New Mars Forums

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

You don't like my statements? Then stop being stubborn. Stop making blatantly false statements. The US started conflicts in the Arab world. The US overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran in 1953 because he ran his nations oil industry in favour of his country's best interests. Iran was a modern society at that time, the Shaw who was put in place was pro-American, but became increasing autocratic. Arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, the SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition. The revolution of 1979 kicked out the Shaw, put in an Islamic government. They had to. Still to this day the people of Iran blame the US for the Shaw. The US started it.

Iraq was ruled by a series of military dictators. Between 1968 and 1979, the US saw a young rising military leader who they though could be their guy. They supported Saddam Hussein, who became president in 1979. The US is responsible for Saddam.

After the US lost in Vietnam, the Soviet Union conquered Afghanistan. The US saw this as a chance to take revenge; they organized the various tribes of Afghanistan, trained and armed them to resist the Soviets. It worked, the Soviet Union was driven out. But then the US thought the Mujahideen was their dog. That they could give orders. The tribes never were one single organization, in their view they only worked together temporarily to get rid of a common enemy. And they didn't see themselves as vassals of the US, they certainly wouldn't trade one foreign ruler for another. They accepted help from the US only until the Soviets were gone. But the US then tried to rule them. That resulted in them fighting the US. One leader in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was one faction of the former Mujahideen, the Taliban were another.

One feature in Afghanistan is the Soviet Union was rigidly atheist. The US saw itself as Christian, so they thought they could play upon religious zeal as a motivation against the Soviet. Taking extreme terrorist acts in the name of Islam is something the US taught them.

"Arab Spring" was something that happened on its own. When it came to Syria, Bashar al-Assad ordered the military to fire on peaceful protesters. He wasn't going to lose power, and was willing to take any extreme action to hold it. Syria had been a traditional ally of Russia for decades, so the US saw this as an opportunity to gain influence. The US supported the rebels. Another organization started in rural Syria, the US thought this was another way to overthrow Assad. So the US trained and provided weapons to ISIS. But ISIS quickly turned on them. Yes, the US supported ISIS in their early days. Russia claimed ISIS was created by the US; that may be an exaggeration, but...

Getting the point?

EdwardHeisler

Member

Registered: 2017-09-20

Posts: 357

Re: Politics

To be fair, Robert, Canada only has a land border with the United States, and an ocean between it and the rest of the world, with the exception of Russia, Norway, and Denmark (Greenland), who would have to send troops through a frozen hell to get to you. Who is going to invade Canada?

Who is going to invade the United States?   Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Mexico or Canada?

If invaded by Russia or China that would mean the almost immediate destruction of the United States and the invading nation via nuclear war.   

And the UnitedStates has a domestic military force of over 100 million people.   Plus we have the regular army, navy, air force, coast guard and national guard.   

And invading army would have trouble taking over any major American city in block to block fighting, much less the entire nation.

Don't worry, the Russians aren't coming .... nor are the Chinese, or Koreans, or Kurdistanians.    But look out for the Kardashians!

The United States spend more money for war and the military than all other nations of the Earth combined. 

European nations and Canada spend only a tiny fraction of their budget for the military-industrial alliance because they are not trying to police the world and they are not paranoid.       They are not shaking in their boots or hiding under their beds scared to death of Russians and those oriental people.    They are not so easy targets of extreme right-wing zenophobic, racist and anti-science propagandists.

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2017-12-19 13:26:08)

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

kbd512: I mentioned that because your assertions make me think you're one of them. Your statements about military are naïve and stupid.

Rather than speculating on who your previous insult was really directed at, I figured I just wait because I knew you'd respond and remove all doubt.  If you truly believe that anyone who has a difference of opinion is mentally retarded, then you should seek help because that belief is textbook narcissism.  I no longer have to wonder about why it is that someone would refuse to give you a job.  Between hiring someone who exhibits the behavior of spoiled child or someone else who can accept that life won't always be an echo chamber telling you how wonderful your ideas are, well, I guess plenty of other people have already told you who they'd hire.  You can carry that chip on your shoulder for the rest of your life if it pleases you or learn to accept that other people have different opinions.

The only logic behind your argument about what our military should spend was that our military budget happened to be a particular number when there was a small surplus that occurred in one year when Bill Clinton was President.  The world changed a little bit before and since then.  If we applied your logical leap to entitlements spending, then we'd have a lot of women and children starving in the streets.  Thankfully, America is run by people who at least try to apply a bit more thought to our problems than you do.  Your view of how the world should work is fine for children, but since you're obviously much older than I am the notion that you either believe the nonsense you spout off or refuse to even try to understand the practical aspects behind what you propose is troubling.

You want to hear the ArtiSim story? When I was in university, an 18-year-old recruit to the Canadian military told me this. He said his sergeant told him. At the time, I believed his sergeant told him, but questioned everything else. One day a Canadian solder was supposed to clean his APC. He drained the fuel tank, filled it with water. Duct taped foam over all the controls inside. Opened all hatches, and threw an in artisim (artillery simulator). The explosion blew out all dust. An American soldier saw this, thought it was cool! The American asked if he could have an artisim to clean his vehicle. The American went over to a tank, didn't drain the fuel tank, didn't tape foam over the controls, didn't even remove ammunition. The turret was blown off, when flying to crash some distance away. At the court-martial the judge asked him why he destroyed 30 million dollars of American asset? He answered he saw a Canadian do it. Since then all Canadian soldiers have been ordered to not use an artisim to clean their APC, for fear an American would see them. Again, this is a story told by a sergeant to a new recruit, probably to convince him not to do it.

There never was and there still isn't any US Army APC that costs $30M, even factoring in the US-CAD exchange rate between the 1970's and 1980's and whatever the vehicle may have been equipped with.  Do you believe whatever you hear when it supports your belief that everyone who isn't Canadian or doesn't share your opinions is somehow mentally retarded?

Some of the things you've posted here are so facially absurd that it's hard for me to believe that anyone who earned a computer science degree, which is quite an accomplishment, would believe them.  That said, liberalism is a well known affliction that many of the people who think of themselves as better than other people suffer from.  You may think you know a lot of things that you've already demonstrated that you don't know, as it pertains to the US military, but your ignorance and arrogance in that little gem of a post that I responded to is on display for all the world to see.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

There never was and there still isn't any US Army APC that costs $30M

I said the Canadian did it to a Canadian APC. The American did it to a main battle tank.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

Read EdwardHeisler's post above.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

You don't like my statements? Then stop being stubborn. Stop making blatantly false statements. The US started conflicts in the Arab world. The US overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran in 1953 because he ran his nations oil industry in favour of his country's best interests. Iran was a modern society at that time, the Shaw who was put in place was pro-American, but became increasing autocratic. Arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, the SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition. The revolution of 1979 kicked out the Shaw, put in an Islamic government. They had to. Still to this day the people of Iran blame the US for the Shaw. The US started it.

If you go back far enough in history, you can probably find an example where just about any group of people has wronged another group of people.  I don't blame the Germans alive today for what the Nazis did, for example.  I am not responsible for what people did before I ever existed, either.

That "holier-than-thou" attitude you exhibit may go over well in a church, but this is the internet.  I really don't care about how great you think you or other Canadians are or how terrible you think Americans are.  The only reason you're able to spout off your nonsense to this American is all that military spending that we do that you despise so much.  I'm quite certain we spent the money to develop that networking technology just so you could tell us how dumb we were for doing that.

Iraq was ruled by a series of military dictators. Between 1968 and 1979, the US saw a young rising military leader who they though could be their guy. They supported Saddam Hussein, who became president in 1979. The US is responsible for Saddam.

We helped Saddam rise to power and he was our guy until he invaded Kuwait.  Now he's not.  He's also dead.  What's your point?

After the US lost in Vietnam, the Soviet Union conquered Afghanistan. The US saw this as a chance to take revenge; they organized the various tribes of Afghanistan, trained and armed them to resist the Soviets. It worked, the Soviet Union was driven out. But then the US thought the Mujahideen was their dog. That they could give orders. The tribes never were one single organization, in their view they only worked together temporarily to get rid of a common enemy. And they didn't see themselves as vassals of the US, they certainly wouldn't trade one foreign ruler for another. They accepted help from the US only until the Soviets were gone. But the US then tried to rule them. That resulted in them fighting the US. One leader in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was one faction of the former Mujahideen, the Taliban were another.

I doubt any country will ever conquer Afghanistan, short of dropping nuclear weapons.  What you falsely believe was "revenge" was our continued policy of opposition to communism.  There never was any plan regarding what would happen after the Soviets left.  We never made any attempt to "rule" in Afghanistan and had no interest in doing so.  The Muj, UBL in particular, were just pissed off that we didn't help them rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviets left.  They had a point there, since we helped the Germans, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese rebuild, but murdering Americans wasn't the right way to make the point.

One feature in Afghanistan is the Soviet Union was rigidly atheist. The US saw itself as Christian, so they thought they could play upon religious zeal as a motivation against the Soviet. Taking extreme terrorist acts in the name of Islam is something the US taught them.

There sure were a lot of Orthodox Christians in Russia, even under Soviet Union, but whatever.

We taught the Muj how to fight and win.  They learned and they won.  I'm pretty sure that muslims were committing "extreme terrorist acts" long before the US ever existed, but again, more sophisticated minds don't get hung up on every little detail of recorded history.  All those trees you see over there, well, we call that a "forest".

"Arab Spring" was something that happened on its own. When it came to Syria, Bashar al-Assad ordered the military to fire on peaceful protesters. He wasn't going to lose power, and was willing to take any extreme action to hold it. Syria had been a traditional ally of Russia for decades, so the US saw this as an opportunity to gain influence. The US supported the rebels. Another organization started in rural Syria, the US thought this was another way to overthrow Assad. So the US trained and provided weapons to ISIS. But ISIS quickly turned on them. Yes, the US supported ISIS in their early days. Russia claimed ISIS was created by the US; that may be an exaggeration, but...

Getting the point?

For those who are woefully slow on the uptake, there are still some elements within the US government who think we must oppose the Russians for the same absurd reasons you think what happened before you were alive is a good example of the US being belligerent towards muslims.  It's true that we trained and armed a lot of people to fight Assad.  I suppose we could've simply backed another brutal dictator or ignored the pleas of the Syrian people for help, but then people like you would just have something else to whine about.  Is there any part of your thought process that recognizes that you can't always know the outcome of an action or inaction ahead of time?

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

There never was and there still isn't any US Army APC that costs $30M

I said the Canadian did it to a Canadian APC. The American did it to a main battle tank.

Our M1 Abrams tanks don't cost $30M.  Nice try, though.  After I read something you post that's so absurd that no thinking person should believe it, I don't concern myself with the rest of the details.  The F-15's produced about two decades after M1 production started cost about $30M per copy.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

We helped Saddam rise to power and he was our guy until he invaded Kuwait.  Now he's not.  He's also dead.  What's your point?

America creates its own enemies.

I doubt any country will ever conquer Afghanistan, short of dropping nuclear weapons.

You're right, no one will ever conquer Afghanistan. So why is America still trying to do so?

... but murdering Americans wasn't the right way to make the point.

America started it by murdering their leaders.

there are still some elements within the US government who think we must oppose the Russians for the same absurd reasons you think what happened before you were alive is a good example of the US being belligerent towards muslims.

Awkward sentence structure. Not sure I understand your point, but you criticize the US government for thinking they must oppose the Russians. Good. Peace good, war bad.

What I'm saying is get out. Kuwait asked the UN Security Council for help when Iraq invaded. The war of 1991 was justified. President George H. W. Bush ordered General Norman Schwarzkopf to have a clear military objective before he went in. Good. He realized the danger. Schwarzkopf kicked ass, cleaned up, when home. Perfect! Or as close to perfect as any war can be. Then problem is the US went back in, and still hasn't left to this day. Get out!

Afghanistan: 9/11 would never have happened if the US wasn't trying to control the Arab world. And I do point out actions by Al Qaeda were not terrorism, they were irregular warfare. Yes, that means 9/11 was an act of war. When George W. demanded Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden, the government of Afghanistan said "yes", but on condition they get proof. Any NATO country would ask for proof when they get an extradition request for someone facing capital punishment. Afghanistan just wanted to be treated with the same respect as any modern first-world nation. The US should have given them that evidence. Obviously first pulled out any intelligence operatives would be compromised. I believe Afghanistan would have handed him over. Arab tradition is not strongly loyal, your ally today could be your enemy tomorrow. Facing invasion from the US, they would have sacrificed Osama bin Laden. That would have been an end to it. But no, George W. had to be a bully, demand they comply with no evidence. That resulted in invasion. Yes, if George W. gave them the evidence and Afghanistan still refused to hand him over, then the invasion would have been justified. I just don't think they would be that stupid. We could re-hash further, but it's all over now. Long overdue to get out. Just get out! Yes, the puppet government the US put in place will probably fall as soon as the US pulls out. That's as it should be. The government of that country should represent the people of that country.

Syria: Outsiders should have never gotten involved. We have to crush ISIS now, but once they're gone, just get out. Will it still be a mess? Yes. But the Arab world was a mess for a thousand years before Jesus was born. If he couldn't fix it, why believe you can?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-19 15:57:56)

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

I'm Canadian. But 70% of all Canada's exports go to the US. If the US economy takes a nose-dive, so do we. The US federal debt is now over $20 trillion, and Congress is about to pass a bill authorizing $1.7 billion deficit! Congress appears determined to create another financial collapse as bad as 2008. This time Europe won't be able to bail-out the US, and China just won't. And don't ask Canada to do so, the US is way too big compared to us.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once said: "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-19 15:28:21)

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

America creates its own enemies.

I actually think people decide to be our enemies.

You're right, no one will ever conquer Afghanistan. So why is America still trying to do so?

We're not.  Your false belief to the contrary has no bearing on reality.

America started it by murdering their leaders.

There's nothing wrong with a little shooting as long as the right people get shot.

Awkward sentence structure. Not sure I understand your point, but you criticize the US government for thinking they must oppose the Russians. Good. Peace good, war bad.

My point was they think they need to oppose the Russians, because 'Murica!  You do understand that these were people former President Obama appointed, don't you?  Do think some peon from accounting sets foreign policy?

What I'm saying is get out. Kuwait asked the UN Security Council for help when Iraq invaded. The war of 1991 was justified. President George H. W. Bush ordered General Norman Schwarzkopf to have a clear military objective before he went in. Good. He realized the danger. Schwarzkopf kicked ass, cleaned up, when home. Perfect! Or as close to perfect as any war can be. Then problem is the US went back in, and still hasn't left to this day. Get out!

We're not leaving until our government decides to leave.  Moreover, I don't care about the fact that we have our military in the Middle East.

Afghanistan: 9/11 would never have happened if the US wasn't trying to control the Arab world. And I do point out actions by Al Qaeda were not terrorism, they were irregular warfare. Yes, that means 9/11 was an act of war. When George W. demanded Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden, the government of Afghanistan said "yes", but on condition they get proof. Any NATO country would ask for proof when they get an extradition request for someone facing capital punishment. Afghanistan just wanted to be treated with the same respect as any modern first-world nation. The US should have given them that evidence. Obviously first pulled out any intelligence operatives would be compromised. I believe Afghanistan would have handed him over. Arab tradition is not strongly loyal, your ally today could be your enemy tomorrow. Facing invasion from the US, they would have sacrificed Osama bin Laden. That would have been an end to it. But no, George W. had to be a bully, demand they comply with no evidence. That resulted in invasion. Yes, if George W. gave them the evidence and Afghanistan still refused to hand him over, then the invasion would have been justified. I just don't think they would be that stupid. We could re-hash further, but it's all over now. Long overdue to get out. Just get out! Yes, the puppet government the US put in place will probably fall as soon as the US pulls out. That's as it should be. The government of that country should represent the people of that country.

Proof?  Seriously?

Syria: Outsides should have never gotten involved. We have to crush ISIS now, but once they're gone, just get out. Will it still be a mess? Yes. But the Arab world was a mess for a thousand years before Jesus was born. If he couldn't fix it, why believe you can?

What makes you think we're trying to "fix" anything in the Middle East?  Did you hear a story from someone on TV?  If so, were you gullible enough to believe it?

We like the fact that the Middle East is totally screwed up.  Who the hell do you think we've been selling the most weapons to lately?  It still amazes me that you think you're playing this game with us.  The only reason I continue to respond to your posts here is that I want to see what you'll post next.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

I'm Canadian. But 70% of all Canada's exports go to the US. If the US economy takes a nose-dive, so do we. The US federal debt is now over $20 trillion, and Congress is about to pass a bill authorizing $1.7 billion deficit! Congress appears determined to create another financial collapse as bad as 2008. This time Europe won't be able to bail-out the US, and China just won't. And don't ask Canada to do so, the US is way too big compared to us.

Nah, you guys will be fine.  Russia and China can still trade with Canada.

The fact that you think the US would ever ask Canada to bail us out is cute, in the same way it's cute to see a child hand their parent a quarter when they tell the child that living in a nice house is expensive.  We still love all of our children, though, even the ones who think they're running the household.  Europe never did and never could bail out the US, either.  In fact, we gave them money.  If you ever get tired of the shell game we play with the money supply, we could always try the alternatives.  I'm guessing that very few people want to because we're far, far past broke if we go by what the books say.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once said: "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

I wonder what President Trump thinks it's like living with so many ungrateful children who never stop believing that they know better than their parents do until they need our help.

I'd love nothing more than to pull our military out of every other country on the planet, just so everyone would know what would happen.  We can't seem to convince the governments of many other countries that that's a good idea.  I wonder why.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

Europe never did and never could bail out the US, either.  In fact, we gave them money.  If you ever get tired of the shell game we play with the money supply, we could always try the alternatives.  I'm guessing that very few people want to because we're far, far past broke if we go by what the books say.

US did support Europe after World War 2: the Marshall Plan. That was to ensure another deep recession leading to depression like the 1930s did not happen again. But after 2008, European banks were intertwined with US banks. Europe could have cut-off their ties to American banks, but they chose not to. Not only did they retain those ties, which cost them money, they used their banking system to support American banks they were intertwined with. More complicated and subtle than a simple loan, but they did and it cost them a lot.

In 2012 Iceland seriously propose to adopt the Canadian dollar. They had money problems, so they proposed to abandon their króna. Canada's ambassador said Canada is open to the idea if they formally make the request. The Canadian dollar was worth more than a US dollar throughout that year, and the province of Manitoba has the most people of Icelandic descent anywhere in the world outside of Iceland. But then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't like it, she was afraid countries would stop using the US dollar as reserve currency, so she went to Iceland to convince them to use the US dollar. After that, Iceland decided to continue to use their own króna.

The US far past broke? Yup.

I wonder what President Trump thinks it's like living with so many ungrateful children who never stop believing that they know better than their parents do until they need our help.

I'd love nothing more than to pull our military out of every other country on the planet, just so everyone would know what would happen.  We can't seem to convince the governments of many other countries that that's a good idea.  I wonder why.

We're not children, and the US is not a parent. Canada was founded by Britain and France. Complicated history. When the US declared independence from Britain, your founding fathers went to all 16 colonies. Yes, I said 16. The 13 who signed became the USA, the 3 who did not were Ontario (then called Upper Canada), Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. New Brunswick hadn't been founded yet, and PEI was too small to be a colony at that time. If you want a family analogy, Canada is the younger brother. Our parents would be European countries. In fact, our relationship is very much like brothers. We may squabble often, but if someone from outside the family picks a fight, they'll have to face both of us.

And you want to treat Europe as children? Seriously? USA has been a country for 241 years. European history goes back multiple millennia. America is a young whipper-snapper.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

US did support Europe after World War 2: the Marshall Plan. That was to ensure another deep recession leading to depression like the 1930s did not happen again. But after 2008, European banks were intertwined with US banks. Europe could have cut-off their ties to American banks, but they chose not to. Not only did they retain those ties, which cost them money, they used their banking system to support American banks they were intertwined with. More complicated and subtle than a simple loan, but they did and it cost them a lot.

The European banks gambled their money away in that casino we call Wall Street.  Afterwards, the US Federal Reserve started pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into those European banks to keep them afloat.

In 2012 Iceland seriously propose to adopt the Canadian dollar. They had money problems, so they proposed to abandon their króna. Canada's ambassador said Canada is open to the idea if they formally make the request. The Canadian dollar was worth more than a US dollar throughout that year, and the province of Manitoba has the most people of Icelandic descent anywhere in the world outside of Iceland. But then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't like it, she was afraid countries would stop using the US dollar as reserve currency, so she went to Iceland to convince them to use the US dollar. After that, Iceland decided to continue to use their own króna.

I wouldn't take financial advice from Hillary Clinton, either.  Good for Iceland.  Quite frankly, I don't care if they start using Indian Rupees or Kenyan Shillings.  I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them, but your liberal compatriots started that nonsense because they falsely believe that they can or should or need to "control" other people.

The US far past broke? Yup.

Agreed.

We're not children, and the US is not a parent. Canada was founded by Britain and France. Complicated history. When the US declared independence from Britain, your founding fathers went to all 16 colonies. Yes, I said 16. The 13 who signed became the USA, the 3 who did not were Ontario (then called Upper Canada), Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. New Brunswick hadn't been founded yet, and PEI was too small to be a colony at that time. If you want a family analogy, Canada is the younger brother. Our parents would be European countries. In fact, our relationship is very much like brothers. We may squabble often, but if someone from outside the family picks a fight, they'll have to face both of us.

We're never abandoning any of you, no matter what President Trump says on TV to score brownie points with his base.  After that display is over with, Gen McMaster will take him in the back room and tell him what's what.  The President is free to speak his mind, whether it's advisable to do so or not, but that's as far as it goes.

And you want to treat Europe as children? Seriously? USA has been a country for 241 years. European history goes back multiple millennia. America is a young whipper-snapper.

It's good to know that the old familiar "America is a young country" nonsense is alive and well.  Is there anybody alive in Europe today who was still alive in the 1800's?  If not, then maybe we can dispense with this "my history is longer than yours" silliness.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

Perhaps you could explain something to me. I have been paying attention. An American financial expert was interviewed on TV in Canada some time ago, he said although American federal corporate tax rate is 35%, after deductions most corporations pay 19%. This new tax bill will reduce corporate income tax from 35% to 21%. One interview on an American political talk show interviewed a Congressman before the tax bill was finalized; he said it would take away the majority of corporate deductions. What I want to know is what corporations will actually pay after this is passed. Including all remaining deductions, what will they pay? Will it still be 19%? In other words, no change for the majority of corporations? That's what I'm expecting. Or will they still get deductions, so multi-billion dollar corporations pay a lower rate than average working individuals?

This is important because I'm trying to convince Canada to cut personal income tax, pay for it by raising corporate tax. Right now the official corporate tax rate is 38%, but after deductions that absolutely every (Canadian controlled) corporation gets, they pay 15%. That is, corporations with taxable income above half a million dollars. This is tied with Germany for the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7. What I want to do is raise corporate tax to the rate that Paul Martin wanted to cut it down to: 19%. Paul Martin was finance minister from January 1994 through 2004, then Prime Minister to January 2006. Corporate tax was 28% before January 1994. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister from January 2006 through October 2015; he cut corporate taxes deeply, didn't cut personal tax rates at all. Part of my argument is after the changes I propose, American tax is equal or higher, so don't expect corporations to run to the US.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,431

Re: Politics

I have little faith in corporate greed changing with its reduced taxation. Meaning no increase of base pay, no added employes, no infrastructure updates ect...as for will they pay about the same is hard to tell until you can read the form changes....

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,431

Re: Politics

Here is another dispicable act coming from Trump administration considering to separate families who illegally cross U.S.-Mexico border

The Trump administration is weighing a policy that would separate families who are caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally as a way to discourage more arrivals, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

The policy, developed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Officials and other Department of Homeland Security agencies, would place children in protective custody or with an approved sponsor while their parents would be placed in a detention facility to await deportation, officials told the Post. 

“People aren’t going to stop coming unless there are consequences to illegal entry,” a DHS official told the paper.

Under current policy, families caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are held together at detention centers or released with a court date while awaiting a decision on their deportation.

The idea to separate families had been circulating earlier this year in the DHS, but was canned after the proposal received backlash and illegal migration levels dropped.   

