|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:34:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:35:10 GMT
A democracy lost to corporate socialismBY MICHAEL SAINATO - 02/10/16 01:30 PM EST
thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/268947-a-democracy-lost-to-corporate-socialism
The campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for the Democratic nomination has pushed the issue of wealth inequality to the forefront of mainstream politics. Once a tenet isolated to the fringes of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the expanding gap between the rich and poor in America is now being acknowledged by both Republicans and Democrats.
thehill.com/people/bernie-sanders
berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
Conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt was recently asked in a New York Times interview about the Republican Party's unwillingness to increase taxes on the wealthy. He responded, "I don't think it's very good for the society to have billionaires. It creates envy. And envy destroys republics." Hewitt added, "You don't need 10 billion dollars. Nobody does. The country does."
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/hugh-hewitt-doesnt-care-for-billionaires.html?_r=0
This growing animosity toward the greed of the immensely wealthy is not merely symptomatic of a popular presidential candidates' rhetoric, but indicative of the harrowing economic inequalities existing in American society and politics. The 62 richest people in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the world, roughly 3.6 billion people. The wealthiest 1 percent of the global population have as much wealth as the other 99 percent of the world's population. For decades, wages of the middle and working classes have remained stagnant in the United States while the top earners have seen their wages grow exponentially. In the United States since the 2008 recession, nearly 99 percent of all new generated income has gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Current trends suggest these enormous disparities in wealth are expanding.
money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth/
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/charts-income-inequality-middle-class-census
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/19/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/upshot/gains-from-economic-recovery-still-limited-to-top-one-percent.html
Amid calls for reform to redistribute wealth in the United States to the middle and working classes, criticism has mounted, stereotyping such reforms as "handouts," "free stuff" or "socialist." What these criticisms of proposed reforms for wealth inequality fail to recognize is that socialism for the wealthy not only exists, but is prevalent throughout our current system of government in the form of corporate socialism.
"Corporate socialism is where we socialize losses and privatize gains. Companies that have failed in the marketplace stick the taxpayers with their losses, but when they make money they get to keep it, and secondly, huge amounts of capital are given to companies by taxpayers," David Cay Johnston said in a phone interview. A former New York Times reporter, Johnston won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for revealing inequities and loopholes in the U.S. tax code. "Many of the retail stores you walk into, especially big box retailers and in some cases entire shopping centers, legally keep the sales taxes you pay at the cash register," he said. "That's because government bought the land, often after condemning it through eminent domain and had the buildings erected to the specifications of the company, but the land and building are actually owned by a government entity, and the cost of buying the land and putting up the building are paid for with your taxpayer dollars. That's not capitalism. That's not market economics. It's a system in which governments pick winners and create losers."
thenewpress.com/authors/david-cay-johnston
Johnston cited several examples of corporate socialism. In Lockport, N.Y., Yahoo is receiving $2 million for every job it creates in the area, which pay on average $45,000 annually. Alcoa is currently receiving $5.6 billion in electricity discounts from New York state, which would be better spent decreasing utility rates for residents across the state. Boeing has received billions in subsidies to build a plant in South Carolina, while transparency remains elusive regarding the exact worth of the subsidies and incentives the company received. In his 2007 book "Free Lunch," Johnston discusses how a corporation like Cabela's received $32 million in government subsidies to build, at the time, the largest outdoor recreational gear store in the country in Hamburg, Pa., while a local competitor who sold the same products at lower prices went out of business because of the deal.
www.buffalonews.com/20130425/yahoo_to_receive_more_than_30_million_in_tax_breaks.html
www.cnbc.com/2015/06/09/state-incentives-business-boon-or-corporate-welfare.html
www.postandcourier.com/article/20100117/PC1602/301179958
america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/corporate-welfaresubsidiesboeingalcoa.html
www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government-ebook/dp/B000YJ67LS
One major example of corporate socialism in the past few decades has been the use of tax havens abroad by multinational companies to avoid corporate income tax; smaller, domestic companies are unable to use tax havens, giving multinational companies an additional edge over smaller competitors. A 2015 study conducted by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund found that the largest 500 companies in the U.S. keep more than $2.1 trillion in tax havens. And according to Johnston, large multinational corporations often pay licensing fees and royalties to their offshore subsidiaries for logos and patents under the guise of a business expense, in order to legally transfer the money from the United States while using the payments as tax deductions.
