Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

I was watching Meet The Press today where brilliant host Chuck Todd pointed something out that struck a nerve . He showed a graph regarding the House of Representatives . In 2002 there were 137 members with ideological overlap ( moderates ) but by 2013 , there were only 4 members who compromised and voted towards the middle !

 

Just like discussing issues on this AARP site , If you're not Far Right , than you're automatically called a liberal , no room for middle ground !!!

Honored Social Butterfly

FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

 

Today's " liberals " are like 1956 Republicans.

Honored Social Butterfly


@gruffstuff wrote:

FAR RIGHT OR LIBERAL - NO MIDDLE GROUND

 

Today's " liberals " are like 1956 Republicans.

 

 

Yep they are...


 558661_10151156320972722_1040940371_n.jpg

 

In the intervening years, republicans have turned into "naz-guls"...

44>dolt45
Honored Social Butterfly

It is really a little scary how easily the conservative sites and information sources will turn to mis-quoting and outright lying about what an opponent has said. It's an awful lot of fun to point out the factual errors but we are becoming the targets of a Gish Gallop named after Duane Gish who used this machine gun fire of false and misleading statements in his fight against the teaching of evolution. 

 

 

Trusted Social Butterfly

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.

Honored Social Butterfly


@alotofgrey wrote:

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.


O.K. I'll pick the USofA.

 

Based on the Constitution and based on the free market partnered with the government to insure it's freedom has worked a long, long time. It has even survived leftist obsessions with "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs". These Marxist dreams are hidden in the word "free". In reality "free" does not exist - it is all wealth redistribution.

0 Kudos
532 Views
39
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@alotofgrey wrote:

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.


O.K. I'll pick the USofA.

 

Based on the Constitution and based on the free market partnered with the government to insure it's freedom has worked a long, long time. It has even survived leftist obsessions with "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs". These Marxist dreams are hidden in the word "free". In reality "free" does not exist - it is all wealth redistribution.


Again??? 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Honored Social Butterfly


@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@alotofgrey wrote:

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.


O.K. I'll pick the USofA.

 

Based on the Constitution and based on the free market partnered with the government to insure it's freedom has worked a long, long time. It has even survived leftist obsessions with "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs". These Marxist dreams are hidden in the word "free". In reality "free" does not exist - it is all wealth redistribution.


Again??? 


Meaning what - "free" does exist??

0 Kudos
641 Views
33
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@alotofgrey wrote:

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.


O.K. I'll pick the USofA.

 

Based on the Constitution and based on the free market partnered with the government to insure it's freedom has worked a long, long time. It has even survived leftist obsessions with "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs". These Marxist dreams are hidden in the word "free". In reality "free" does not exist - it is all wealth redistribution.


Again??? 


Meaning what - "free" does exist??


Meaning Marxism again? Are you obsessed over Marx or what?? 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
0 Kudos
412 Views
30
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@alotofgrey wrote:

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.


O.K. I'll pick the USofA.

 

Based on the Constitution and based on the free market partnered with the government to insure it's freedom has worked a long, long time. It has even survived leftist obsessions with "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs". These Marxist dreams are hidden in the word "free". In reality "free" does not exist - it is all wealth redistribution.


Again??? 


Meaning what - "free" does exist??


Meaning Marxism again? Are you obsessed over Marx or what?? 


This insatiable need on the part of some to defend Marxism is interesting.

 

But, no, the issue was simply is there really "free" government stuff? Understandably, there is an unwillingness on the part of the left to address that.

0 Kudos
408 Views
29
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@alotofgrey wrote:

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.


O.K. I'll pick the USofA.

 

Based on the Constitution and based on the free market partnered with the government to insure it's freedom has worked a long, long time. It has even survived leftist obsessions with "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs". These Marxist dreams are hidden in the word "free". In reality "free" does not exist - it is all wealth redistribution.


Again??? 


Meaning what - "free" does exist??


Meaning Marxism again? Are you obsessed over Marx or what?? 


This insatiable need on the part of some to defend Marxism is interesting.

 

But, no, the issue was simply is there really "free" government stuff? Understandably, there is an unwillingness on the part of the left to address that.

