers and earners. There wouldn't be any 'takers". demanding an income while doing nothing. At least, not at GM.

Our system is built on the premise that we have to have takers. The finger is just pointed at the wrong direction.

When the nation was founded, 'takers" were pretty much limited to plantation owners.

Most people owned their own workplace.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Redwing
Redwing's picture
Put a little different

Put a little different way.

Romney supporters sign their checks on the front; Obama supporters sign theirs on the back.  

Commonsense461
Or could they be referring to

Or could they be referring to the the fact that 64%( i would argue almost 100% because the 35% it is ss and medicare) of all tax revenue came from 49% of the country and 40% of the country ia on some form of government aid?

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2011USri

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/more-than-40-percent-of-americans-ar...

Erik300
Erik300's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Or

Commonsense461 wrote:

Or could they be referring to the the fact that 64%( i would argue almost 100% because the 35% it is ss and medicare) of all tax revenue came from 49% of the country and 40% of the country ia on some form of government aid?

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2011USri

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/more-than-40-percent-of-americans-ar...

Thank the Takers for that. Using the Walton Takers of Walmart nfor instance. I think I heard that up to 80% of their employees are on govt aid because they pay so little.  The Takers want to get rid of the minimum wage entirely and even child labor laws. The ultimate result is the impoverishment of the Makers for the benefit of the Takers. 

drc2
When the Monopoly Game has

When the Monopoly Game has concentrated the wealth in the hands of a few players and the rest are waiting for this round to end and a redeal, restart so they can play again, it does look like those with all the money are paying all the bills.  If they don't like it that way, SHARE THE DAMN WEALTH and enjoy a healthy economy where you do better than others, but not by that much.

The big point is that you can keep the game going instead of blowing it up.  When you classify all the system functions as "some form of government aid" you simply blame the government for doing what it ought to be doing in the management of the economy.

When the privateer sector goes through its rape/plunder bubble and burst nonsense, it leaves a lot of people needing help.  Vulture Capitalism is financialism, a perversion of capitalism.  Capitalism uses money to invest in the creation of value, not legitimately to arbitrage labor or to play money games.  These are not in the Adam Smith Free Market model.  That is why they are perversions of it.  Of course, all economic theories tend to heuristic reduction and "utopianism" in their simplification of human motivation and behavior.  But, as a game theory, capitalism asserts its virtue and utility by the application of capital to value creation ideas in the real world.

I think we need to refine the investment capital model to focus on the mission of the business and its value to the world rather than its short-term profitability.  Beyond worker-owned business models, and I have to laugh at the way both the "capitlists" and the "socialists" claim them as "their own," the place for both private and public investment capital is in making things better.  It involves getting over the fascination with money and its distractions from good investment thinking.

But, conservatives ought to be ashamed of their sophomoric arguments about who pays all the taxes.  It is wrong about a whole boatload of fees and other charges the rich avoid; and it is disingenous because the rich really do have ALL the money.

Marlin60
 If you've got no debts and

 If you've got no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than that 25% of Americans have collectively that is.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-172819426.html

 

Commonsense461
So y'all buy in to the Obama

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

Erik300
Erik300's picture
Marlin60 wrote:  If you've

Marlin60 wrote:

 If you've got no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than that 25% of Americans have collectively that is.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-172819426.html

 

This just in yesterday:

Walmart Heirs Have As Much Wealth As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans Combined

And in 2010, as the Walton’s wealth has risen and most other Americans’ wealth declined, it is now the case that the Walton family wealth is as large as the bottom 48.8 million families in the wealth distribution (constituting 41.5 percent of all American families) combined.

At the same time that the Waltons have amassed an ever larger fortune, Congress decided to cut the estate tax, a policy for which the Waltons have been pushing for years. And now that the estate tax cut is in place, conservatives are doing everything they can to ensure it doesn’t go away, allowing the Waltons to amass even larger amounts of wealth.