america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/6/top-us-companies-keep-21-trillion-in-tax-havens-abroad.html
The proposals and empty promises for reforms to close loopholes that benefit corporations and the wealthy have come up empty because these special interests have infiltrated politics to the extent that government is no longer working with the public good in mind, but the interests of wealthy campaign contributors. Thousands of lobbyists flood Washington and state capitals on a regular basis to push for legislators to support rules and regulations that favor the corporations they represent, while those same corporations send large campaign donations to the politicians who vote in their interests. So far in the 2016 presidential primaries, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has received $47.9 million from super-PACs; Republican candidates former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) have received $123.7 million, $42.8 million and $31.7 million through super-PACs, respectively, according to the New York Times. Nearly half of the money contributed to presidential bids for the White House in 2016 has come from 158 families. Those donations are attached with strings to the interests of the wealthy who donated to them.
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/
www.reuters.com/article/obama-lobbying-idUSN1348032520090913
thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton
thehill.com/people/ted-cruz
thehill.com/people/marco-rubio
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html
"Many of the regulations are written by businesses that want to insulate themselves from the rigors of the competitive market," said Johnston. "They have unequal access. If you are a member of Congress, you have to think about who is going to either fund you or your opponent. You don't have much time to think about what's in the public interest."
Sainato is a freelance write based in Gainesville, Fla. His writing has appeared in The Guardian, the Miami Herald, The Baltimore Sun, The Denver Post, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, Tallahassee Democrat and the (Albany) Times-Union. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Observer.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:35:38 GMT
Yes, CORPORATISM. I think it is important to use the SAME term the Republiconservative Media is using to scare the shit out of its minions and apply it to THEM. SOCIALISTS. Every time they use it against Liberals and chant Liberals are socialists we can turn around and use it on THEM. The FACTS ARE THERE. Use their own playbook against them. That is the only thing they will understand. They have been taught to fear it but NOT that they ARE IT.
Conservatives for the most part do not understand they are the pawns of the 1%. They do the bidding for the 1% by giving them and their well paid corporate whores in congress their votes. That keeps them in power. In exchange, this 1% "conservative overclass" receive an extraordinary ROI (return on investment). Just look at the 2 trillion dollar tax cut their paid for politicians gave them in exchange for campaign donations and favors. Look at all the deregulation happening that allows them to pollute, charge extraordinary interest rates, get bailouts when their free market crony capitalism schemes go AWRY. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. It is such a scam and it's time to STOP IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:36:02 GMT
WHAT IS A CORPORATION?
The Corporation - Official Trailer
The Corporation – Feature, Documentary
How Corporations Became so Powerful in 6 Minutes
Thought Monkey
60.3K subscribers
We live in a democracy right? Well kind of. Learn how corporations became so powerful and why they became so interconnected with our government undermining our democratic system.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:36:28 GMT
Republicans want to give corporations the tax plan of their dreams
Senator Elizabeth Warren
66.3K subscribers
The Republican tax bill raises taxes on nursing home patients, students in debt, and tens of millions of middle-class households -- all to shower giant corporations and the super wealthy with tax cuts. Corporate greed is on a joy ride that the middle-class will be paying for.
Republicans Defend Companies Who Ship American Jobs Overseas
When Corporations Rule the World | Wikipedia audio article
Ashok (TV Host ): "When Corporations Rule the World"
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:37:00 GMT
Scores of Republican lawmakers enriched themselves off the Trump tax cuts, report saysJoseph Zeballos-Roig
Jan. 24, 2020, 01:51 PM
markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/republican-lawmakers-enriched-themselves-made-money-trump-tax-cuts-report-2020-1-1028843965
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Scores of GOP lawmakers made millions off the 2017 Trump tax cuts, a new investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and Vox found.
publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/republicans-profit-congress/
It sheds light on the lack of guardrails in place that would prevent lawmakers from crafting and passing legislation they stand to benefit from.
The law created tax breaks for seven different types of assets commonly held by richer members of Congress.
Corporations also bought back stock at record levels in the first year of the law, which boosts the rewards for shareholders - including many Republicans in Congress.
Many Republican lawmakers profited off the tax cuts President Trump signed into law in 2017, according to a joint investigation by Center for Public Integrity and Vox on Friday.
The report sheds light on the lack of federal guardrails in place that prevents lawmakers from crafting and passing legislation they stand to benefit from.
Forty-six of the 47 Republicans across three congressional committees responsible for drafting the law held stock and stock mutual funds, according to the report, which reviewed members' financial disclosure forms. The law likely shaved hundreds of thousands of dollars off their tax bills.
publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/republicans-profit-congress/
While Democratic lawmakers stood to benefit, none voted for the law.
Trump's tax cuts slashed the corporate tax rate to 21%, while also creating tax breaks for seven asset classes including partnerships and real estate that richer members of Congress tend to invest in.
Among the members of Congress owning assets that received a tax break from the law:
House lawmakers included GOP Reps. Jim Renacci of Ohio, Diane Black of Tennessee, Carlos Curbelo of Florida (Curbelo and Renacci lost their 2018 election campaigns). All sat on the House Ways and Means Committee, which played a key role designing the plan.
In the upper chamber, Republican Sens. David Perdue of Georgia, John Kennedy of Louisiana, and Rob Portman of Ohio owned assets that received favorable tax treatment.
The law also generated massive savings for corporations. Last year, the government collected $150 billion less in corporate tax revenue.
Though Republicans argued the law would lead to increased business investment and higher wages for employees, corporations instead used the windfall to buy back stock and raise dividends that lead to more money going to shareholders. Buybacks, which jack up stock prices, exceeded $1 trillion in 2018, the report said.
Forty-three Republicans in Congress held stock in Apple when it posted record gains in October 2018. The value of its stock continues to increase, having recently posted its best performance in share price in a decade.
markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/apple-stock-price-gains-record-track-best-year-since-2009-2019-12-1028785252?utm_source=markets&utm_medium=ingest
Craig Holman, an ethics expert with government watchdog group Public Citizen, told the Center that more than half of the 435 members of Congress are millionaires.
"They are passing tax laws and legislation that disproportionately favors the wealthy class," Holman said. "And that means they personally benefit from this type of legislation."
Democrats competing for the White House are seeking to prevent lawmakers from enriching themselves in Congress.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren put forward an anti-corruption plan last year that would bar members of Congress from trading bonds, stocks, hedge funds, commodities or derivatives and compel them to put assets in "widely held investment vehicles" such as mutual funds.
medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-end-washington-corruption-554c7f01aaa5
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:37:27 GMT
Looks like all the Republicon CORPORATE SOCIALISTS think their Casino Gravy Train might be coming to an end. Never mind that corporate welfare costs the taxpayers MORE than public welfare programs. Never mind that Sanders platform is similar to that great Republican socialist Dwight D Eisenhower whose tax rate was 90% on the wealthy. Love how these corporate socialists love to PRIVATIZE THE PROFITS AND SOCIALIZE THE LOSSES like the Republicon Neocons did in 2008. Yes, let's not look how Americans in the lower 80% are being shafted by the wealthy, Wall Street, Bankers and RepubliCONservatives. Let's not talk about that. If the TOP 20% own 77% of the wealth in this country then they ought to be paying 77% of the taxes. That is only FAIR. Get the 1% OFF OF OUR BACKS.
And when the CoronaVirus shuts down the cheap labor that our Republiconservative Corporatists went to China for, only to have left American workers in the lurch for decades, what will they do? And when the pandemic hits the USA which has NO COORDINATED HEALTH CARE PROGRAM (except for Medicare) who is going to pay the outrageous $1000 per day hospital expenses that the corporate socialists "for profit" medical care lords have set up to squeeze every dollar out of sick people?
Do we really want Republiconservative Corporate Socialists who show no empathy or compassion for people in charge of this country during a PANDEMIC? These people look at Americans as a commodity, not living human beings.
CDC is preparing for the 'likely' spread of coronavirus in the US, officials say
Doug Stanglin and Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY
USA TODAY February 22, 2020, 5:55 AM UTC
www.yahoo.com/news/theres-still-fighting-chance-contain-170857481.html
WHEN THE PANDEMIC HITS WATCH HOW FAST REPUBLICONSERVATIVES, WALL STREET, BANKERS, CORPORATIONS WILL ALL EMBRACE SOCIALISM. MARK MY WORDS.
