chasteh

>Your posts indacted to me you think corp welfare is bad. In the context of corps do not pay taxed then you and I diagree. Yes, I think corporate welfare is an absolute disaster. Just like I think it is a disaster that we have handed out over 2 trillion dollars in bailout money to failing corporations. Why reward these people for digging the holes they got into? >In the context of corps do not pay taxed then you and I diagree. How so? You said that higher taxes (or even a law that regulates employment numbers and wages would make sense here) end up in the cost of the product. Did I negate this?

Ok so for the first time we do agree, it looks like. Expect rips in the space-time continuum shortly. Weren't you saying something about my propositions concerning corporate welfare being false?

That reminds me of a book I just might write in the future about how children adopt their own philosophical perspectives in playgrounds, where they often pick and choose between what their parents say and what others say about issues - they even use them when it comes to fighting over a "toy" or whether "God" is "real." I want to call it: Playground logic.

Yep. Its like those psychology experiments where they put monkeys in a cage full of bananas and one monkey puts all effort possible into taking the bananas when the other monkey only gets a couple of them. At some point, the competition is fruitless. (Hah!)

>>What YOU dont understand is corps do not pay taxes. They just send the bill on. To corps, taxes are a cost of doing business and the products they sell..You and I pay those "taxes". >So, in the end, corps do not pay taxes. We do. My point is on target. What I am asking you to do is demonstrate either: my economic ignorance, as you saw it or where I said that your statement above is false. Supply and demand curves include the changes in production that occur to both labor and the product produced when taxes are added. We can chart this. I understand this. Maybe you do too? I don't see where you have negated what I said, nor where I even tried to negate what you said (which is quoted with >> at the top of this post.) >Thanks for helping me with my point I'm speechless. Really... It looks like you are attacking something that wasn't in my post, but you have covered it up very well. The problem being discussed in my line of posts is that there are corporations that receive billions and billions of dollars, which is actually a form of "welfare." As a conservative, you are (supposed to be) opposed to this welfare, as it completely violates the free-market economics that conservativism is (was) founded on. Believe it or not, there are "lefties," were I to be one, not that I am saying that I am one, who understand this and the economic philosophy that conservativism is (was).

"Corporate welfare is a general term that refers to financial assistance, tax advantages, or other support given to corporations and other business entities by the United States government. Unlike welfare payments given to individuals, corporate welfare system is not intended to prevent poverty or raise the standard of living. Instead the federal government awards payments to specific industries or companies in the form of subsidies, grants, contracts, and other aid. Due to the wide range of interests, the system is not monitored or controlled by a single Congressional committee. In addition, since many Americans have mixed views on corporate welfare, this practice is sometimes an area of great debate."

Unfortunately, speaking of "corporate welfare" doesn't quite qualify as not understanding elementary economic principles. Are you going to negate something here? Are you going to show how what I said about corporate welfare is false? Does the United States government not sponsor multi-billion dollar corporations?

>Hard to believe based on your posts...... Show me where I have indicated in any way what you say is "hard to believe based on my posts." I.E. Show me what you think says I don't understand basic economic systems and the effects of taxation, or show me where you think I have indicated that I haven't taken economics courses before.

Here we go again. Show me, Rush.

>passing a law that forces every American to purchase their product. Is this what is being proposed by Obama?

>What YOU dont understand is corps do not pay taxes. They just send the bill on. To corps, taxes are a cost of doing business and the products they sell..You and I pay those "taxes". Yes, dude, I understand that. I have taken economics classes before. Thanks.

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget "Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop" What percentage of the Federal Budget do the economic bailout packages come out to? I can understand that you don't like either, but the corporate welfare, I think, is far less responsible and wasteful than child welfare.

>>Those that are NOT paying taxes? >So your argument is bunk Looks like yours is, because they pay taxes as well, just not as much. I never said that they paid as much as or more than other taxpayers. >And I applaud you for finally getting the point, although you probably still won't see it that way. You mean the point that says wealthy persons depend on the contributions of others? Oh ok. >This country in in financial trouble. Give-a-ways to those that are here illegally sponging off the system does no good for the country. Neither does giving trillions of dollars to wealthy white men. >It may help you feel better, but in reality you are the exacerbating the problem by not helping to enforce the law. Yea. As if blowing the situation out of proportion by employing thousands of new border patrol agents, undercover police officers, and building a giant fence on the border is not "exacerbating the problem." What part of that doesn't add to the economic problem, again?

>Dreamweaver thinks that CEO's should make 30k/yr. Because then it would be .. fair. Poor CEOs! I mean, why do guys like dreamweaver have to always get in the way of real, honest, hard-working entrepreneurs like Mega CEOs? Look! Over there! Its a CEO! Someone should tell him to get a real job. I know, lets give him millions of dollars, take money from his hard working lobbyists, and then act like we hate welfare queens by blaming them for taxing us into oblivion!

>Doesn't that seem far more sociopathic? Oh yea. The Iraq war resulted in more deaths than Enron did. The Enron scandal is still sociopathic. It just goes to show that if we want a system based on self-interest, that there absolutely cannot be market protection mechanisms in place for specific persons with vested interests. Freedom + obscene incentives = greed. Now all we have to answer for is the flame-war that is about to occur: Who receives more government money: Cadillac Queens or mega corporations?