 

leighmf
leighmf's picture
In law the definition of

In law the definition of Maker is

2. (Law) a person who executes a legal document, esp one who signs a promissory note

Erik300
Erik300's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: So

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

Its interesting that Romney used Jobs and Gates as ones who did it on their own. First, they had PARTNERS that did as much as they did to start. MS would have been impossible without Paul Allen and a couple other guys. Jobs was the visionary/salesman. His partner was the genius.

Both Gates and Jobs were middle class with good educations and they founded their companies when the TOP TAX RATE ON THE RICH WAS 2-3 TIMES HIGHER THAN NOW! 

Business would be iompossible without government, just as a football game would be impossible without a field, football and rules and regulations. 

Commonsense461
Erik300 wrote: Commonsense461

Erik300 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

Its interesting that Romney used Jobs and Gates as ones who did it on their own. First, they had PARTNERS that did as much as they did to start. MS would have been impossible without Paul Allen and a couple other guys. Jobs was the visionary/salesman. His partner was the genius.

Both Gates and Jobs were middle class with good educations and they founded their companies when the TOP TAX RATE ON THE RICH WAS 2-3 TIMES HIGHER THAN NOW! 

Business would be iompossible without government, just as a football game would be impossible without a field, football and rules and regulations. 

You didn't awnser my question do you believe you do nothing on your own?

Recovering cons...
Recovering conservative2's picture
This is a longer discussion

This is a longer discussion of how we are interdependent to operate in society and the economy

Day in the Life of a
Joe Six-Pack Republican

by John Gray (jgray7@cinci.rr.com)

 

 

 

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

 

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

 

Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Source: http://tvnewslies.org/html/day_in_the_life_of_joe_middle-.html

Recovering cons...
Recovering conservative2's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Erik300

Commonsense461 wrote:

Erik300 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

Its interesting that Romney used Jobs and Gates as ones who did it on their own. First, they had PARTNERS that did as much as they did to start. MS would have been impossible without Paul Allen and a couple other guys. Jobs was the visionary/salesman. His partner was the genius.

Both Gates and Jobs were middle class with good educations and they founded their companies when the TOP TAX RATE ON THE RICH WAS 2-3 TIMES HIGHER THAN NOW! 

Business would be iompossible without government, just as a football game would be impossible without a field, football and rules and regulations. 

You didn't awnser my question do you believe you do nothing on your own?

Yes, we all do things on own but we build on what has been done before us.

I am sure you would not want to go to doctor who did not read books or have gone to Medical School or who was tested to make sure he or she had the skills to diagnosis or treat you.

I am sure you enjoy whatever food you have at resturant and you don't worry there are rodents running over the food because their health inspectors. Also there was a road to the resturant, there was wate, & power, sewer all things that we the peoople i.e. government built so the you and resturant could meet and have an econmic transaction.

 

drc2
Yeah, the fine investment

Yeah, the fine investment capitalists that I know would agree heatily.  They look for good ideas, meaning ideas that they can believe in for real value creation and not just "cash cows."  The latter are not interesting enough for these folks to bother with.  They want to make things that make a difference that matters, not just grab some fast bucks and run away.

Beyond a good idea, they look for people committed to making it happen rather than climbing the ladder individually.  They want a team, and they want a culture of moral mission to inspire and drive them.  They want leaders who serve and care for the people involved rather than bosses with egos to stroke.  They want the business positively connected to its neighborhood and community as well as serving the general good.

They see their investment funds as more than what their business is about.  The money is the means to do something "vocational" rather than "careerist."  They will be satisfied with a decent return on their money if everyone wins, and they will take the loss if the best intentions do not pan out.  They have more than enough money to challenge their ability to spend it as it is.  Because they are about more than making money, having the money to do this visionary investing is seen as a privilege and a grace rather than what they 'deserve' in the bare utilitarian sense of money.

More vintage CS compost, echoing the Drudgery and Limpbaugh and the InsHannity.  Stupid question, of course they did not do it on their own.  Nobody does.  Not Olympic Champions.  Not musicians or movie stars.  Not even authors of books.  Certainly not investment capitalists of the vulture sort, and I would include all the money making money financialism as immoral and illegal were principle not only about compound interest.  Obama may have spoken heresy out loud in the minds of the Self-Made, but the idea that Romney is an up from poverty figure is too absurd to keep a straight face.  His Dad was a better example of up from fairly well-off to be a good businessman and politician.  His sin was telling the truth too.