Bernie Sanders possibly running against President Trump is starting to scare investors: strategistwww.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-possibly-running-against-president-trump-is-starting-to-scare-investors-strategist-163901588.html
Brian Sozzi Editor-at-Large
Yahoo FinanceFebruary 21, 2020, 9:39 AM MST
There is a growing undercurrent in markets that say a battle this fall between self-described socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump could be bad news for stock prices.
As evidenced by the market’s strong run-up in 2020, investors have yet to exit stocks on fears of a big government Bernie winning the Oval Office. But his continued strong showing in debates and national polls may lead to some profit-taking sooner rather than later. The concern - Sanders shocks the market-friendly Trump.
“There is definitely kind of fear [among clients] if you get a candidate like Sanders or say Elizabeth Warren,” said UBS global investment strategist Jason Draho on Yahoo Finance’s The First Trade. For now, the Sanders surge is keeping a lid on the market potential argues Draho.
“It’s more of a headwind that keeps markets from rising higher,” Draho noted.
Sanders is viewed by most rainmakers on Wall Street as anti-big business, anti-stock market and anti-wealth creation. In other words, bad for risk-taking in numerous asset classes, save for perhaps gold and bitcoin.
If Sanders is president, corporate taxes will likely head higher to pay for his Medicare for All plan and other social safety net programs. Greater regulation around stock buybacks and corporate governance could also come into play, especially if Sanders appoints Warren as Treasury Secretary, as some have speculated.
Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., left, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., talk during a Democratic presidential primary debate Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2020, in Las Vegas, hosted by NBC News and MSNBC. (AP Photo/John Locher)
Draho isn’t alone on the Street in sounding the alarm bell on Sanders.
Billionaire investor Leon Cooperman said in a recent interview Sanders is more dangerous to stocks than the coronavirus. Cooperman has been a frequent critic of Sander’s and Warren over the past year.
“But Bernie, I believe, is stronger than people think, and [the] market is going to have to deal with that,” cautioned DoubleLine founder Jeffrey Gundlach. Even former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (a Democrat) is quoted in a new Financial Times story as saying he would perhaps vote for Trump instead of Sanders.
It’s worth noting Blankfein has been a frequent target for years by Sanders.
“The market wants Trump to stay president because he is the most shareholder friendly,” says Sevens Report Research founder Tom Essaye.
Brian Sozzi is an editor-at-large and co-anchor of The First Trade at Yahoo Finance. Watch The First Trade each day here at 9:00 a.m. ET or on Verizon FIOS channel 604. Follow Sozzi on Twitter @briansozzi and on LinkedIn.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:38:02 GMT
I agree. There is nothing "conservative" about most conservatives. What are they "conserving"? Nothing. Most conservatives today are RINOs (Republican In Name Only) who are only interested in cheap labor for Big Agriculture and making the Middle East safer for Israel. I don't support either of those ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:38:37 GMT
There's nothing wrong with tax cuts if you re-invest in the economy and create more jobs as a result. If you, for example, open a restaurant and create 20 new jobs with that tax savings, then that's fine. That's so much more than any liberal will do. Liberals simply "move wealth around" -- taking it from Steve and giving it to Frank. It's a dead end every time. You need to study economics, and NOT the Bernie type. Create jobs. Be proud. Make America Un-Socialist Again. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:39:00 GMT
Quote by jeff3: No there isn't. But when has a big corporation ever done that in the last 40 years? And what if those jobs don't pay the workers enough to be able to have the basics (food; house; transportation)...which, by the way, most jobs today don't? Seriously, quit riffing off these god***ed 40 year-old talking points about trickle-down/voodoo Reaganomics, for crying out loud. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:39:29 GMT
There's nothing wrong with tax cuts if you re-invest in the economy and create more jobs as a result. If you, for example, open a restaurant and create 20 new jobs with that tax savings, then that's fine. That's so much more than any liberal will do. Liberals simply "move wealth around" -- taking it from Steve and giving it to Frank. It's a dead end every time. You need to study economics, and NOT the Bernie type. Create jobs. Be proud. Make America Un-Socialist Again.
jeff, you can fact check or just read studies and analysis posted on this forum from smarter people than either of us to disprove your assumptions. Steve and his well connected friends got their gains from a tax system rigged to benefit themselves, corporations, banks and Wall Street while middle class Frank was left holding the bag. And what did Steve do with his money? He paid the labor he used to build his wealth slave wages, no health care benefits, broke the unions that helped Frank get better wages so he could support his family all the while he built a media empire complete with think tanks that spew propaganda to convince the easily malleable brained that they are part of a cult, er, I mean club called CONSERVATISM. And he had so much wealth he was able to buy Republican politicians via campaign funding, gave them bills, policies and deeds to pass through congress that favored himself and people like him. And they pushed to deregulate laws that they were breaking in the course of business i.e. environmental laws, spying on Americans, turn money into free speech to rig elections, etc. so they couldn't be prosecuted. It's called Corporate Socialism. Economically they privatize the profits for the 1% and when they lose through the Wall Street casino, banks etc. they Socialize the losses and expect the crooked Fed to bail them out. It is the Republican way.ronstadt.proboards.com/thread/4172/economy-obama-trump
ronstadt.proboards.com/thread/5528/corporate-welfareEssay:A Day In The Life of Joe ConservativeJoe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's 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. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby 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 environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants 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, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy 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 checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
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. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His 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 electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives 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."
Note: This was originally published (anonymously) under the title A Day in the Life of Joe Republican. But this is a misnomer. In the last 140 years, the Republican and Democratic parties have switched sides several times, with one being conservative and the other being liberal. But labels and party affiliations change. What doesn't change are the underlying political philosophies of liberalism and conservatism, and the fact that the liberals usually turned out to be right and the conservatives turned out to be wrong. And so it goes.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_Day_In_The_Life_of_Joe_Conservative
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:40:21 GMT
I have no doubt that you see liberals as heroes. As "saviors of America." But the reality is much different. The guy with the old family home (above) would have lost that family home years ago due to the one thing that every liberal truly loves: SKY-HIGH TAXES. Indeed, one liberal told me that "I don't want my taxes cut!" While normal people find such a statement insane, his motivation was apparently this: if his taxes are cut, a Black welfare queen in Detroit with 17 kids born from 4 different "baby-daddies" will "suffer" too much. Yeah, okay, right. My monthly expenses are twice what they should be thanks to liberals. You are not the saviors of America, I hate to tell you. Why get a raise at work? It will only bump you up into a higher tax bracket, thanks to liberal, "progressive" tax rates. So why bother getting a bigger paycheck? See how that works? You guys give yourselves waaaaaay too much credit. --------
Losing family homes? How soon you forget 2008 when conservatives crashed the economy.
Sorry but I don't believe you when you say "one liberal friend told you." Interesting how you and people like you steeped in institutional racism perpetuate the racist myth of the black welfare queen. It is just another of the tropes used by the conservative overclass to keep their racist and ignorant cult members angry and to change the subject from the top 1% receiving MOST of the tax breaks while average Americans taxes are raised to pay for that. Fact is one can only be on welfare for a short period of time depending on their state.
Progressive in "progressive tax code" has nothing to do with "liberal" as you try to allude. The current U.S. tax system is less progressive than the tax systems of other industrialized countries, and considerably less progressive today than it was just a few decades ago. Over the last fifty years, tax rates for the wealthiest Americans have declined by more than 40 percent, while tax rates for average Americans have remained roughly constant or gone up. Thanks to the Trump/GOP Tax Reform Act my taxes went up by $2000 last year. Being retired on a fixed income makes that unsustainable. Thank you "conservatism"
Your monthly expenses are twice what they should be thanks to conservatives and the ideology infused into today's conservative cult by their 1% overclass who are doing quite nicely now thanks to people like you in the front lines keeping them in power any way you can while spreading their propaganda. If anything you ought to be thanking Liberals and Democrats for trying to cut taxes on the middle class and trying to get those who benefit the most in our society to pay their fair share.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:41:04 GMT
"Liberal friend"? No, he was NOT my friend. He was a cartoonist whom I wrote to. Full of baloney, like the rest. He also said "Reagan ballooned the deficit" even though only the House of Representatives spends money -- which was then ruled by the Left. How could Reagan control House spending bills? "Myth of the black welfare queen"?? Nope. Just visit Detroit or Baltimore or Atlanta and see for yourself. Wall to wall welfare queens of the darkest persuasion. A liberal's version of paradise: a place where the government taxes and regulates everything, from cradle to grave. "If it moves, ban it. If it doesn't move, tax it." That's an old liberal rule. Has it worked? Look at California: it's a miserable toilet. Literally. People crap in the streets. That's what socialism produces. Crap. ----- |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 13, 2020 9:41:56 GMT
"Liberal friend"? No, he was NOT my friend. He was a cartoonist whom I wrote to. Full of baloney, like the rest. He also said "Reagan ballooned the deficit" even though only the House of Representatives spends money -- which was then ruled by the Left. How could Reagan control House spending bills? "Myth of the black welfare queen"?? Nope. Just visit Detroit or Baltimore or Atlanta and see for yourself. Wall to wall welfare queens of the darkest persuasion. A liberal's version of paradise: a place where the government taxes and regulates everything, from cradle to grave. "If it moves, ban it. If it doesn't move, tax it." That's an old liberal rule. Has it worked? Look at California: it's a miserable toilet. Literally. People crap in the streets. That's what socialism produces. Crap.
A President May Sign or Veto Any or All of the Appropriations Bills so ultimately it is the president's decision and he or she must take responsibility but it is obvious you didn't know that. So yes, Reagan did balloon the debt. You may want to look up the difference between deficit and debt. President Reagan increased the debt by 186%. Reaganomics added $1.86 trillion. Reagan's brand of supply-side (Corporate Socialism) economics didn't grow the economy enough to offset the lost revenue from its tax cuts. Reagan also increased the defense budget by 35%.
You have a very racist bent which is why you should be doing fact checks on just about everything you hold to be true. You pick cities and areas where blacks or others may be in the majority but the fact is as a percentage overall there are as many whites as blacks on public assistance (comparatively speaking). In pure numbers because there are MILLIONS more whites in this country, Whites on public assistance FAR outnumber Blacks. But this is research you should be doing yourself but won't because of your need for confirmation bias. The fact is that welfare grew out of a need soon after Corporate Conservatives crashed the stock market in 1929 throwing the country into a Great Depression much like the Corporate compassionate-conservatives caused Great Recession in 2008. That forced Obama's hand to have the government assist millions forced out of work, out of homes, out of food, etc. All REPUBLICON caused. And they (Corporate Socialists) are doing it again as we speak.Keep in mind the above welfare statistics are "PUBLIC WELFARE" stats. CORPORATE WELFARE FAR EXCEEDS PUBLIC WELFARE COSTS. Corporate Welfare is pushed by CONservatives and is what is referred to as CORPORATE SOCIALISM (as opposed to Democratic Socialism) This is the welfare that you and conservatives promote and condone. Pure trickle down nonsense that has proven to be false time and again. Conservative ideology at its core has the belief that the "wealthy" are Gods chosen people, Gods leaders on Earth. HOGWASH. They are nothing more than money hoarding scammers whose true god is Mammon.
Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programsmike@thinkbynumbers.org
thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/
ronstadt.proboards.com/thread/5528/corporate-welfare
ronstadt.proboards.com/thread/6346/mammon-conservative-god-capitalism
And let's be real. Research this "family" and you will find it is mostly a CONSERVATIVE thing. Because these people sponsor the National Prayer Breakfast annual event they have footage of Democratics and Liberals there but don't be fooled. This is 100% Republiconservative. It is at the core of Trickle Down Economics, Corporate Socialism and disparity of wealth in this country.The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American PowerBeliefs and theology
Journalist Jeff Sharlet did intensive research in the Fellowship's archives, before they were closed to the public. He also spent a month in 2002 living in a Fellowship house near Washington, DC, and wrote a magazine article describing his experiences.[5] In his 2008 book about the Family,[6] he criticized their theology as an "elite fundamentalism" that fetishizes political power and wealth, consistently opposes labor movements in the U.S. and abroad, and teaches that laissez-faire economic policy is "God's will." He criticized their theology of instant forgiveness for powerful men as providing a convenient excuse for elites who commit misdeeds or crimes, allowing them to avoid accepting responsibility or accountability for their actions.[7]
The Family: inside the sinister sect that has infected western democracy
A disturbing new Netflix documentary shows how a rightwing Christian organisation has for decades secretly swayed US politics ... all the way to the top
www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/aug/15/the-family-netflix-powerful-sinister-christian-sect-trump
  |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 7:04:45 GMT
Corporate Welfare Lives On And Onwww.theamericanconservative.com/articles/corporate-welfare-lives-on-and-on/
Congress created the usual special interest frenzy with its latest iteration of the farm bill. Agricultural subsidies are one of the most important examples of corporate welfare—money handed out to businesses based on political connections. The legislation suffered a surprise defeat in the House, being viewed as too stingy. But it is certain to return.