 

ah yes the bogus claim of marxism. you do know there were public roads and schools well before marx? fire departments, a postal service that delivered to you even if you sent nothing? public libraries? county poor houses etc? an army or militia toprotect settlers stealing land? govenment give aways of land and people to survay it and mark it off? Help me here..tell me how our founding fathers used government for the common good with out marx? could it be they thought govt was for the common good? they even had a revolution for the common good without marx, alinsky,and pivien a cloward.  how dare history disagree with you.

 

So it begins.
Honored Social Butterfly


@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@alotofgrey wrote:

Listening to our far Right is like listening to Communists and Socialists. Sounds good, just don’t work and cannot be made to work. How do I know that.

 

There are over a hundred countries. Pick one where it worked. Heck, pick one from the last 100 years.

 

Limited Government Conservative on the Right.


O.K. I'll pick the USofA.

 

Based on the Constitution and based on the free market partnered with the government to insure it's freedom has worked a long, long time. It has even survived leftist obsessions with "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs". These Marxist dreams are hidden in the word "free". In reality "free" does not exist - it is all wealth redistribution.


Again??? 


Meaning what - "free" does exist??


Meaning Marxism again? Are you obsessed over Marx or what?? 


This insatiable need on the part of some to defend Marxism is interesting.

 

But, no, the issue was simply is there really "free" government stuff? Understandably, there is an unwillingness on the part of the left to address that.

 

ah yes the bogus claim of marxism. you do know there were public roads and schools well before marx? fire departments, a postal service that delivered to you even if you sent nothing? public libraries? county poor houses etc? an army or militia toprotect settlers stealing land? govenment give aways of land and people to survay it and mark it off? Help me here..tell me how our founding fathers used government for the common good with out marx? could it be they thought govt was for the common good? they even had a revolution for the common good without marx, alinsky,and pivien a cloward.  how dare history disagree with you.

 


Once again scads of words defending Marxism while trying to deny the basic point I am trying to get to - there is no such a thing as "free" government stuff.

 

The type of revolution involving Alinsky, Piven and Cloward, etc. was the topic elsewhere which ended due to two things - people refusing to discuss it honestly and a few others constantly posing off topic.

 

If that is what you want to discuss, where were you then?? My only point here is - "free" stuff.

0 Kudos
622 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Of course we had postal service, roads, ports, stable currency, military forces, trade laws, tort and criminal laws and police and courts to enforce them without marx. But we had NONE of that WITHOUT TAXES, taxes that were almost entirely paid by the upper class.

 

Now because some of Marx ideas from the 1880's don't work, the RW thinks anything that Marx said that DOES work must somehow be abandoned? or else we'll all have to abide by EVERYTHING Marx wrote about???

 

Here's what we DON'T have because of the generosity of Capitalists: Public schools, police and fire departments, our Military, our courts, our currency, our banking system, our public roads and bridges and tunnels, the water in our homes, safe food to eat, safe medicines to take, a Government we elect, and the hope of a better future for our kids.

 

Not one of those is a "money maker", so the ONLY way we get them is from Government and the only way we have government is by collecting TAXES.

 

Marx thought Government was the solution to the evils of Capitalism, and he's right - just not when it comes to how that Government is chosen. It was Jefferson, not Marx who said "a Government's greatness is judged by the way it treats the least of its citizens." Republicans think "Greatness" is achieved by persecuting the poor, the different and the foriegn, and redistributing all the wealth of the middle class to the very top of the 1%. If that's NOT what Republicans believe, then why is it what they've been doing for the last +30 years?

 

The American Revolution was the first ever to depose a Monarch and replace him with a man of the People. Nobody in 1776 ever imagined they would spawn a movement determined to destroy the Government of, for and by The People in favor of an Oligarchy, but nobody in 1976 imagined what was happening to the Republican Party.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

Of course we had postal service, roads, ports, stable currency, military forces, trade laws, tort and criminal laws and police and courts to enforce them without marx. But we had NONE of that WITHOUT TAXES, taxes that were almost entirely paid by the upper class.

 

Now because some of Marx ideas from the 1880's don't work, the RW thinks anything that Marx said that DOES work must somehow be abandoned? or else we'll all have to abide by EVERYTHING Marx wrote about???

Where did you get that idea?? It was the Marxist of the Frankfurt School that tried to redefine it and define a path to it. Certainly not something the RW is interested in bringing about.

 

But, that last part is interesting - it seems like you are advocating for "Marxism Lite". Care to start a topic on that??

 

Here's what we DON'T have because of the generosity of Capitalists: Public schools, police and fire departments, our Military, our courts, our currency, our banking system, our public roads and bridges and tunnels, the water in our homes, safe food to eat, safe medicines to take, a Government we elect, and the hope of a better future for our kids.

We have none of that due to the "generosity" of anyone. We have all of that due to the government doing it's job - paid for by taxes to do that and that alone.

 

Not one of those is a "money maker", so the ONLY way we get them is from Government and the only way we have government is by collecting TAXES.

Yes, taxes for the purpose of doing the job of government - providing services to the nation as a whole - not those "means tested".

 

Marx thought Government was the solution to the evils of Capitalism, and he's right - just not when it comes to how that Government is chosen. It was Jefferson, not Marx who said "a Government's greatness is judged by the way it treats the least of its citizens." Republicans think "Greatness" is achieved by persecuting the poor, the different and the foriegn, and redistributing all the wealth of the middle class to the very top of the 1%. If that's NOT what Republicans believe, then why is it what they've been doing for the last +30 years?

In what way do you see the Republicans "persecuting" the poor"? And of course the envy brings out the class warfare towards the 1%.

 

The American Revolution was the first ever to depose a Monarch and replace him with a man of the People. Nobody in 1776 ever imagined they would spawn a movement determined to destroy the Government of, for and by The People in favor of an Oligarchy, but nobody in 1976 imagined what was happening to the Republican Party.

And, I am sure no one envisioned anyone trying to establish a government with all the power over the people that our modern day neoMarxists envision. What has to be understood is that while some like to bandy around the word "Oligarchy" thinking in terms of those that have more money than the whiners, the power that results from a Marxist type government leads to exactly that. Look at the USSR - who owned the dachas? Not the everyday person.


 

0 Kudos
631 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

So true scout !!!

0 Kudos
627 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


Meaning what - "free" does exist??


Meaning Marxism again? Are you obsessed over Marx or what?? 


This insatiable need on the part of some to defend Marxism is interesting.

 

But, no, the issue was simply is there really "free" government stuff? Understandably, there is an unwillingness on the part of the left to address that.


Then I suppose you will have to ask someone on the left. As I mentioned earlier, I am a centrist or moderate, and in agreement with the topic posted.

 

But do allow me to offer a little help. Why not ask the Democratic Socialists? There's a whole whopping 25,000 card-carrying, dues-paying DSA members out there. They aren't a political party, but a PAC working to influence the D-party. Their stated goal is to abolish capitalism, but they pull up short of forming a communist government. Now don't ask me how that's supposed to work, but it sure flies in face of the Marxist philosophy, don't you think?

 

It should also be noted that while Bernie Sanders has described himself as a democratic socialist, he is NOT a member of this movement, though the group did support him. Bernie describes himself as a "New Deal" democrat in the vein of FDR and LBJ, not Marx.

 

You will find in the article that there is overlap of some issues with DSA and liberal D's, but the DSA takes a much harder line than the liberal D's who just want capitalism to work better for everyone. LBJ always said that you have to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism, not letting the pendulum go too far either direction. 

 

9 Questions about the Democratic Socialists of America you were too embarrassed to ask, by Jeff Stein, VOX, 5 Aug 2017

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Honored Social Butterfly


@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


Meaning what - "free" does exist??


Meaning Marxism again? Are you obsessed over Marx or what?? 


This insatiable need on the part of some to defend Marxism is interesting.

 

But, no, the issue was simply is there really "free" government stuff? Understandably, there is an unwillingness on the part of the left to address that.


Then I suppose you will have to ask someone on the left. As I mentioned earlier, I am a centrist or moderate, and in agreement with the topic posted.

 

But do allow me to offer a little help. Why not ask the Democratic Socialists? There's a whole whopping 25,000 card-carrying, dues-paying DSA members out there. They aren't a political party, but a PAC working to influence the D-party. Their stated goal is to abolish capitalism, but they pull up short of forming a communist government. Now don't ask me how that's supposed to work, but it sure flies in face of the Marxist philosophy, don't you think?

 

It should also be noted that while Bernie Sanders has described himself as a democratic socialist, he is NOT a member of this movement, though the group did support him. Bernie describes himself as a "New Deal" democrat in the vein of FDR and LBJ, not Marx.

 

You will find in the article that there is overlap of some issues with DSA and liberal D's, but the DSA takes a much harder line than the liberal D's who just want capitalism to work better for everyone. LBJ always said that you have to strike a balance between capitalism and socialism, not letting the pendulum go too far either direction. 

 

9 Questions about the Democratic Socialists of America you were too embarrassed to ask, by Jeff Stein, VOX, 5 Aug 2017

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/5/15930786/dsa-socialists-convention-national


I am simply stating my view that there is really no such a thing as "free" from the Government. I do not restrict my posting to those of any particular ideology - my wisdom is available to all.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:


I am simply stating my view that there is really no such a thing as "free" from the Government. I do not restrict my posting to those of any particular ideology - my wisdom is available to all.


Fair enough, then I will offer my centrist view. If I consider that everyone is paying taxes into the system somewhere, whether federal or state income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc. then it might stand to reason that nothing is "free." However, if I consider that these are separate buckets where monies are distributed for specific purposes, and everyone has not contributed to all of the buckets, yet draw out a benefit, then maybe that would be considered "free". But I don't see what that has to do with Marxism or Socialism, etc.

 

Not everyone makes enough money to pay income tax. Not everyone has the means to own property and pay taxes. Poverty exists. Just because a portion of tax dollars is used to subsidize their food, shelter, or health care, doesn't make us Socialists or Marxists, or any other "-ist." It simply says that we respect their human dignity, and that we are willing to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. I really don't view it through a political lens.

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Honored Social Butterfly


@MaVolta wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:


I am simply stating my view that there is really no such a thing as "free" from the Government. I do not restrict my posting to those of any particular ideology - my wisdom is available to all.


Fair enough, then I will offer my centrist view. If I consider that everyone is paying taxes into the system somewhere, whether federal or state income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc. then it might stand to reason that nothing is "free." However, if I consider that these are separate buckets where monies are distributed for specific purposes, and everyone has not contributed to all of the buckets, yet draw out a benefit, then maybe that would be considered "free". But I don't see what that has to do with Marxism or Socialism, etc.

 

Not everyone makes enough money to pay income tax. Not everyone has the means to own property and pay taxes. Poverty exists. Just because a portion of tax dollars is used to subsidize their food, shelter, or health care, doesn't make us Socialists or Marxists, or any other "-ist." It simply says that we respect their human dignity, and that we are willing to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. I really don't view it through a political lens.


The distinction I draw is "means tested". When someone advocates for raising the taxes only on the rich so as to fund means tested programs, to me that is along the lines of "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs".

 

The sort of thing we are discussing must be seen through a political lens since it is about government spending policies and the associated taxing policies.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:


Fair enough, then I will offer my centrist view. If I consider that everyone is paying taxes into the system somewhere, whether federal or state income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc. then it might stand to reason that nothing is "free." However, if I consider that these are separate buckets where monies are distributed for specific purposes, and everyone has not contributed to all of the buckets, yet draw out a benefit, then maybe that would be considered "free". But I don't see what that has to do with Marxism or Socialism, etc.

 

Not everyone makes enough money to pay income tax. Not everyone has the means to own property and pay taxes. Poverty exists. Just because a portion of tax dollars is used to subsidize their food, shelter, or health care, doesn't make us Socialists or Marxists, or any other "-ist." It simply says that we respect their human dignity, and that we are willing to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. I really don't view it through a political lens.


The distinction I draw is "means tested". When someone advocates for raising the taxes only on the rich so as to fund means tested programs, to me that is along the lines of "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs".

 

The sort of thing we are discussing must be seen through a political lens since it is about government spending policies and the associated taxing policies.


Oh, "means tested," now we are getting somewhere. 

 

And does that apply to corporate welfare also?

 

As a centrist, I would support a 15% corporate tax rate IF the tax avoidance loopholes were all closed, and corporate subsidies were eliminated. There may be good reason for some subsidies to some businesses, including larger corporations, but they should be specific and short term, and not just favorable to industry giants. (That's generally speaking, and not to get into the weeds of any particular program.)

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
0 Kudos
629 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@MaVolta wrote:


Oh, "means tested," now we are getting somewhere. 

 

And does that apply to corporate welfare also?

 

As a centrist, I would support a 15% corporate tax rate IF the tax avoidance loopholes were all closed, and corporate subsidies were eliminated. There may be good reason for some subsidies to some businesses, including larger corporations, but they should be specific and short term, and not just favorable to industry giants. (That's generally speaking, and not to get into the weeds of any particular program.)


I really don't know the right number. The idea is to get as many bucks as possibly while insuring that  the business prospers.

 

Supposedly the loopholes are designed for a specific purpose - the old saw, "You tax what you want to discourage, not what you want to encourage". Yes, I know - corruption screws that up. So it is the corruption, not the system that is at fault.

 

My main problem with corporate taxes is that, in reality, they get passed along to the consumer. And some consider that to be regressive.

0 Kudos
642 Views
9
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:


Oh, "means tested," now we are getting somewhere. 

 

And does that apply to corporate welfare also?

 

As a centrist, I would support a 15% corporate tax rate IF the tax avoidance loopholes were all closed, and corporate subsidies were eliminated. There may be good reason for some subsidies to some businesses, including larger corporations, but they should be specific and short term, and not just favorable to industry giants. (That's generally speaking, and not to get into the weeds of any particular program.)


I really don't know the right number. The idea is to get as many bucks as possibly while insuring that  the business prospers.

 

Supposedly the loopholes are designed for a specific purpose - the old saw, "You tax what you want to discourage, not what you want to encourage". Yes, I know - corruption screws that up. So it is the corruption, not the system that is at fault.

 

My main problem with corporate taxes is that, in reality, they get passed along to the consumer. And some consider that to be regressive.


The only way to get corruption out of the system is to change it. So let's just close up the loopholes everywhere, shall we? Yes, how libertarian of me.

 

As for corporations paying taxes . . . well since the SC of the land has ruled that corporations are people, for the benefit of making political contributions, then I would argue that they should pay taxes the same as people do. 

 

If we consider all of the money spent to buy influence in Washington, either by election funding or by furnishing "perks" to certain MoC, that if it were redirected to the Treasury, we could easily pay down the federal deficit, and probably have money to spare. 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Honored Social Butterfly


@MaVolta wrote:


The only way to get corruption out of the system is to change it. So let's just close up the loopholes everywhere, shall we? Yes, how libertarian of me.

Sometimes "loop-holes" serve a desired purpose. Like when a States offers a "tax holiday" to encourage a business to move there. I can't disagree with your thinking though. Let taxes be used to pay the bills - period.

 

As for corporations paying taxes . . . well since the SC of the land has ruled that corporations are people, for the benefit of making political contributions, then I would argue that they should pay taxes the same as people do. 

I hear ya, but again, when you or I pay taxes - we pay taxes. When  a corporation pays taxes, that cost gets passed along to the consumer. From that perspective, it would make sense to eliminate all corporate taxes since they are like sales taxes which some consider regressive.

 

If we consider all of the money spent to buy influence in Washington, either by election funding or by furnishing "perks" to certain MoC, that if it were redirected to the Treasury, we could easily pay down the federal deficit, and probably have money to spare. 

I don't know what MoC means.


 

0 Kudos
1,015 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:


The only way to get corruption out of the system is to change it. So let's just close up the loopholes everywhere, shall we? Yes, how libertarian of me.

Sometimes "loop-holes" serve a desired purpose. Like when a States offers a "tax holiday" to encourage a business to move there. I can't disagree with your thinking though. Let taxes be used to pay the bills - period.

 

Specifically, I was talking about income tax loop-holes, but okay.

 

As for corporations paying taxes . . . well since the SC of the land has ruled that corporations are people, for the benefit of making political contributions, then I would argue that they should pay taxes the same as people do. 

I hear ya, but again, when you or I pay taxes - we pay taxes. When  a corporation pays taxes, that cost gets passed along to the consumer. From that perspective, it would make sense to eliminate all corporate taxes since they are like sales taxes which some consider regressive.

 

Now let me get this straight. It's okay if they make political contributions, as much as they want, but if they pay taxes it gets passed on to the consumer? Political contributions are not tax deductible, so doesn't it stand to figure that that it becomes part of the bottom line, and that cost is passed along as well? Got to make up for it somewhere. Or what about money better spent on salaries for their employees rather than political campaigns? They are either people and should pay taxes, or they are not and should not make political contributions as such. Can't have it both ways, would you agree?

 

If we consider all of the money spent to buy influence in Washington, either by election funding or by furnishing "perks" to certain MoC, that if it were redirected to the Treasury, we could easily pay down the federal deficit, and probably have money to spare. 

I don't know what MoC means.

 

Members of Congress. 


 


 

"Music can change the world because it can change people." - Bono
Honored Social Butterfly


@MaVolta wrote:

 

As for corporations paying taxes . . . well since the SC of the land has ruled that corporations are people, for the benefit of making political contributions, then I would argue that they should pay taxes the same as people do. 

I hear ya, but again, when you or I pay taxes - we pay taxes. When  a corporation pays taxes, that cost gets passed along to the consumer. From that perspective, it would make sense to eliminate all corporate taxes since they are like sales taxes which some consider regressive.

 

Now let me get this straight. It's okay if they make political contributions, as much as they want, but if they pay taxes it gets passed on to the consumer? Political contributions are not tax deductible, so doesn't it stand to figure that that it becomes part of the bottom line, and that cost is passed along as well? Got to make up for it somewhere. Or what about money better spent on salaries for their employees rather than political campaigns? They are either people and should pay taxes, or they are not and should not make political contributions as such. Can't have it both ways, would you agree?

I'm not talking about political contribution. I think we agree that is a problem but frankly, I do not have an answer.

I was referring to corporation taxes and pointing out that it is probably the consumer actually paying those taxes. They are included in "the cost of doing business", hence are part of the price charged. 

If we consider all of the money spent to buy influence in Washington, either by election funding or by furnishing "perks" to certain MoC, that if it were redirected to the Treasury, we could easily pay down the federal deficit, and probably have money to spare. 

I don't know what MoC means.

 

Members of Congress. 

Thank you.

 

I agree but as I said above, I just don't know how to stop it. McCain-Feingold was supposed to "take the money out of politics" and before the ink was dry, the "work arounds" were figured out. Instead of the money going to the Parties, it now goes to the PACs.


 


 


 

0 Kudos
980 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I am going to point out something  to all of you
We have criticized Trump for his language, lack of restrain and completely idiotic remarks.

And yet, we have followed in this thread with a lot of unrestrained language, and many idiotic remarks.
Are we now tryin to emulate Trump?. 

no name
0 Kudos
973 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

Are we now tryin to emulate Trump?. 


I recall JFK was laughed at due to his accent and speech.

 

 

0 Kudos
969 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

rk9152 , before you keep crying for the poor corporations , which are already at the lowest tax rate on record , Do you realize those Taxes support so many critical programs including pensions !!!

 

Gratitude my friend !!!

Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

rk9152 , before you keep crying for the poor corporations , which are already at the lowest tax rate on record , Do you realize those Taxes support so many critical programs including pensions !!!

 

Gratitude my friend !!!


Please read before responding. That tends to create much more intelligent responses.

 

There is nowhere in my post that I cried for the poor corporations.

 

Rather than complicating things too much - I'd ask that you go back and reread and see if the above doesn't make sense. Then we can go on.

 

If there is something you do not understand as to my theory of who really pays the taxes - ask and we can work it out.

0 Kudos
984 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84 wrote:

Taxes support so many critical programs including pensions !!!

 

 


Isn't the corporate contribution tax deductible?

0 Kudos
1,002 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png