Nope, the Ken Doll of Wall St. grows up as a snotty preppy and is called to the public service of investment capitalism.  He takes his given million and grows it in true Horatio Alger style, while enjoying his genes and high cheekbones.  Has uncanny ability to anticipate investment trends and to beat the best in the market.  Is able to make all forms of his investments grow and find dark places to hide from view.  This is the guy who knows how to turn America around.

His best legacy is the now hated Romneycare (Obamacare).  His proffered credentials are his financial career as a vulture.  At a time when outrage at banksters continues to grow as the sleaze oozes out the cracks, Romney becomes the symbol of bootleg business and loan shark greed, and he either releases his taxes and has to account for what is there or whines about it and lets us imagine the worst.

The only thing Romney brings is more of the same crap that blew up in '08.  He really has no new idea to present even to put a new spin on it.  It is just the same ole, same ole out of tune song.

Commonsense461
drc2 wrote: Yeah, the fine

drc2 wrote:

Yeah, the fine investment capitalists that I know would agree heatily.  They look for good ideas, meaning ideas that they can believe in for real value creation and not just "cash cows."  The latter are not interesting enough for these folks to bother with.  They want to make things that make a difference that matters, not just grab some fast bucks and run away.

Beyond a good idea, they look for people committed to making it happen rather than climbing the ladder individually.  They want a team, and they want a culture of moral mission to inspire and drive them.  They want leaders who serve and care for the people involved rather than bosses with egos to stroke.  They want the business positively connected to its neighborhood and community as well as serving the general good.

They see their investment funds as more than what their business is about.  The money is the means to do something "vocational" rather than "careerist."  They will be satisfied with a decent return on their money if everyone wins, and they will take the loss if the best intentions do not pan out.  They have more than enough money to challenge their ability to spend it as it is.  Because they are about more than making money, having the money to do this visionary investing is seen as a privilege and a grace rather than what they 'deserve' in the bare utilitarian sense of money.

More vintage CS compost, echoing the Drudgery and Limpbaugh and the InsHannity.  Stupid question, of course they did not do it on their own.  Nobody does.  Not Olympic Champions.  Not musicians or movie stars.  Not even authors of books.  Certainly not investment capitalists of the vulture sort, and I would include all the money making money financialism as immoral and illegal were principle not only about compound interest.  Obama may have spoken heresy out loud in the minds of the Self-Made, but the idea that Romney is an up from poverty figure is too absurd to keep a straight face.  His Dad was a better example of up from fairly well-off to be a good businessman and politician.  His sin was telling the truth too.

Nope, the Ken Doll of Wall St. grows up as a snotty preppy and is called to the public service of investment capitalism.  He takes his given million and grows it in true Horatio Alger style, while enjoying his genes and high cheekbones.  Has uncanny ability to anticipate investment trends and to beat the best in the market.  Is able to make all forms of his investments grow and find dark places to hide from view.  This is the guy who knows how to turn America around.

His best legacy is the now hated Romneycare (Obamacare).  His proffered credentials are his financial career as a vulture.  At a time when outrage at banksters continues to grow as the sleaze oozes out the cracks, Romney becomes the symbol of bootleg business and loan shark greed, and he either releases his taxes and has to account for what is there or whines about it and lets us imagine the worst.

The only thing Romney brings is more of the same crap that blew up in '08.  He really has no new idea to present even to put a new spin on it.  It is just the same ole, same ole out of tune song.

Then I have a right to pot triton of your wages because you did it with my help as I helped paid for the government right?

Recovering cons...
Recovering conservative2's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: drc2

Commonsense461 wrote:

drc2 wrote:

 

Then I have a right to pot triton of your wages because you did it with my help as I helped paid for the government right?

You do get a portion of his wages every time you drive on a road, turn on your power, or take advantage of anything that the commons has built.

Antifascist
Antifascist's picture
Mitt Romney, American

Mitt Romney, American Parasite

Quote:
Even a company Romney cites as one of his greatest achievements—Steel Dynamics, where he was a minority investor—was practically launched by corporate welfare. Indiana taxpayers gave the firm $77 million to open a plant. Residents of DeKalb County actually had their income taxes raised solely to help Romney and his friends. Tad DeHaven calls it "theft and redistribution."

He's no yammering Trotskyite; DeHaven is a former budget adviser to Republican U.S. senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Yet he notes that firms like Bain often get governments to subsidize their raiding parties.The feds take $100 billion a year from everyday taxpayers and send it straight to companies like Romney's, says DeHaven, who now works for the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank.

rs allen
So the question is, how long

So the question is, how long does every one think it's going to take before there is a civil war? How long before push and shove really does come to more?

After all, whatever the reasons weather here there or the other, there seems to be a significant dedicated faction of our nation that take it for fact these robber barons are the lode stone.

And do you really think they're going to give up without a fight?

chilidog
Commonsense461 wrote: So

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Commonsense461
chilidog

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Really you want me too take the word of the guy who called all rightwingers liers in print?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Really you want me too take the word of the guy who called all rightwingers liers in print?

Actually, I think Sen. Franken called all rightwingers liars.

And yes, we do and yes you all are liars.

drc2
Allowing for those who are

Allowing for those who are too far gone to know anymore.  I have come to believe that some of the liars believe their lies and deserve a different term of approbrium.  Delusional Zombies comes to mind.

To be only a bit more serious, there is a quality to ideology that rejects the intrusion of reality while reinforcing the credibility and coherence of the false construct of ideology.  Philosophy, on the other hand, invites the disruption of the narrative or theory with conflicting data or interpretation.  Much as we love our own ideas, intellectual curiosity and critical thinking require us to love being wrong as much or more.  Discovering that there is another way to see what we have been working at is great!

The Right in America is defending a failed and falling order.  The Empire is a disaster and completely heteronomous to any Constitutional governance.  What the Supremes have done to any semblance of democracy ought to help our disbelief in illusion and help us get busy getting our own democracy even if we have to start from scratch.

Liberals and the Left in America also have some ideological rehab to attend to.  We never really learned the lessons of our failed American Century, so we were not ready to warn the Right about where they were going with coherence and passion.  We were the Mainline on the Sideline for the time of Conservative Culture.  Rightwing preachers and the new John Birch Society came off the fringe while the Left was sent into exile.  Confusion and impotence could not compete for face time.

What we don't have to do is to pretend that our dogma is working.  They do.  We can see a future beyond the present.  They can only see this story working as they want it to.  They have to close their eyes and cover their ears.  We can observe, think and use our wits.  I would not trade places.

leighmf
leighmf's picture
Steel Dynamics! OMG! You hit

Steel Dynamics! OMG! You hit GOLD- I knew you would the minute I saw your icon. Steel Dynamics is a railroad easement junkyard operation, clients of the lawyers at 215 East Berry Street in the former offices of my gg father and grandfather.

They are right in the middle of the Kryder Estate laundry, The Olin B. and Desta Schwab Foundation theft- same lawyers, organizations, and financial institutions.

First. try this on

2008 Fannie Mae bankrupt

THE STEEL DYNAMICS FOUNDATION, INC.Control Number 2008071000438: Active Creation : 7/10/2008 4:53:19 PM (Indiana Non-Profit)

7/11/2008 IndyMac failed

Earlier- just after ENRON filed bankruptcy Dec 2, 2001

(Brief Article) Author/s: Issue: Dec 21, 2001 PITTSBURGH -- Steel Dynamics Inc., Fort Wayne, Ind., said Wednesday an unexpected bankruptcy-related write-off linked to Metals USA Inc. will cause its first quarterly loss since the company began operations in 1996.

It is a concealed fact that Richard Blaich was at Baker and Daniels, Kryder Estate Lawyers, when he hornswoggled Mr. Schwab into dedicating his lfe's earnings to an educational foundation. It can only be found in the original Articles of Incorporation which were not easy to get.

Because the Secretary of State Records reflect Blaich's later address located partially on a Lot shared by Kryder and The Charitable Trust of James Irwin Evans, I Summit Square or SF Plaza, now a subsidiary of ABN AMRO.

Original OLIN B. AND DESTA SCHWAB FOUNDATION, INC.: C/O Richard Blaich Beckman, Lawson Et al, 800 Standard Federal Plaza PO Box 800, FT WAYNE, IN 46801 : 1989120889 Status: Merged Creation : 12/19/1989 Inactive Date: 1/18/2005  

Moved to Nevada after Olin died: OLIN B. AND DESTA SCHWAB FOUNDATION, INC. : 200 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 800, FORT WAYNE, IN 46802 : 2005020400133 Status: Active Creation Date: 1/24/2005 Creation : 9/11/2003 Original Creation State: NV This foundation of an heirless couple was originally incorporated by a Baker and Daniels lawyer in Fort Wayne, Richard Blaich. When Olin died after his wife, Blaich incorporated the foundation in Nevada in 2003 and it became an Indiana Foreign Corporation until the Indiana atty General and Sec. of State sued. Centex had conveyed a luxury home to Blaich in Nevada. Blaich was found dead in his Fort Wayne garage and labeled suicide. The foundation is now trusteed by former Steel Dynamics/Fort Wayne National Bank/ North American Van Lines officers and directors.

(Fort Wayne National Bank, North American Van Lines) OLIN B. AND DESTA SCHWAB FOUNDATION, INC. Entity Address: C/O M. JAMES JOHNSTON, 110 W. BERRY STREET, SUITE 2401, FORT WAYNE, IN 46802 Control Number: 2006091100569 Status: Active Entity Type: Non-Profit Domestic Corporation Entity Creation Date: 9/11/2006

This outfit has a bloody trail of suicides and murders left in the wake of North American Van Lines over time.

Good night, Mitt, you twit. 

Commonsense461
Phaedrus76

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Really you want me too take the word of the guy who called all rightwingers liers in print?

Actually, I think Sen. Franken called all rightwingers liars.

And yes, we do and yes you all are liars.

Name 1 place I've lied. What's the point if debate and discussion if youputt everyone down as lieing?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Really you want me too take the word of the guy who called all rightwingers liers in print?

Actually, I think Sen. Franken called all rightwingers liars.

And yes, we do and yes you all are liars.

Name 1 place I've lied. What's the point if debate and discussion if youputt everyone down as lieing?

Spreading falsehoods is lying, it is not lieing. Spreading falsehoods even if the person speaking or typing earnestly believes it may not be lying, except to the extent that the person did not verify the information. 

So, say for instance on economics, to say govt spending doesn't spur growth in a depressed economy is a lie. It is not a difference of opinion.

gdp of country X = personal spending + business spending + govt spending - money that leaves country X

When conservatives say otherwise it is a falsehood, a lie. 

Any rational person who has seen not one but not two birth certificates showing a man is born in the USA would accept him as a natural citizen.

So explain some conservative ideas, and I will show you your lies.

PS, get a spellchecker. Learn to use it. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
The Takers vs Makers frame is

The Takers vs Makers frame is something Thomas Frank writes about in Pity The Poor Billionaire... that the resurgance of the Right even after their policies destroyed the economy is based on slight of hand... trying to get those hurt by the rich to identify with them as all noble producers vs the parasites. 

Commonsense461
Phaedrus76

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Really you want me too take the word of the guy who called all rightwingers liers in print?

Actually, I think Sen. Franken called all rightwingers liars.

And yes, we do and yes you all are liars.

Name 1 place I've lied. What's the point if debate and discussion if youputt everyone down as lieing?

Spreading falsehoods is lying, it is not lieing. Spreading falsehoods even if the person speaking or typing earnestly believes it may not be lying, except to the extent that the person did not verify the information. 

So, say for instance on economics, to say govt spending doesn't spur growth in a depressed economy is a lie. It is not a difference of opinion.

gdp of country X = personal spending + business spending + govt spending - money that leaves country X

When conservatives say otherwise it is a falsehood, a lie. 

