Page 47 of 109 FirstFirst ... 3745464748495797 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 1085

Thread: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

  1. #461
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Sorry, but the list shows that only a very, very few politicians ever become involved in bribery and when they do, I am not sure that any of the ones shown here are a quid pro quo of a campaign contribution for a vote.
    I decided to dig a little deeper into the list you provided, David. Here two Congressmen who were sanctioned for bribery:

    Oakes Ames (1804-1873) — of North Easton, Easton, Bristol County, Mass. Born in Easton, Bristol County, Mass., . Father of Oliver Ames.
    Republican. 2nd District, 1863-73. Was censured by the House of Representatives in 1873 for his role in the Credit Mobilier bribery scandal.

    James Brooks (1810-1873) — of New York, New York County, N.Y. Born in Portland, Cumberland County, Maine, . Father of . ; member of , 1835; member of from New York County 16th District, 1848; , 1849-53, 1863-66, 1867-73 (6th District 1849-53, 8th District 1863-66, 1867-73, 6th District 1873); died in office 1873; , 1867. Censured by the House in 1873 for his role in the Credit Mobilier bribery scandal. Died in Washington, D.C., (age ). Interment at , Brooklyn, N.Y.

    Here are some details on the Credit Mobilier Bribery Scandal:
    The Reconstruction era after the Civil War was a time of chaos, reorganization, and corruption that affected not only lesser state officials but also federal government agents. The Crédit Mobilier affair, which had its early beginnings in 1864 but was not publicly investigated until 1873, is an example of the corrupt practices that characterized the period.

    In 1864, Thomas C. Durant, an administrator of the Union Pacific Railroad, bought the Pennsylvania Fiscal Agency, which was chartered in 1859. The agency was renamed Crédit Mobilier of America and its proposed purpose as a construction company was the building of the Union Pacific Railroad. The federal government had granted the railroad generous loans and contracts for its construction, and the administrators of the railroad planned to divert this money into the Crédit Mobilier Company, allowing the stockholders of the company to enjoy huge profits. Government officials first became involved in 1865 when Oakes Ames, congressional representative from Massachusetts, and his brother Oliver bought shares of stock in the Crédit Mobilier and, indirectly, in the Union Pacific Railroad. The Ames brothers soon became the power behind the Union Pacific, and, in 1866, Durant was replaced by Oliver Ames.


    The building of the railroad was fraudulently financed for approximately $50 million more than was necessary. In addition, Oakes Ames sold a large number of shares of stock in Crédit Mobilier at a reduced rate to several of his fellow congressmen. This move on the part of Ames was to allay any suspicious interest in the undertakings of the two companies and to encourage legislation beneficial to the railroad. This maneuver occurred in 1867, and for the next five years rumors surrounding the activities of Ames and other government officials circulated.


    The scandal erupted in 1872 when the details of the Crédit Mobilier Company became an issue of the presidential campaign of that year. Several important officials were involved including vice presidential candidate Henry Wilson, incumbent vice president Schyler Colfax, future president and member of the House of Representatives james a. garfield, and Speaker of the House James G. Blaine. An investigation began in 1873. The punishments for such behavior were surprisingly lenient, however, and the Crédit Mobilier Company and Congressman Ames were merely publicly censured.

    While these two Congressment apparently did wrong, I don't see legislation involved. It could be that the loans were a quid pro quo; however, the article did not say that it was and did not even claim that the loans were connected to the charges of bribery. However, this is an incident where two Congressmen did wrong and where company officials were up to no good.

    I'll see what else I can find.


  2. #462
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    Customers or cosumers either way you slice it.
    I am fine with either word. I believe I used consumers as that is what another person used and I was simply making the wording match.

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    It's all about the money if companies big or small got no customers or as you say consumers they have more inventory and less retail sales, in short black ink turns red ink .
    Naturally. I don't think I said anything different.

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    If dog eat dog is such a good thing then American corporations won't mind seeing their customers or consumers buying and investing in foriegn products instead of American products, or is that advertisment money just a tax write off?
    LOL! I don't know of any company that would be happy with that result. That's why "companies need to continually improve their products or services, expand their line, or manage their business better so that consumers will continue to want their products or services..." "That makes 'dog eat dog' a good thing."

  3. #463
    Sage
    presluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,932

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    The richest man in America turned a five thousand dollar loan in the mid 70s into a Seattle juggernaut. During the World War 2 effort, a man spent twenty-five grand to own an Arkansas thrift shop and turned it into more money than King Midas could make. If we didn't reduce corporate tax strangleholds, who knows what may have happened here?

    I'm sorry not all men are created equal. I don't have a problem with a man creating his own destiny and determining his own worth without interference from a giant Washington bully playing Robin Hood with someone else's entrepreneurial ability. If this means one man owns a 50,000 square foot house while another has to dredge his life at Burger King for 40 years, so be it. There is nothing greedy about keeping what you earn, nor is there anything noble in taking something from someone to give to another.
    Unless my history is wrong Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, not the other way round.

    This country has had budget cuts from the poor, lower wages higher prices less jobs , this country borrowed 93 million from the Chinese , , while the rich get's tax cuts, grants and fat contracts, profits doubled by outsourceing jobs to slave labor in third world countries.

    Who benifits from this? Who's robbing who to pay who?
    This ain't Robin Hood more like Al Capone.
    Tiki bar regular.
    My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
    Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have

  4. #464
    Sage
    presluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,932

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I am fine with either word. I believe I used consumers as that is what another person used and I was simply making the wording match.



    Naturally. I don't think I said anything different.