According to Customs and Border Protection, when Trump took office in January, the number of people illegally crossing the border dwindled to the lowest number in 17 years.

But the controversial measure is being considered once again after the number of illegal border crossings has climbed back up. In November, immigration authorities apprehended 7,000 family units and 4,000 unaccompanied minors – a 45 percent increase from the previous month according to DHS statistics.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has final approval power, however. DHS officials told the Post that Nielsen has not yet signed off on the plan.

:shakes head:

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

Rob and SpaceNut,

As the unemployment rate goes down, the requirement to pay to retain qualified employees goes up because then those people have options about who they will work for and what they will demand in compensation for their services.  The overwhelming majority of small businesses expand by hiring so they can complete more projects or tasks.  I've worked for several different small businesses and they all expanded in the aforementioned manner.  Larger businesses expand through acquisition of smaller businesses and also by hiring more workers to complete projects or tasks.  Sometimes the employment is permanent and sometimes it's done on a contract basis to complete specific projects or tasks.

The idea that we can tax the means to production and somehow achieve economic prosperity for the average worker is not demonstrated by any available evidence.  There's a fundamental reason why this is so.  People are buying the goods and services that corporations produce and people are paying taxes.  If you tax a corporation, the corporation will raise the prices for its goods or services.  If the market won't tolerate a price increase, then the corporation eventually goes out of business.  The profit margins for legitimate businesses are typically 5% to 10% or less.  I've seen enough cash flow statements to know what typical profit margins are.  There are businesses that engage in price gouging or other poor business practice decisions, but they typically don't last long in today's highly competitive global marketplace.  Excessive taxation rapidly erodes profit margins unless prices increase.  If a business becomes unprofitable in one region of the world and funding exists to move operations, then the business will move operations to another region or shut down operations.  All legitimate businesses work that way.

Our government / tax payers decide by vote that they want to tax corporate profits from car manufacturers at a rate of 50%.  Let's say I'm the CEO for a corporation that sells cars.  My company's profit margin was 10% before government decided to tax car manufacturer profits at 50% and 5% afterwards.  Since I'm the CEO, I have a fiduciary responsibility to my shareholders.  In my company, only my employees and corporate officers can be shareholders, but I'm still responsible for their investments in my company.  As CEO, I decide to increase the cost of my product to cover the tax increase.

Now let's ask the only question that matters.  As long as people are still buying cars, who will pay for the tax increase?

The answer should be obvious.  Everyone who needs a new car paid more for their new car, but my company didn't.  I simply raised the price of our product to cover the tax increase.  Every other CEO who also has a fiduciary responsibility to his or her shareholders did the same thing.

Let's say the market won't bear a more expensive car.  In that case, I either lay off employees and corporate officers or I move some of our operations to a place with lower taxation.  This is the most typical scenario because most people aren't going to pay more for the same product.

If neither option is available, then I have to shut down operations, sell off the corporate assets to pay out what little I have left to my shareholders, and lay off however many employees and corporate officers I must in a desperate attempt to either stay in business or pay what we owe to the government and shareholders.

Under any of those scenarios, the company is just a concept committed to paper.  People are paying for tax increases, either in terms of more expensive products, fewer jobs, or jobs with lower compensation.  Companies are simply not paying for the government's decision to increase or decrease taxes.

As CEO of KBD Corp, if my company paid less taxes to produce our cars, then I would hire more people to produce more product or improve our product in an attempt to dominate the market and increase the value of the investments of my shareholders.  Any CEO worth their salt will do this.

I thought everyone who went to college and passed Economics 101, Introduction to Business, or whatever they're calling it these days, would've mastered that concept.  I presume that most people here don't need a professor to master such basic concepts.  You can read "Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt" to save time and thus money.  The PDF is available online for free.  Everyone reading this has a computer, so use it.  If you don't die, then you're definitely going to get older.  If you're going to get older anyway, then you may as well be smarter, too.

Apparently you don't even have to read the damn books now:

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

kbd512: I tried to focus on what I'm currently trying to do in Canada. Let me explain. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his Conservative party were elected in 1984 on a platform to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and reduce taxes. This would be accomplished by reducing government spending, and reducing the number of individuals in the federal civil service. The voters responded by saying "our saviour has arrived", and gave him the largest majority in Parliament in Canadian history. Unfortunately he was a liar. He did the opposite: increased the deficit, tripled the debt, and increased taxes. He increased government spending, and the number of individuals in the federal civil service. After all the tax increases, his last thing was to replace the Federal Sales Tax (FST) with a Goods and Service Tax (GST). The voters contacted their Member of Parliament to demand they vote against this. Mulroney threatened to kick out of caucus any MP who voted against the party. Two Conservative MPs did anyway, and Mulroney followed through on his threat, they had to sit as independents. Voters then contacted their Senator, demanded they vote against the bill. Mulroney demanded they pass his bill. Senators in Canada don't get a lot of attention, they were flattered. To ensure the bill passed, he stuffed the senate with 8 new Senators who were given the job specifically to vote for this bill. Turned out there's an obscure clause in the Canadian constitution that allows a Prime Minister to do this. This was seen as a gross abuse of authority, and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had made a political opponent of every voter in Canada. That's a really stupid thing to do. At the election of 1993, only 2 Conservatives were elected to the House of Commons. That's so few that party was no longer considered to be a party.

The Liberal Party of Canada was elected in October 1993, sworn-in the first working day after New Year's Day 1994. They inherited a mess. They cut government spending, produced a surplus, reduced the debt. They didn't increase taxes, this was solely by cutting spending. The cuts hurt, but they turned around the economy. The last time a Canadian federal government reduced the debt was before World War 2. They started to very gradually reduce taxes in the late 1990s, didn't start to restore spending until the 2000s.

When Liberals took over from Conservatives in 1993, Canadian federal corporate income tax was 28%, plus corporate surtax, plus corporate capital tax. By the election of January 2006 they had reduce corporate income tax to 21%, and passed a law to abolish corporate capital tax. They stated their intention to abolish corporate surtax and further cut corporate income tax to 19%. They had abolished federal individual surtax, and reduced the lowest bracket of personal income tax from 17% to 15.5%. The fiscal update of November 2005 included a cut in personal income tax from 15.5% to 15.0%, but it was a minority government and opposition parties voted against it. In Canada when parliament votes against a budget or fiscal update, that's considered a confidence vote, that caused the election. Stephen Harper and his Conservatives brought back that cut a year later, but didn't cut personal income tax more than that. So effectively, he cancelled a personal income tax cut by the other party, then brought it back a year later. I don't consider that to be a cut. He did abolish corporate surtax, and cut corporate income tax to 15%.