Any rational person who has seen not one but not two birth certificates showing a man is born in the USA would accept him as a natural citizen.

So explain some conservative ideas, and I will show you your lies.

PS, get a spellchecker. Learn to use it. 

 

Ok I agree with your definition of GDP but isn't it also lieing to ignore the adverse effect  increased government spending has on personal and  buisness spending?

Antifascist
Antifascist's picture
The Real Welfare Kings and

The Real Welfare Kings and Queens : Five Reasons the Super-Rich Need Big Government

  1. Security
  2. Laws and Regulations
  3. Research and Infrastructure
  4. Subsidies
  5. Disaster Costs
Commonsense461
Antifascist wrote: The Real

Antifascist wrote:

The Real Welfare Kings and Queens : Five Reasons the Super-Rich Need Big Government

  1. Security
  2. Laws and Regulations
  3. Research and Infrastructure
  4. Subsidies
  5. Disaster Costs

Define subsidie.

Antifascist
Antifascist's picture
Why don't you read the

Why don't you read the article. I am not your babysitter. 

Great Lincoln quotes by Thom here. 

The Republican Lie about the Self-Made Myth

Commonsense461
I did it doesn't define

I did it doesn't define subside I'm sick an tired of people classifying tax code deductions for capital investment as subsidies they are not. The basic definition is:A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business . No mention of tax code in the definition.

leighmf
leighmf's picture
Please see my reply#24 to

Please see my reply#24 to yours at #18 about Steel Dynamics. It is listed as replied to #16 in error. 

Antifascist
Antifascist's picture
Even you "basic definition"

Even you "basic definition" does not exclude the function of subsidies in the form of tax code deductions since it involves a sum of money transferred to industry not paid in taxes. You know money doesn't just mean cash. I guess that is why the cited definition is a "basic" definition. And not all tax deductions are necessarily for capital investment, and not all tax deductions are actually invested. Rote memorization is easier than thinking isn't it? 

Quote:
4. Subsidies

The traditional image of ‘welfare’ pales in comparison to corporate welfare and millionaire welfare. Whereas over 90% of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families goes to the elderly, the disabled, or working households, most of the annual $1.3 trillion in “tax expenditures” (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, and loopholes) goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. One estimate is $250 billion a year just to the richest 1%.

Senator Tom Coburn’s website reports that mortgage interest and rental expense deductions alone return almost $100 billion a year to millionaires.

The most profitable corporations get the biggest subsidies. The Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in financial assistance to financial institutions and corporations. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, 280 profitable Fortune 500 companies, which together paid only half of the maximum 35 percent corporate tax rate, received $223 billion in tax subsidies.

Even the conservative Cato Institute admitted that the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

In agriculture, most of the funding for commodity programs goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland. For the oil industry, estimates of subsidy payments range from $10 to $50 billion per year.

Commonsense461
Antifascist wrote: Even you

Antifascist wrote:

Even you "basic definition" does not exclude the function of subsidies in the form of tax code deductions since it involves a sum of money passed to industry not paid in taxes. You know money doesn't just mean cash. I guess that is why the cited definition is a "basic" definition. And not all tax deductions are necessarily for capital investment, and not all tax deductions are actually invested. Rote memorization is easier than thinking isn't it? 

Quote:
4. Subsidies

The traditional image of ‘welfare’ pales in comparison to corporate welfare and millionaire welfare. Whereas over 90% of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families goes to the elderly, the disabled, or working households, most of the annual $1.3 trillion in “tax expenditures” (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, and loopholes) goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. One estimate is $250 billion a year just to the richest 1%.

Senator Tom Coburn’s website reports that mortgage interest and rental expense deductions alone return almost $100 billion a year to millionaires.

The most profitable corporations get the biggest subsidies. The Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in financial assistance to financial institutions and corporations. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, 280 profitable Fortune 500 companies, which together paid only half of the maximum 35 percent corporate tax rate, received $223 billion in tax subsidies.