Fiscal responsibility is out of fashion. The latest federal budget, drafted by a Republican president and Republican-controlled Congress, blew through the loose limits established under Democratic President Barack Obama. The result is trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
Spending matters. So does the kind of spending. Any amount of corporate welfare is too much.
Business plays a vital role in a free market. People should be able to invest and innovate, taking risks while accepting losses. In real capitalism there are no guaranteed profits. But corporate welfare gives the well-connected protection from many of the normal risks of business.
Business subsidies undermine both capitalism and democracy. Allowing politicians to channel economic resources toward their preferred ends distorts investment and trade. Moreover, turning government into an engine of illicit profit encourages what economists call rent-seeking. Well-organized special interests usually triumph over the broader public and national interest.
Explained Mercatus scholar Tad DeHaven, then a budget analyst at the Cato Institute: “Corporate welfare often subsidizes failing and mismanaged businesses and induces firms to spend more time on lobbying rather than on making better products. Instead of correcting market failures, federal subsidies misallocate resources and introduce government failures into the marketplace.”
While corporate welfare suggests money for big business, firm size is irrelevant. There is no substantive difference between, say, the Small Business Administration and the Export-Import Bank. Both turn capitalism into a rigged game of Monopoly.
Aid comes in many forms. There is spending, typically in grants, loans, and loan guarantees; limits on competitors, such as tariffs and quotas; tax preferences, attached to broader tax bills to benefit individual companies and industries. All help ensure business profits.
Agriculture in particular has spawned a gaggle of sometimes bizarre subsidies. Payments, loans, crop insurance, import quotas, and more underwrite farmers. When these distort the marketplace, further efforts are concocted to address those dislocations. A dairy program created milk surpluses, which in turn encouraged state price fixing that generated massive cheese stockpiles, in turn triggering giveaways to the poor. The federal government killed off cows even as it continued to subsidize milk.
Money also goes to agricultural enterprises through the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, which supports “business development.” Through it, observed the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards, Washington subsidizes “utilities, housing developers, and a vast range of other businesses, such as auto shops, tractor companies, clam producers, carwashes, and pharmaceutical firms.” The defeated farm bill even included $65 million in special health care subsidies for agricultural associations. Ironically farm households enjoy higher median income and wealth than non-farm households.
The Market Access Program subsidizes agricultural exports. So do the Emerging Markets Program and Foreign Market Development Program. Other programs support general trade and investment. For instance, the Export-Import Bank is known as Boeing’s Bank. It provides cheap credit for foreign buyers of American products. Ironically this gives foreign firms, such as airlines that purchase Boeing airplanes, an advantage over U.S. carriers, which must pay full fare. Ex-Im’s biggest beneficiary in recent years has been China, especially its state-owned firms.
Contrary to its claims, Ex-Im is not vital for American exports: it backs fewer than 2 percent of them. Around 10 companies benefit from roughly two thirds of the organization’s largesse. Ex-Im likes to say it makes money. But the real cost is channeling economic resources to the politically favored.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation provides another carefully camouflaged subsidy. OPIC underwrites U.S. investment—recipients have ranged from Papa John’s Pizza to the Ritz-Carlton—in potentially unstable nations. If the project pays off, investors win. If not, the rest of us lose. OPIC’s real cost includes channeling business investment into protected regions and industries. American businesses hoping to make money in foreign markets should not expect American taxpayers to guarantee those profits.
♦♦♦
At the other end of the commercial spectrum is the Small Business Administration. Smaller firms are a vital part of the American economy and play an important cultural, community, and family role. Yet small businesses are not an underserved market. There is no dearth of, say, liquor stores, bakeries, or antique shops. (Personally, I would love to see an antique shop on every street corner.) SBA is a response to a political opportunity, not an economic need.