Summary: from 1993 to today, corporate income tax was cut from 28% to 15%, while the lowest income bracket of personal income tax was cut from 17% to 15%. Today a multi-billion dollar corporate pays the same tax rate as an individual who lives below the poverty line. That's just wrong!

During the election of 2006, Stephen Harper also campaigned to cut GST from 7% to 5%. Since Paul Martin campaigned to cut personal income tax, Stephen Harper promised to cut something different. Economists all say to stimulate the economy, you cut income taxes and capital taxes, not consumption taxes. So this was the wrong tax to cut. It was a gimmick for the election.

What I'm trying to get the Canadian federal government to do is cut personal income tax in every tax bracket that existed on election day by 5% vs what it was on election day. Pay for that by increasing GST back to what it was, and increase corporate income tax from 15% to 19%. In Canada, small corporations with a taxable income below half a million dollars qualify for the Small Business Deduction. This reduces corporate income tax to 11%. Under my proposal, corporate income tax for small corporations would remain frozen at the current level.

There is also something called a "GST Credit". This is a rebate the government pays to low income and moderate income individuals. Once each quarter (every 3rd month) they get a government cheque. It's supposed to be a rebate for GST they paid, but it's based on income, there is no record of how much anyone bought or paid in sales tax. My proposal would replace this with a line-item credit added to their paycheque. For those who are unemployed and getting Employment Insurance benefits (Canadian equivalent to Social Security), it would be added to their EI cheque instead. For those unemployed but not getting EI, but getting Canada Pension Plan benefits (in Canada this is separate, not mushed into Social Security), it would be added to their CPP cheque instead. For those unemployed, not getting EI or CPP, but getting provincial welfare, it would be added to their welfare cheque. Those unemployed and not getting any of that, it would be added to next year's income tax refund. The idea is it's never a separate cheque, instead added on to some other cheque. A page on the website for Canada Revenue Agency (equivalent to IRS) would tell employers how much to add to employee's paycheque. They could only check on employees registered as working for them. Currently if someone hasn't filed their income tax return, they don't get the GST Credit. That rule would still apply. Employers wouldn't be told why a particular employee is denied GST Credit, just that they are. And employers would net this out when remitting income tax withholding.

The reason for the change to GST Credit is to reduce administration cost, and pass on that saving by increasing the GST Credit. Rather than some long-winded calculation, I want to double how much individuals get per year. Anyone who currently does not qualify for GST Credit, still won't. This will help low income individuals, especially those whose income is so low it's below the basic personal exemption so they don't pay income tax at all.

Currently corporate income tax for multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporations is the same as the lowest personal income tax bracket: 15%. After these changes, corporate income tax for larger corporations will be 19%, while the lowest personal tax bracket will be 10%. Comparing to 1993, corporate tax was cut from 28% to 15%, so cut by 13%. Personal tax was cut from 17% to 15%, or only cut by 2%. After my changes, the lowest personal tax bracket will be 10%, so 7% below what it was on election day 1993. Corporate tax will be 19%, so 9% below what it was in 1993. Both personal and corporate surtax is abolished, and not coming back. This is more balanced.

Comparing to the US, your Congress is currently debating a bill to cut federal corporate income tax from 35% to 21%. There were a lot of deductions, a US economist said on TV that most large American business didn't pay the full 35%, but this tax bill will take most of those deductions away. So after my changes, Canadian federal corporate income tax will be 19%, while the US will have 21%. So my country will still have lower tax.

G7 countries: UK has 19% corporate income tax. Germany is currently tied with Canada for the lowest corporate income tax: 15%. France has 33.33%, Japan 32.11%, Italy 24% plus regional tax. So after my proposed changes, only Germany would have a lower corporate tax rate.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

kbd512: I read your long post. It boils down to one thing: you feel there should be no business tax. I agree that taxes are far too high. Before 1913 in the US, or 1917 in Canada, there was no income tax at all. Both our countries demonstrated they can operate without income tax, or other high taxes. But shuffling tax onto someone else, does not solve anything. A business such as yours can pass tax onto customers. Individuals have no one they can pass that cost onto.

For a number of decades now, the Canada Revenue Agency has been unfairly attacking individuals. They have been charged tax that the tax law does not allow, but the CRA just took it anyway. Millionaires and billionaires can hire high-price lawyers to defence themselves. A business can also hire lawyers, individuals do not have that ability. That's right, they do not. Normal people do not have the knowledge how to find a competent lawyer. When I tried to hire a lawyer, every lawyer I could find simply said no. Once to deal with an accountant who deliberately defrauded me, another time a bank tried to foreclose on my house despite the fact I have no mortgage. Both times the lawyers I could find said no. They were intimidated. So imagine when the CRA comes after someone.

But most importantly, past examples with Ronald Regan and other administrations, show when you cut taxes on the rich, it does not trickle down.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

Rob,

I read your post, too.  I'd rather posts were longer and convey the entire thought process than too short and leave out important details.  I don't mind reading.  I just presume that people who post on this forum have the intelligence, attention span, and knowledge to think about what was posted and respond accordingly.  We won't always agree, but I enjoy the process of debate and gauging the utility of pursuing one idea over another.  I try to apply as much math and logic as I can to my ideas, but everyone has their favored ideas.

I really wish you'd read that book or listen to the audio book link to YouTube that I provided.  Give it some thought and then answer some of your own questions about what you say you want to do.  I'm not overly enamored with business, government, or the military.  All of them are power tools that require some care and thought be exercised by their operators.

I don't advocate for increasing taxes on one group to support another group.  I don't like it when it's done to poor or rich people alike, and yes, it also seems to me that the poor get the short end of the stick more often than not.  The poor and rich alike need to have jobs, they need to make enough money to buy the necessities of life, and they need enough left over for eventual retirement and a few nice things for simple pride of ownership if nothing else.  If the tax burden placed on any one group becomes so onerous that those people can't afford either the necessities of life or to expand private enterprise, then I see that sort of taxation as inimical to our way of life and an eventual road to ruin.  Governments need to learn to spend within their means in the same way that you and I do.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

reposnse to post #1208 kbd512 the "unemployment rate goes down" for other factors that are not mentioned such as in many states you are removed from the list once the limit of weeks for collecting are met, other states make a requirement of job searches to get benefits to which if you are in the fail requirement you are not counted again as you are on the removed list even thorough you are still searching, seasonal unemployment rates are also not included as these do not make the quarterly requirement to be in the full time employment status, Part time wage earners are also not counted and the list goes on for what is counted and not.....Seasonal part time employment signs will end soon and most that have taken these jobs will be let go soon and unable to be counted as unemployed as well.

It's true that the unemployment goes up or down because of other factors, but it's also true that corporations that have that capital to move to states with lower tax rates and lower minimum wages do so in order to remain competitive in a global market place.  When that is not sufficient to remain competitive, they move their operations overseas.  If that's not possible, then the company goes bankrupt.

The UAW may have negotiated a deal that was great for GM's workers before it bankrupted GM.  Since it bankrupted GM, those workers no longer have jobs or pensions and their children won't have jobs or pensions, either.  There's a limit to what a market will tolerate.  The high prices of the products that GM produced were directly caused by overly generous compensation packages provided to their workers.  Do you think workers in Mexico, South America, Japan, or China receive the same compensation to produce better products?

"The idea that we can tax the means to production and somehow achieve economic prosperity for the average worker" comes with the trick down not being applied nor are minimum wages and unions to make wages rise... when an employee can not even buy the products that they are making should tell you something about the greed going on....Corporate greed has created so many ways to not pay there taxes that its not funny......such as putting people into the less than part time employment just to not pay or creating a satelite office with below the states limit for the warn of unemployment impending to avoid paying the penalties.....

Businesses do what they can to survive the conditions of the market.  If you are that concerned about them not being so creative in their attempts to avoid paying taxes, then maybe you shouldn't tax them at such a high rate to begin with.  It's not greed.  It's a race to the bottom.  It started with moving operations overseas to produce lower cost products to remain competitive.  It ends with the majority of people here living in poverty.

You're never going to understand the mentality of the average business person until you read the book I posted a link to.  You're going to have your opinions about these people you think of as "rich", but you're never going to understand them.  Please read the book.  It's less than 200 pages.

I've spent that past 10+ years of my life working for corporations that make consumer products ( foodstuffs and beverages / medical products / computers / metals / etc).  I've done work for people who make products I'll probably never buy, but that doesn't mean someone else won't buy them.  Boeing's workers will never be able to afford a 787, but that doesn't mean that many people won't benefit from efficient and safe air transportation.  We've already benefited immeasurably from technology, and yes, we've also suffered because of it.

Remember the % percentages are not weighed for the income that on can create and or get as a 2% raise on $30,000 is not the same dollars when you say the rich get a 2% raise on $1,000,000 and that is what we are seeing for the entitlements versus congressional raises that they vote for themselves to recieve when they are not doing there job....so do not worry they will be ousted in the next elections.....

If you think the wealthy won't find a way to come out on top, no matter who is elected, then you're not living in the real world with the rest of us.  I guess you just ignored all that stuff Hillary Clinton told her corporate backers when she was running for President.

"I thought everyone who went to college and passed Economics 101, Introduction to Business" not for most degree programs and only for the Batchelers in business which is for the most part a BS degree just like the liberal arts degrees they are worthless.....Also associate degress do not cover these as well....

I don't care what major a person decides to pursue.  A basic understanding of business is a "must have".  I would teach this stuff in high school, not college, but I'm not a business administration professor and never will be.  Your children could benefit from reading that book, even if it's too little, too late for you.

RobertDyck your posts that follow are talking about the buying power of your currency as well as ours shrink and that is just one of the problems created via a world economy to which the poor become working slaves to the rich and are forced to survival modes to keep alive and trying to be happy in life. To which we are seeing the eroding of the dream that America had for so long....

Most of us who are not independently wealthy are just indentured servants.  My wife and I can't choose to quit our jobs tomorrow and very few people I know could.  That said, there are still lots of ways for the working man or woman to live a better life.  It starts by identifying the problems, admitting to reality, and making changes for the better.  Most people would rather die than change, but sometimes the pain is so great that it forces us to reevaluate our decision making and decide that it's time for a change.  The change is internal, meaning we're the ones driving it.  It doesn't come from an outside source.

kbd512 the economics that was driving the US before corporate greed push its head from the rich versus poor is just the battle that the North and south fought about to which was one where the employer rewarded a carreer with pensions and stability for the success that they had but that is long gone and the greed has taken over....

I'm pretty sure that the desire to make a profit has always driven business.  That's unlikely to change in the near future.  This race to the bottom is a somewhat newer feature of the economic landscape that we find ourselves in today.  You can choose to change, wait for a savior who isn't coming to bring the change with them, or accept the results of your present choices.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

SpaceNut,

I wrote several posts about the basic math and logic of business.  It was intended to elicit some critical thinking on your part, but you responded with your ideology.  Financially speaking, how well has your ideology served you thus far?  Are you still waiting for those Democrats to ride in on their gold plated campaign horse to save you and everyone else who made poor financial decisions in life?  If memory serves, you're older than I am.  Do you ever get the feeling that you'll be dead and buried before any Democrat politicians rob from their campaign donors to pay you?  The responsibility to make decisions in life that produce the kinds of financial results you want is yours alone.

If you ever get tired of waiting for your saviors to come rescue you, then you can read that book and start making changes that will lead to greater financial success in life.  If you keep falling for the lies the Democrats tell you about what they're going to do for you, then they'll keep feeding them to you and you'll keep getting screwed over.

That picture you posted shows a bunch of spoiled white kids complaining about something they've never experienced in their entire sheltered lives.  What the hell would a bunch of white kids in 21st century America know about racism, unless they're the ones being racists?  Those evil or stupid communist agitators, it's hard to tell which they are since college professors are typically the first people that real communists imprison or murder after they seize power, have filled their empty heads with utter nonsense about how the world doesn't work.  None of that regressive ideology has ever provided prosperity for the people who have suffered and died under communism, no matter where it was foolishly attempted, and that is because it simply doesn't work when humans are involved.  I'll bet little miss discrimination there has lived her entire life with a privilege that I've personally seen people beaten and arrested for exercising in foreign countries.

These kids have plenty of information they can use, or at least that's what I tell myself so I can sleep at night, but not even a vague general idea about how to apply it to lead better lives.  Most are also unwilling to get their precious hands dirty to get some real work done.  They all believe they're a priceless gift to the world because their parents and teachers have coddled them their entire lives.  If these kids were at all serious about wanting better lives, then they'd be learning how to write resumes containing correct grammar and punctuation, interviewing for jobs or apprenticeships, and spending their free time improving their social skills.  Instead, they're wasting their time throwing temper tantrums over concepts they can't even articulate because they lack the communication skills to do so.

The Democrats really are their own worst enemies.  They bloviate about acceptance of science, but can't do enough basic math to pay their own way in life without requiring other peoples' money.  They accuse others of not accepting facts, but make things up whenever it suits their partisan political agendas.  They say they want high paying jobs, but have take no issue with allowing millions of low-skill or no-skill illegal aliens to invade our country and take the few jobs they might be qualified for because illegals are willing to work far harder than they are for less money.  They proclaim themselves to be cosmopolitans, but loot, vandalize, and destroy like a bunch of hooligans whenever their favorite candidate isn't elected.

The Democrat Party has become an anti-math, anti-personal responsibility, anti-capitalist, and anti-American party that is just unappealing to people who can still do basic math, think they're responsible for their own behavior, believe that capitalism is the best system we have compared to everything else that's been tried from time to time, and cherish the values in our Constitution as the last and best hope for a people who wish to remain free and prosperous.  The Democrats either can't tell you what their sophomoric ideas will cost the taxpayer or flat out lie about it because they know nobody in their right mind would ever support their agendas if they knew how much it would cost, in terms of jobs and lives lost to government excess.

I only blame myself for what happens in my life, whether I succeed or fail, and that's why I'm a Republican.  Democrats blame everyone and everything else in life for their personal failings.  If you want to see a real revolution in action, then take away all the government handouts from these spoiled brats who think they're better than everyone else or otherwise entitled to things they've done nothing for and make them work for a living or starve.  Things will change overnight.  Most of us will be too busy working to wander around in the streets, disrupting traffic, simply because our favorite candidate didn't get elected.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

you'll be dead and buried before any Democrat politicians rob from their campaign donors to pay you

This is why Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. There were several court challenges, the last was a Supreme Court case "Citizens United v. FEC". The court overruled the law, allowing millionaires to effectively buy Congress.

A major university did a study. Chances of a bill passing vs citizens who campaign for it. They found citizens make no difference what so ever. The largest number of citizens ever to contact their Congressman about a bill, more than half the registered voters, has the same chance as a bill that has no citizens what so ever. However, when they made the chart with just millionaires and billionaires, they found a direct relationship between number of individuals campaigning vs chances of a bill passing. This means Congress represents rich donors, not voters.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-26 16:27:20)

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,853

Re: Politics

Rob,

Since our courts overruled our will, as exercised through our elected representatives, and our elected representatives are directly influenced by the money they receive from their wealthy donors as you just stated, what chance do you think any bill that's primarily intended to benefit the working poor and middle class has of passing, even if it received bi-partisan political support and was signed into law?  Hillary Clinton made a speech to her Wall Street buddies telling them how she intended to act in office to further their interests.  Then she made a speech to our coal miners telling them she was going to put them out of work and actually expected that they were going to vote for her.  Anyone who thought for a moment that she was sincere about helping our poor and working class is so unbelievably naive that they deserve what they get.

Big picture thinking is required here, but most of the people who want to take other peoples' money are too self-interested to think about the role the rich play in government.  These rich people have lots of money to petition the courts or lobby Congress, so why is it that liberals constantly want to take more money from these people?  Why can't liberal politicians just admit to their constituents that the things they think they should have cost more money than the rich could ever possibly provide?  The more of their money we take to fund our government, the more influence they have in the decision making process, whether anyone else here likes it or not.

It seems to me that the liberals want the rich deeply intertwined in the function of our government by taking more and more of their money, whereas I want them as far from the center of our power as I can reasonably get them.  Limiting the funding available to our government simultaneously limits the influence the rich have over our government.  You're never going to get one without the other and you never will, so let that thought leave your head like Christmas dinner did from your other end.

If the rich ever decided that there's no point to making more money because the liberals have decided we're going to implement a confiscatory tax system, then we're really screwed.  The top 1% paid 45.7% of the taxes in 2014.  The bottom 80% paid 15% of the taxes.  The bottom 60% paid less than 2%.  You can only fleece the rich once.  After you do, they'll simply move since we can't legally stop them from doing that.  If our liberal politicians tried to prevent them from moving, then they really are the little pinko commies that most of us on the other side of this issue always thought they were.

If our federal government plugged the entitlement and imperialism funding black holes, the potential avenues of influence that the rich could exert over our government would drastically diminish.  If you take their money, then you play by their rules.  It's what we call the "the golden rule" in business.  He who has the gold makes the rules.  The rich are always going to come out on top.  They always have and probably always will.  Anyone who believes otherwise is not living in the real world.  I no more believe that Congress represents my interests than I can walk backwards on water.  The difference is that I don't want to give them more of anyone's money to play with, for any purpose, because they always find a way to squander it.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,932

Website

Re: Politics

First you confuse donations with tax. I have worked for private industry and government. In Miami FL I was sole responsible for the computer system for one county tax. I can tell you that tax does not make civil servants treat people with respect. Civil servants treat tax money as a right, and if you don't pay or create an obstacle, they think you're taking THEIR money! So any claim that taxing the rich gives them influence is wrong.

Political donations are different; donars have control, they can decide to donate or not.

Entitlements: do you mean Medicare/Medicaid? I pointed out the Canadian system would reduce federal funding.

Imperialism: We agree that's a black hole.

You realize we're arguing over the best way to cut taxes.