Even the conservative Cato Institute admitted that the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

In agriculture, most of the funding for commodity programs goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland. For the oil industry, estimates of subsidy payments range from $10 to $50 billion per year.

I would simply argue that taking advantage of the tax code given is no taking  a subsidie in my mind as no tax payer money is going to said company.  

Antifascist
Antifascist's picture
One can argue anything... And

One can argue anything... And of course taxpayer money to going to the subsidized company because the government has a legal tax claim to a sum of the company's income which the deduction releases from payment. 

Commonsense461
Antifascist wrote: One can

Antifascist wrote:

One can argue anything... And of course taxpayer money to going to the subsidized company because the government has a legal tax claim to a sum of the company's income which the deduction releases from payment. 

No you owe the government a amount and you do what you canever lower that. There is no claim on your money.

Antifascist
Antifascist's picture
Commonsense wrote... Quote:

Commonsense wrote...

Quote:
No you owe the government a amount and you do what you canever lower that. There is no claim on your money. 

"Owe" by defintion means a "claim." That is why there are debt collectors.There are a lot of people sitting in jail that said the same thing to the IRS. 

Commonsense461
Antifascist

Antifascist wrote:

Commonsense wrote...

Quote:
No you owe the government a amount and you do what you canever lower that. There is no claim on your money. 

"Owe" by defintion means a "claim." That is why there are debt collectors.There are a lot of people sitting in jail that said the same thing to the IRS. 

And that is a over reach of government.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: And

Commonsense461 wrote:

And that is a over reach of government.

Wrong again sh*t for brains. We await your retraction.

Article 1, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

AND Congress has the power to...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

AND

Amendment 16:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Really you want me too take the word of the guy who called all rightwingers liers in print?

Actually, I think Sen. Franken called all rightwingers liars.

And yes, we do and yes you all are liars.

Name 1 place I've lied. What's the point if debate and discussion if youputt everyone down as lieing?

Spreading falsehoods is lying, it is not lieing. Spreading falsehoods even if the person speaking or typing earnestly believes it may not be lying, except to the extent that the person did not verify the information. 

So, say for instance on economics, to say govt spending doesn't spur growth in a depressed economy is a lie. It is not a difference of opinion.

gdp of country X = personal spending + business spending + govt spending - money that leaves country X

When conservatives say otherwise it is a falsehood, a lie. 

Any rational person who has seen not one but not two birth certificates showing a man is born in the USA would accept him as a natural citizen.

So explain some conservative ideas, and I will show you your lies.

PS, get a spellchecker. Learn to use it. 

 

Ok I agree with your definition of GDP but isn't it also lieing to ignore the adverse effect  increased government spending has on personal and  buisness spending?

No because I said "in a depressed economy" meaning, since no one else is spending and employing the 10% of citizens, then more spending by the govt has no effect on personal or business spending. 

Commonsense461
Pierpont

Pierpont wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

And that is a over reach of government.

Wrong again sh*t for brains. We await your retraction.

Article 1, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

AND Congress has the power to...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

AND

Amendment 16:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Where is the power to throw you in jail or garnish wages or even have the IRS in the constitution?

Commonsense461
Phaedrus76

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:

So y'all buy in to the Obama statement that  you did nothing on your own?

"No American gets rich on his or her own.  Every one of us rich people stands on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the shoulders of

people who stood on the necks of Native Americans."

- Al Franken

http://flimsysanity.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

Really you want me too take the word of the guy who called all rightwingers liers in print?

Actually, I think Sen. Franken called all rightwingers liars.

And yes, we do and yes you all are liars.

Name 1 place I've lied. What's the point if debate and discussion if youputt everyone down as lieing?

Spreading falsehoods is lying, it is not lieing. Spreading falsehoods even if the person speaking or typing earnestly believes it may not be lying, except to the extent that the person did not verify the information. 

So, say for instance on economics, to say govt spending doesn't spur growth in a depressed economy is a lie. It is not a difference of opinion.

gdp of country X = personal spending + business spending + govt spending - money that leaves country X

When conservatives say otherwise it is a falsehood, a lie. 