Much corporate welfare is disguised in broader terms. The Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration subsidizes “development” in “distressed communities,” meaning the agency underwrites business, with dubious results. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grants do much the same. So does the Appalachian Regional Commission. Cato’s Chris Edwards complained that “these are pork-barrel handouts, not proper federal activities.” There are some 180 “economic development” programs of one sort or another.
The Rural Utilities Service (once the Rural Electrification Administration) continues, never mind that rural America got electricity decades ago. Today RUS underwrites service in wealthy resort areas and has expanded into broadband internet and even television service. The Federal Communications Commission has several programs to subsidize phone service. The Commerce Department includes the Minority Business Development Agency, which underwrites companies that qualify as minority-owned.
The Bureau of Land Management (mis)manages federal lands, subsidizing use of rangeland by ranchers, for instance. There are federal subsidies to develop, finance, and promote fisheries. There are incentives for airline companies to serve small markets. Foreign Military Financing is presented as a national defense measure, but in most cases the chief beneficiaries are arms makers. There is money to develop high-speed rail and aid shipyards, while the Jones Act imposes huge costs on consumers to preserve expensive U.S. merchantmen.
♦♦♦
There are many housing subsidies, most notably mortgage support and tax preferences, though the latter were trimmed by last year’s tax bill. Federal Reserve monetary policy also is a massive subsidy for housing industry enterprises and other asset-based businesses. The Trump administration is pushing subsidies for what the president calls “beautiful” coal power plants.
Federal research and development outlays also offer bountiful benefit to business. The more basic the R&D, the better the argument that the public interest is being served. But even there, warned DeHaven, “the government’s basic research can be unproductive and pork-barrel in nature.” The closer to commercialization, the more the expenditures are essentially corporate welfare. Alas, Uncle Sam has a hideous record of choosing winners and losers. Most often he chooses the politically influential, which can mean picking losers.
That certainly was the case in the area of “green” energy, for instance. The Obama administration funneled $535 million worth of loan guarantees to Solyndra, which President Barack Obama called an “engine of economic growth.” The company filed for bankruptcy in 2011 after spending $1.8 million on its Washington lobbyists. The Washington Post later reported that $3.9 billion in Energy Department grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms connected to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.
The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program provides $25 billion in loans for development of cars powered by alternative fuels. Tesla is a major beneficiary. Some players enjoy multiple benefits. DeHaven pointed to Enron, which “received billions of dollars in aid for its projects from the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and other agencies.” When the firm collapsed taxpayers were stuck with several bills.
Although most public attention falls on direct expenditures, trade “protection” is no less a form of corporate welfare. Both tariffs and quotas allow domestic manufacturers to charge more for their products. Unfortunately, the cost of this form of corporate welfare is hidden from the public. Tariffs and other fees alone come to around $40 billion a year. Estimating the cost of quotas and other non-financial restrictions is much harder.
♦♦♦
Tax preferences are another means of corporate welfare. Buried in the tax code, they often are difficult to identify. Measures that affect only one firm or industry, in contrast to those with general economic impact, should be treated as subsidies. Some measures are both, such as the mortgage interest deduction.
The Tax Foundation once calculated that “special tax provisions” cost more than $100 billion annually in lost revenue. Toss in just the mortgage interest deduction and the total jumps dramatically. Although last year’s tax bill covered important policy issues, it also incorporated more than a few preferences called “tax extenders.”
States and localities also offer subsidies, many through grants, free property, and tax preferences to attract businesses to a particular area. The New York Times pointed to the case of General Motors: “For years, mayors and governors anxious about local jobs had agreed to G.M.’s demands for cash rewards, free buildings, worker training and lucrative tax breaks.” Estimates of these costs run between $50 billion and $80 billion.
With the annual federal deficit again approaching $1 trillion, ending corporate welfare alone would not restore fiscal sanity in Washington. But it would be a good down payment. Killing corporate welfare also would help answer the question: does the system operate only for the influential and elite? Ending welfare for profit-making companies should be a starting point for any effort to balance the budget.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Reagan, he is author of The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington.
|
|