You mean like Pedro outside who works outside all day to build the road you drive on, or Alejandro who is paid under the table to dig ditches, work in the fields, or trim the bushes in your yard? Or are you referring to the sales taxes they still pay? Oh, look! Your tagline even makes my point - only that it is more convenient for American nationalism! "If you can read this, thank a teacher -and, since it's in English, thank a US soldier."

Please, elaborate.

"To eat an apple, you have to ingest it." >Who is the "you" in this sentence? Whoever can relate. >...at some point in time you have to pay for the things the government provides... Who is NOT the "you" in this sentence? Remember, the point is that wealthy individuals also rely on public infrastructure (more so, really, than lower income persons- how many people have to drive on public roads to obtain the services you provide? How does the sheriff's department work with you and your employees/customers? Who maintains the bridge? etc.)

>I simply want to know what amount super-rich people should pay (according to Quade) in addition to what they're paying now. How about whatever amount they didn't actually earn themselves? That rules out theft, inheriting an upper-level position within a multinational corporation, and being created by an industry professional. Who do we have left from your list, Sean Penn and Dave Matthews? >Quade doesn't have a clue or a grip because he thinks that the rich have to be taxed for me to prosper. Did he say that? Where? >That's wrong. As in morally wrong? It is "bad" that the wealthy have to be taxed for you to prosper? Ok... sure it sucks, but at some point in time you have to pay for the things the government provides - roads, air traffic control towers, the police, firefighters, and so on. He is saying that you always end up using those services for the purposes of building and protecting wealth. Even libertarians acknowledge the necessity of those services. Are you saying that they aren't necessary, or that the wealthy should pay less than they do now? Who else is going to pay for it, the middle class? The poor?

>What do Larry Kellner, An airline with fewer scumbags for managers/employees and intelligent pilots. >Sean Penn More movies. >Dave Mathews An excuse for Barack Obama. >Bill Gates An operating system better than windows. >Ursula Burns Copy machines. Lots and lots of copy machines. >Justin Timberlake owe the American public in addition to what they already pay in taxes and charities? A long and meaningful apology for Nsync. There is no excuse. Perhaps naked pictures of Alyssa Milano and Jessica Biel.

>Truthfully, a very good argument can be made that those with more wealth are actually wealthy because they benefit society more, not the other way around. That actually was quade's statement, but maybe I can add something here. So instead society being a major factor in their wealth, you are saying that their wealthy as a result of their benefitting society? Certainly you don't mean this in each and every case. It wouldn't be a very sound argument if you did. >Truthfully, a very good argument What? You did NOT just assign truth values to evaluative statements, did you? Free marketeers often claim that the person who ends up doing more for society ends up earning more money as a reflecton of that. There are plenty of examples in this world of people who have done great damage to society and became obscenely wealthy in the process. (Enron, Halliburton, Disney - just kidding. At least for now) >Leaving aside the example of Justin Timberlake, do you really think you've done more for people than Dave Matthews? Can you show me where I said "I think I have done more for people than Dave Matthews," please? >His music has spoken to millions of people. Yep. I like some of his music too. He and his band have a lot of talent. Does that mean he did it on his own? Heh. (hint: NOOOOOOO) >What have you or I done that's touched even a fraction so many? That would be a tough one. But then you would need to look at the > I placed before the quote I was responding to, which was a quote that the other guy before me used, which was taken from quade's post.

>1. Who are the super rich (Larry Kellner, Sean Penn, Dave Mathews, Bill Gates, Ursula Burns, Justin Timberlake, ).. what do these guys/gals owe society in addition to the millions in taxes and charities that they already pay? Were you going to negate the statement: >The super rich owe society/government/"the little people" more because the super rich are benefitting more. That should be fairly obvious by their bank account. or are you terribly misguided also? >Entrepreneurship is discouraged under your point of view yet its the very thing that creates jobs and wealth. If they weren't benefitting more from society, how could entrepreneurship be discouraged under his point of view? Or do you mean to say that they do benefit more from society,? If they do benefit more from society, >Get a clue and a grip. Show how he doesnt have a "clue" or a "grip." Does having a "clue" and a "grip" simply mean being as conservative as you are? >The communist party has a spot for you on their rossiter. Join them, then report back in 10 years and let us all know how it works out for you. Actually, communism's main purpose is to remove profit from the equation, and simply focus on productivity for the purpose of being productive for mankind. So, really, actual Communism (whereever your example of communism lies. Hint: there is no such example) has a far different result (productivity for utility as opposed to wealth) than what you insinuate it has.

Ok. 2008 Average Urban Rate 1.179% 2008 Average Rural Rate 0.781% Those were the average property tax rates for Idaho last year. If you had one million dollars in property, then you would owe 7,810 dollars for the year, on average, in rural Idaho. How much of that is contributed to public education, and would it be enough money to compensate someone for private education services, if you got your "money back?"

Is he saying that we should seize taxation and all government services? That is more aligned with a Libertarians thesis, BTW, than his. He is negating the notion that millionaires earn their wealth by themselves. Sort of like how that bridge you jump off all the time was provided by someone else.

Just how much "money back" would you be getting?