Any rational person who has seen not one but not two birth certificates showing a man is born in the USA would accept him as a natural citizen.

So explain some conservative ideas, and I will show you your lies.

PS, get a spellchecker. Learn to use it. 

 

Ok I agree with your definition of GDP but isn't it also lieing to ignore the adverse effect  increased government spending has on personal and  buisness spending?

No because I said "in a depressed economy" meaning, since no one else is spending and employing the 10% of citizens, then more spending by the govt has no effect on personal or business spending. 

Wouldnt increased governmemt spending increase taxes decreasing decretionary and investment capital? 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Commonsense461 wrote:Pierpont

Commonsense461 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:
And that is a over reach of government.

Wrong again sh*t for brains. We await your retraction.

Article 1, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

AND Congress has the power to...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

AND

Amendment 16:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where is the power to throw you in jail or garnish wages or even have the IRS in the constitution?

We all know you're a dimwitted far Right troll. But do have to continually prove it? What part of "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." is hard to understand, uh moron?

Commonsense461
Pierpont

Pierpont wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

Commonsense461 wrote:
And that is a over reach of government.

Wrong again sh*t for brains. We await your retraction.

Article 1, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

AND Congress has the power to...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

AND

Amendment 16:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where is the power to throw you in jail or garnish wages or even have the IRS in the constitution?

We all know you're a dimwitted far Right troll. But do have to continually prove it? What part of "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." is hard to understand, uh moron?

 

How is the IRS, department of education and may others necessary? The states could easily collect federal taxes along with state taxes and pass it up to the federal government.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Pierpont wrote:Commonsense461

Pierpont wrote:
Commonsense461 wrote:

We all know you're a dimwitted far Right troll. But do have to continually prove it? What part of "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." is hard to understand, uh moron?

How is the IRS, department of education and may others necessary? The states could easily collect federal taxes along with state taxes and pass it up to the federal government.
Still playing stupid? BECAUSE CONGRESS WHICH HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER SAID THOSE AGENCIES WERE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE. Take it up with the Constitution moron.

As for states... so Congress should pass a mandate on the states to collect FEDERAL TAXES?

 

Give it a break CC. Come back when you turn 14 or your IQ rises to 78.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Commonsense461 wrote:Wouldnt

Commonsense461 wrote:
Wouldnt increased governmemt spending increase taxes decreasing decretionary and investment capital? 

And when was the US economy better? Under Clinton with higher tax rates and a balanced budget, or under Bush with lower tax rates, an imploded economy, and 4.9 trillion in new debt?

And the wonderful thing about money is it changes hands often and can be spent more than once during a fiscal year.

drc2
If there were not a capital

If there were not a capital glut sitting in the Private Sector, raising taxes might put some pressure on the investment capital resources.  But, government spending stimulates private sector spending, and it creates supply chains and opportunities for private sector services to be involved.  The problem at present is not that regulations and high taxes are shorting the capital resources of the private sector; it is that the privateers want to put it in their own pockets instead of reinvesting in the economy and the society in which their economy is situated.  That galls them, having their economy be subject to social needs and realities.  Not what they learned in Biz School about their heroic service as capitalists.

Commonsense461
PierPierre's your the one

PierPierre's your the one that brought up necessary and proper clause I'm simply pointing out if state agency's can handle federal taxes  how is it necessary and proper to have the IRS.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:
PierPierre's your the one that brought up necessary and proper clause I'm simply pointing out if state agency's can handle federal taxes how is it necessary and proper to have the IRS.

And you distort that how? Gee... can it be because the Tenth Amendment would give states the right to refuse? Then what happens when 5-10-20 states refuse to collect federal taxes? Why can't the federal government simplify things and collect federal and STATE taxes?

polycarp2
Just exactly what is it that

Just exactly what is it that financiers and banksters are making other than claims upon the entire economic output of nations?

Yet claims of their populations for basic food and housing needs make them somehow "takers".

Neo-liberals of both parties have turned the whole thing upside down.

When a few are taking it all, probably some of the loot should be re-directed towards those who actually make things. It's usually done through taxation.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"