Comments on: Drawing The Battle Lines Of Class Warfare
Add a Comment
- "...and your only defense it "He's just as bad as the Republicans." Posted by sndkzyaa
Poor deluded soul. You seem not to be able to understand that the amount of money involved in these corruptions is sufficient to have anyone standing in the way of the corruptors killed, no matter what political affiliation. Ask the surviving Kennedy family members, or the relatives of Medgar Evars, Dr. King, or Malcolm X, all of whom died for far less money than is now being corrupted.
If, in the unlikely event you were in the position to do some good for your country, and you had a choice between accomplishing important matters that you are able to accomplish, or being assassinated trying to accomplish the nigh impossible, would you lay down your life, and sacrifice what good you would have been able to do?
But then again judging by your posts, you would probably join the corruption, as you obviously have no good intent for your country in the first place. - Reply to this comment
- "... And your only defense it "He's just as bad as the Republicans." Posted by sndkzyaa
It is not a defense, it is only the position that neither party is clean, but it is you who seems to ignore this fact, choosing to point your misinformed finger only at the party opposite yours.
No wonder the GOP and neocon-derthalism is circling the drain, its constant habit of ignoring facts that run counter to its' ideas has grown stale, and has been rejected, hopefully forever. - Reply to this comment
- Catch the two words "decades-long in there"?
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 4:46 PM : Apr 5, 2009
Can you provide proof that Enron's FRAUD went back that far?
If so, then once again Clinton had 8 years to catch them, and he did nothing.
Once again, a consistent pattern of non-compliance emerges from the Clinton years.
And your only defense it "He's just as bad as the Republicans." - Reply to this comment
- So he started a scam that should have been obvious to the regulators twenty years ago, and you think that no one knew about it until he was "turned in"?
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 4:49 PM : Apr 5, 2009
Gosh, you're right. Clinton must have known about it for his whole 8 years, and he did nothing.
Face it, when the only defense is "He just as bad as the Bushes," that's pathetic. - Reply to this comment
- California, 0.79
Connecticut, 0.66
New Jersey, 0.55
New York, 0.79
Rhode Island, 1.02
Massachusetts, 0.77
That''s how much each of these blue states gets in Federal Spending per tax dollar sent to the Feds.
from: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
People in New Jersey are taxed two dollars for every dollar in Federal spending they get back.
West Virginia, 1.83
Mississippi, 1.77
Oklahoma, 1.48
Montana, 1.58
Tennessee, 1.30
Kansas, 1.12
Translation: Red staters have found a way get blue-staters to pay them for living.
Strange place for conservatives to be! Maybe that's why red-states are more generous to their churches.
Posted by ubrew12 at 4:14 PM : Apr 5, 2009
There is a serious hole in your data. I have seen the report you got it from so I know. Heres the hole(s):
1. The states of California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts are huge industrial states where the taxes are paid by the industries of those states. Those taxes are actually paid by the customers of those industries. So, the customers may reside in Oklahoma but they buy products (and thus pay taxes) in New York.
2. These states you mentioned are all part of the American military/industrial complex and governmetn "think tank" operations. The money paid to those operations are not included in your statistics (read the article you got them from). For example, New York is a huge beneficiary of the UN but the US support of the UN is not part of your numbers.
3. The cost of living in those red states you mentioned is lower than the blue ones. As a result, its likely that the taxes drawn from them is actually a greater percent of of the states wealth.
But finally, to paraphrase your point: "It looks like the Blue States have grabbed all the money making businesses and are now trying to force the red states to pay their mortgages too. - Reply to this comment
- "... Not what I was saying...although I can see where that could be what you read. I'm saying if you're going to limit executive compensation -- take it further and limit the compensation of sport "businessmen" (or ladies). Sometimes its difficult to communicate in this gender neutral world..." Posted by reasoned1955
The difference is that any investment we made in the carreers of athletes and artists, in the form of college grants and student loans is usually repaid, (in fact student loans are required to be repaid), and not considered as purchasing ownership in the businesses they would create when they enter the public arena, whereas giving billions to private companies that already exist, to be shared among their officers and stockholders, should, by the definition of capitalism, entitle us to ownership of the appropriate value of stock at the time of purchase, and if our sibsidizing means we then own more than 50% of the companie's book value, we should then as stockholders have every right to vote to limit salaries.
These are the rules and laws regulating the concept of capitalism. I didn't make them, heck I don't even agree with them by and large, but since it is what we have, then we should not be so willing to practice moral and legal relativism, what's good for the goose.... - Reply to this comment
- "...Now, when I can't pick-up a can of Campbell's tomato soup -- I may falter in my conviction. Stay strong Campbell's!!" Posted by reasoned1955
Guess what...
There are 153 Federal programs that benefit wealthy corporations. This costs the taxpayers $167.2 billion annually. That's more than three times the amount spent on Food Stamps, Housing Aid, and Child Nutrition.
-In 1996, the Campbell's Soup Company received $500,000 in direct government subsidies. That same year, Congress voted to cut food stamps."
You were saying? - Reply to this comment
- "Are you trying to forget that Madoff was turned in for his Ponzi scheme in 2000? Not on Bush Sr.'s watch. sorry. That was Clinton." Posted by sndkzyaa
So he started a scam that should have been obvious to the regulators twenty years ago, and you think that no one knew about it until he was "turned in"?
Get real. - Reply to this comment
- So athletes and artists don't count as self made business people who deserve the rewards for their work?
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 4:38 PM : Apr 5, 2009
=============
Not what I was saying...although I can see where that could be what you read. I'm saying if you're going to limit executive compensation -- take it further and limit the compensation of sport "businessmen" (or ladies). Sometimes its difficult to communicate in this gender neutral world... - Reply to this comment
- "And yes, Enron did start scamming in the Clinton years. Unless you can dig up proof that Enron was committing fraud before Clinton took office. That would be interesting."
Posted by sndkzyaa
"At the beginning of 2001, the Enron Corporation, the world's dominant energy trader, appeared unstoppable. The company's decade-long effort to persuade lawmakers to deregulate electricity markets had succeeded from California to New York. Its ties to the Bush administration assured that its views would be heard in Washington. Its sales, profits and stock were soaring. "
?A. Berenson and R. A. Oppel Jr.The New York Times, Oct 28, 2001.
Catch the two words "decades-long in there"? - Reply to this comment