    LOL! I don't know of any company that would be happy with that result. That's why "companies need to continually improve their products or services, expand their line, or manage their business better so that consumers will continue to want their products or services..." "That makes 'dog eat dog' a good thing."
    Companies need to supply jobs to working Americans.
    That is after all, where the consumers are.
    Improve products made in Tai Wan or Mexico, or the down side of Manila., how.
    Who buys the most foriegn or American consumer, you can check the exports against the imports of America any time.

    As far as dog eat dog you take a hungry wild dog put it against a fat pamered dog who's gonna win?

    You remember the riots of L.A. ,Seattle, Greece, Paris just to name a few.
    Tiki bar regular.
    My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
    Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have

  5. #465
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I don't give a damn about income disparity. I think more people would be better off if they shut up and worried more about themselves than what Fat Cat Wallstreet does.

    You are missing the point. An economy cannot prosper when all of the wealth is concentrated at the top, which has become painfully obvious over the last decade.

    Trickle down economics is a failure!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #466
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    So if all poor, blue collar,lower middle class stop buying and investing in American products you would have no problem with that.

    For it is as you say it is not your duty to help them., then why should it be their duty to help corporate, big business or Wall street, or for that matter you.

    Its just a small percentage of country, the me, me, me generation that feels this way. Fortunately, most people are responsible citizens.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #467
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    Companies need to supply jobs to working Americans.
    That is after all, where the consumers are.
    Improve products made in Tai Wan or Mexico, or the down side of Manila., how.
    Who buys the most foriegn or American consumer, you can check the exports against the imports of America any time.

    As far as dog eat dog you take a hungry wild dog put it against a fat pamered dog who's gonna win?

    You remember the riots of L.A. ,Seattle, Greece, Paris just to name a few.
    Sorry, but I don't get your point. Companies do not offer jobs when they have no need to seek employees. That would be counter-productive.

    I'm assuming that you don't see companies improving products by moving to Taiwan or Mexico. Where the company is doesn't necessarily have a bearing on whether or not it improves its products, expands its lines, or manages its business better. They go to those places for a few reasons and among those reasons are lower wages, less regulations, and less taxes. I don't want to offer lower wages, but I believe we need to have less regulations and less taxes in order to keep businesses in the U.S.

    As for your hungry dog analogy, I am not concerned about the U.S. competing with any country or our companies competing with companies from other nations, so long as we have reasonable regulations and taxes. I would minimize the regulations so that Amercans companies do not spend hundreds of billions just to comply with the regulations and I would end taxing companies. The latter would drive companies back to the U.S. and would drive foreign companies to come here.

    Riots? Sure, I recall them. When we start to get our country's fiscal policies in order, I expect to see many protesting the changes and even rioting. That's what happens when people have been given things, setting up unrealistic expectations that the country cannot sustain and can no longer afford. A good conservative fiscal policy would have been much better and would have caused less damage.

  8. #468
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Sorry, but the list shows that only a very, very few politicians ever become involved in bribery and when they do, I am not sure that any of the ones shown here are a quid pro quo of a campaign contribution for a vote.
    I found another one:

    William Worth Belknap (1829-1890) — also known as William W. Belknap — of Iowa. Born in Newburgh, Orange County,
    N.Y., . Son of William Goldsmith Belknap (Mexican War general) and Ann (Clark) Belknap; married to Cora LeRoy, Carrie Thompson and Mrs. John Bower; father of . Lawyer; member of , 1857-58; general in the Union Army during the Civil War; , 1869-76. Impeached in 1876 by the House of Representatives for taking bribes; resigned on March 2, 1876. Despite arguments that the Senate lacked jurisdiction after his resignation, an impeachment trial was held; on August 1, the Senate voted 35 to 25 for his conviction, short of the necessary two-thirds.

    Here are some details on his impeachment:

    He was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments.[2] Speaker of the House Michael C. Kerr wrote to the Senate that Belknap resigned "with intent to evade the proceedings of impeachment against him."[3] Belknap was tried by the Senate, which ruled by a vote of 37-29 that it had jurisdiction despite the resignation.[4] The vote on conviction fell short of the two-thirds required, with 35 to 37 votes for each article and 25 votes against each. Two of those voting for conviction, 22 of those voting for acquittal, and one who declined to vote, said they felt that the Senate did not have jurisdiction due to Belknap's resignation.[5]

    This one is a quid pro quo; however, it is not to favor any law, but to put people in positions.

  9. #469
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I'll see what else I can find.
    Well, I have now found a 4th one:

    William Lorimer (1861-1934) — also known as "The Blond Boss" — of Chicago, , Ill. Born in Manchester, England, April 27, 1861.
    Republican. ; contractor; , 1895-1901, 1903-09 (2nd District 1895-1901, 6th District
    1903-09); delegate to Republican National Convention from Illinois, 1896, 1904, 1908; , 1909-12. He was accused of
    bribery in winning election to the Senate; in 1912, the Senate invalidated his election.

    The Chicago Tribune published an admission by Illinois AssemblymanCharles A. White that Lorimer had paid $1,000 for White's vote in the election for U.S. Senator (prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, selection of U.S. Senators rested with state legislatures, rather than popular vote).[1] On July 13, 1912, after a Senate investigation and acrimonious debate, the Senate adopted a resolution declaring "that corrupt methods and practices were employed in his election, and that the election, therefore, was invalid."

    Another case of bribery with a member of Congress, but again, like the rest, it does not involve a quid pro quo for legislation. Please let me know if you want me to continue searching.

  10. #470
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I can only conclude from your comments that you are intentionally being as obtuse as humanly possible to avoid facing the reality of the complete ridiculousness of your statement that 7 bucks an hour is the same as 50 bucks an hour.
    Do you know what a price floor is? Do you know why capitalism doesn't have a put in place price floor?

Page 47 of 109 FirstFirst ... 3745464748495797 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •