RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/11/2013 6:41:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Living in a commune was not charity. They are literally the basis of Marx's thinking.

Living in a commune was a choice. Living in a commune, you chose to share everything. Communism forced it, while the communes of the 60's were freely entered into. That is the difference.

I doubt the children born into the communes of the 19th century had any choice in the matter. I'm absolutely positive that they did redistribute the wealth acting as a government.

The kids born into a commune weren't at the age of self-determination, were they? The parents made that choice.
Regardless of whether or not the commune acted as its own government, it was still a choice to live there or not. Choosing to live in a commune is choosing to abide by those rules. People didn't go into communes not knowing the rules, did they?

But this discussion was over whether communes practices redistribution or charity. Clearly it was redistribution.


Actually, it was about charity vs. Government redistribution. That is choosing to give, or being forced to give. If you can't see that, then there really is no discussion, and never really was.




DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/11/2013 6:43:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Ron called for the end to corporate welfare and for the money to be returned to those that owned the money. The ones that owned the money are the ones that paid them in taxes. How do you get a tax dollar back to the taxpayer? Cut taxes.

No. Most of the money that was given to corps by the government ended up in the hands of the very wealthy.  To get that money back in the hands of the middle class, where it belongs, the tax structure has to become more progressive and stuff like capital gains has to be ended and the estate tax has to be raised.

End "Corporate Welfare." Now, it's giving money to the rich?!? Make up your mind, dude.
By what metric does it "belong" to the Middle Class?

By the metric of it was their tax money that went to the ultra rich.


Did the ultra rich pay any of that tax money, or not? Who paid the bulk of that tax money? Ron's assertion was to get the money back to who it belonged to. If the top 1% are paying the bulk of the income taxes, aren't they the ones the bulk of the taxes belonged to?




DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/11/2013 6:45:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Don't give it away to begin with, then there will be no need for 're-distribution.'


[sm=agree.gif] [sm=goodpost.gif]




DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/11/2013 6:47:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

And, therein lies the difference between charity and government redistribution.

And since the government has redistibuted our wealth to the corporations, it is time to swing the pendulum back and redistribute back to its owners.

Completely agree, Ron. But, you do realize, that means cutting taxes, right?

Well, we'll be able to drop property taxes once we charge SALES TAX on the sales of stocks and bonds.


I'm not sure that's correct, farglebargle. None of my property taxes are going to the Fed's now, so I don't see that connection.




DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/11/2013 6:49:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If a dollar is more valuable, it can buy more. Yes, that guy/gal with a bajillion dollars in the bank just got richer, but he wasn't spending it anyway, was s/he? The guy that spends his paycheck every week getting the essentials can now get more essentials, or spend less to get the same amount of essentials (allocating the "extra" to some other worthy cause of his choosing).

No... I think I'll just step out of this one again. These sorts of ridiculous faux debates don't interest me.
Here though, as a take-away, yeah I believe inflationary currency (I mean currency not monetary policy) is a bad thing because inflationary currency allows inflationary monetary policy and if it is allowed, then whoever controls the monetary supply will do it. If you could print money wouldn't you? So I'm with you on the whole wanting to "take money out of the money stream" although I doubt it can be done and I acknowledge it makes the current imbalances even worse.


According to Bernanke, The Fed knows how to roll everything back to get The Fed out of the picture. I have a hard time imagining how painful that is going to be.




DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/11/2013 6:56:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Just for the adventure;
Has the press ever mentioned anything about ExxonMobil or Monsanto, the regular and timely truckloads of US Treasury cash to those and other corporations, in any of their reporting on this "financial cliff" thing? Has the Congress mentioned them at all?
What, no?
Hard to imagine the absence of something so obvious in such discussion, wouldn't you think?


I haven't read the 2014 budget, but one of the summary points I read said that Obama was reducing the amount of farm subsidies, so, maybe?

What cash does the Federal Government send to ExxonMobil?




DomKen -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/11/2013 8:31:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Ron called for the end to corporate welfare and for the money to be returned to those that owned the money. The ones that owned the money are the ones that paid them in taxes. How do you get a tax dollar back to the taxpayer? Cut taxes.

No. Most of the money that was given to corps by the government ended up in the hands of the very wealthy.  To get that money back in the hands of the middle class, where it belongs, the tax structure has to become more progressive and stuff like capital gains has to be ended and the estate tax has to be raised.

End "Corporate Welfare." Now, it's giving money to the rich?!? Make up your mind, dude.
By what metric does it "belong" to the Middle Class?

By the metric of it was their tax money that went to the ultra rich.


Did the ultra rich pay any of that tax money, or not? Who paid the bulk of that tax money? Ron's assertion was to get the money back to who it belonged to. If the top 1% are paying the bulk of the income taxes, aren't they the ones the bulk of the taxes belonged to?


Not if they got more than they paid in taxes which is how they got richer while the rest of us got poorer.




Edwynn -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 2:02:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Just for the adventure;
Has the press ever mentioned anything about ExxonMobil or Monsanto, the regular and timely truckloads of US Treasury cash to those and other corporations, in any of their reporting on this "financial cliff" thing? Has the Congress mentioned them at all?
What, no?
Hard to imagine the absence of something so obvious in such discussion, wouldn't you think?


I haven't read the 2014 budget, but one of the summary points I read said that Obama was reducing the amount of farm subsidies, so, maybe?

What cash does the Federal Government send to ExxonMobil?




If Obama were to succeed in cutting farm subsidies (which are, truth be known, agro-chem subsidies) to any appreciable degree, that would be a minor miracle, especially considering that Monsanto's Michael Taylor lurks in the background as Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA (and of recent 'fame,' under this administration, as "Food Safety Czar," almost succeeding in killing the organic produce industry and outlawing all farmer's markets in one fell swoop). That guy slides in and out of every administration (in either the FDA or USDA) between stints at his Monsanto home base for about thirty years now.

As for my lazy assertion about government checks to Exxon, it was just that, a lazy assertion. I'm not sure about that as fact. It's just that it ticks me off that a corporation that consistently sets new records for total profits every three years or so, twice the profit of #2 Microsoft in almost any year, gets any tax breaks and credits at all (which are in any case quite substantial).

I was likely conflating that with the $3.2 Billion check that the Treasury in fact sent to GE for tax year 2010.

That little morsel sort of snuck under the radar in the midst of Geithner sending a couple or three trillion to the banks and AIG, n'est-ce pas?

But the mechanics and the particulars are only of curious consequence. If your mortgage monthly payment requirement is $1,200 a month, but you are in fact sending $800 a month, then someone else is forced to make up the difference, no escaping that. The lobbyists have succeeded quite well in getting congress to shift the shortfall to taxpayers in almost every case. The bank is going to get its $1,200 and they aren't picky about the particulars.

Any 'depletion allowance,' any tax credit to corporations, has everything to do with the amount deducted from your and my paycheck.

No escaping that.









thompsonx -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 5:33:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Disgusting liberal mindset. (MSNBC)


Reported at -

We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” says the professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South.

Harris-Perry urges us to “break through” the “private idea” that individuals own themselves. Like Marx, she believes the individual is a “communal being” and all human worth is intractably linked to the community, the collective, and the state is the ultimate manifestation of the collective will.



Now, all your pussy belong to us I could go for[8D] I did like the Lean Forward part[:D]

One has to wonder how you get from "we are all part of a community" to "your pussy belong to us"?




Moonhead -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 5:38:47 AM)

It's one of those false syllogisms that the right are big on.
[:D]




Lucylastic -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 6:26:29 AM)

I thought it was wishful thinkin




DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 7:09:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Just for the adventure;
Has the press ever mentioned anything about ExxonMobil or Monsanto, the regular and timely truckloads of US Treasury cash to those and other corporations, in any of their reporting on this "financial cliff" thing? Has the Congress mentioned them at all?
What, no?
Hard to imagine the absence of something so obvious in such discussion, wouldn't you think?

I haven't read the 2014 budget, but one of the summary points I read said that Obama was reducing the amount of farm subsidies, so, maybe?
What cash does the Federal Government send to ExxonMobil?

If Obama were to succeed in cutting farm subsidies (which are, truth be known, agro-chem subsidies) to any appreciable degree, that would be a minor miracle, especially considering that Monsanto's Michael Taylor lurks in the background as Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA (and of recent 'fame,' under this administration, as "Food Safety Czar," almost succeeding in killing the organic produce industry and outlawing all farmer's markets in one fell swoop). That guy slides in and out of every administration (in either the FDA or USDA) between stints at his Monsanto home base for about thirty years now.
As for my lazy assertion about government checks to Exxon, it was just that, a lazy assertion. I'm not sure about that as fact. It's just that it ticks me off that a corporation that consistently sets new records for total profits every three years or so, twice the profit of #2 Microsoft in almost any year, gets any tax breaks and credits at all (which are in any case quite substantial).
I was likely conflating that with the $3.2 Billion check that the Treasury in fact sent to GE for tax year 2010.
That little morsel sort of snuck under the radar in the midst of Geithner sending a couple or three trillion to the banks and AIG, n'est-ce pas?
But the mechanics and the particulars are only of curious consequence. If your mortgage monthly payment requirement is $1,200 a month, but you are in fact sending $800 a month, then someone else is forced to make up the difference, no escaping that. The lobbyists have succeeded quite well in getting congress to shift the shortfall to taxpayers in almost every case. The bank is going to get its $1,200 and they aren't picky about the particulars.
Any 'depletion allowance,' any tax credit to corporations, has everything to do with the amount deducted from your and my paycheck.
No escaping that.


[image]http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/43xxx/43993-land-figure1.png[/image]

2012 tax breaks for "fossil fuels" totaled <$5B.

Forbes Top 5 Oil Exploration Facts

You seem to be making the assumption that current spending levels are acceptable, so that any tax break to anyone will need to be covered by someone else. That is absolutely true. But, you aren't covering it. I'm not covering it. No one is really covering it...yet. Your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren might be called upon to actually cover for the profligate spending of today, but the way our current crop of elected elite are operating, it won't be us.

Your GE comment seems to show that you want to treat all income, regardless of where it was made, needs to be taxed as domestic income. That's all fine and dandy. If an international company HQ'ed outside the US isn't taxed on all non-US income, what is the carrot being pushed? Won't that provide incentive for a US international business to pull up stakes and move their base out of the US? It's not a huge distance from Fairfield, CT to Toronto. How are you going to determine who has to pay what? Chrysler is no longer a US international company. They are majority owned by Fiat. How will that work?

I support closing almost all loopholes across the board. By "almost all," I still support charitable organizations maintaining tax exempt status. I also have come to see income tax brackets as nothing more than a series of loopholes. As an example, if we have a 10%/20%/30% system, the tax rate is 30% with a 20% tax break (loophole) for the first $X of income and a 10% tax break (loophole) for the next $Y of income. The rest is taxed at 30% (no loophole). Personal exemptions and child tax credits are loopholes, too. I still support the existence of the progressive tax bracket system we have, and the personal exemption and child tax credit system we have in place. Outside of that, close all the loopholes.




mnottertail -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 7:52:49 AM)

The carrot being pushed would be tarriffs.




Edwynn -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 8:30:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Your GE comment seems to show that you want to treat all income, regardless of where it was made, needs to be taxed as domestic income.


Nothing at all in the comment mentioned nor even insinuated at all anything about foreign sources of GE's income, but it nevertheless doesn't surprise me that you would say that it "seems to show" that to you. That's within your modus operandi.

I didn't mention the issue of what level of GE's income came from domestic or foreign sources, actually, but since you bring it up ...

If a US citizen has a mutual fund or ETF invested in an international index fund, an emerging markets index fund, etc. then he/she pays taxes on on the gains and income from those holdings, same as if obtained from domestic funds, end of story. You are not the first to suggest that corporations should have or are entitled to better treatment than the citizen in the US.

With the looting of the US Treasury by some sectors of industry in such great amounts, why would any corporations within those sectors want to "pull up stakes" and move elsewhere? What are they going to do, move to Germany? Do you think a country with thinking citizens would tolerate any of that crap for two minutes? Ireland made the decision to be a tax slut, and look where that got them.

These corporations aren't in Mexico or Malaysia because those countries can't afford them, plain and simple.






Real0ne -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 10:19:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:


And, therein lies the difference between charity and government redistribution.

And since the government has redistibuted our wealth to the corporations, it is time to swing the pendulum back and redistribute back to its owners.


Completely agree, Ron. But, you do realize, that means cutting taxes, right?



Absolutely not. It means heftily raising taxes and outlawing welfare for corporations and their minions.



of course the government is a corporation that is doing quite well these days





Real0ne -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 10:22:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
The Prussian Model was eagerly instituted in all the industrializing countries of the time, especially Britain, soon thereon advocated and successfully promoted by Horace Mann in Massachusetts and then the other NE states.



Most kids were more valuable out working to support the family. The first compulsory schooling was in 1880 and only for under tens. Most of what had gone before were Church schools or Sunday Schools. The original Grammar Schools, set up in Tudor times were initially free but became fee paying.

The Prussian Model was championed by William Gladstone. He of low taxes and limited government. One reason for compulsory education was to educate the voter.





when it comes to the us


like their british creators;

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/wearetheborg.jpg[/image]


the term mandatory "education" is a euphemism for "indoctrination"










mnottertail -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 10:24:19 AM)

The federal government is not incorporated.




Real0ne -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 10:46:03 AM)

sure it is any group with the presumption of legal operation under a single entity is a corporation, whats that, more of your shithouse lawyerin?




mnottertail -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 11:18:14 AM)

 any group with the presumption of legal operation under a single entity is a corporation


False.  Take a marraige to dismiss your asswipe out of hand.   There is no law for that definition, even dug out of the ninth ring of your shithouse.  




DesideriScuri -> RE: All Your Kids Belong To Us. (4/12/2013 11:31:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your GE comment seems to show that you want to treat all income, regardless of where it was made, needs to be taxed as domestic income.

Nothing at all in the comment mentioned nor even insinuated at all anything about foreign sources of GE's income, but it nevertheless doesn't surprise me that you would say that it "seems to show" that to you. That's within your modus operandi.
I didn't mention the issue of what level of GE's income came from domestic or foreign sources, actually, but since you bring it up ...


So, what was your point, then, of bringing GE up? The only reason they got a refund was because of their net operating loss in the USA, wasn't it? Or, are you talking about GE Capital, a subsidiary of GE that is the banking arm (well, it is now)?

If you're simply talking about the banking bailouts, well, that's something we agree on.

As far as your investment idea goes, I can't completely agree or disagree with your analysis. The reasoning behind GE not getting taxed on income made overseas is because it didn't come back to the States. It stayed overseas (mostly because if it was repatriated, it would be taxed). Not knowing if it's true or not, but isn't investing in a mutual fund or ETF that is indexed to a non-domestic fund, different from actually owning shares of the non-domestic stocks? If that is the case, then you have a domestic product that is gaining or losing value based on a non-domestic stock, so all the money that is earned is being earned here, right? Could that be why? And, again, I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just offering a possible explanation.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875