What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

David D. said:

Here are some more cases below, and remember, these were just the folks that were caught:

The Political Graveyard: Politicians in Trouble or Disgrace: Bribery

Click to expand...

This list is not even as strong as I thought it would be. It includes the following:

People who were found not guilty:

Eugene F. Vacheron — of Ozone Park, Queens, Queens County, N.Y. Lawyer; member of , 1894-95, 1901 (Queens County 3rd District 1894-95, Queens County 2nd District 1901); resigned 1895; charged with bribery in 1895; tried and acquitted, but resigned from
the Assembly;

Edward L. Jackson (1873-1954) — also known as Ed Jackson — of New Castle, , Ind.; Indianapolis, Marion County, Ind.; Born in Charged with bribery; tried and found not guilty.

People who were not elected Federal officials:

Claude E. Negley — of Indianapolis, Marion County, Ind. Born in , Ind. Republican., , 1927. Pleaded guilty in 1927 to bribery charges and fined.

People where the outcome is unknown:

Robert Philo Anibal (1845-1908) — also known as Robert P. Anibal — of Northville, Fulton County, N.Y.; Johnstown, Fulton County, N.Y. 1896; candidate for 4th District, 1901. In May 1901, the Herkimer County District Attorney accused him of offering a bribe to a ; Anibal denied this.

Albert Alonzo Ames (1842-1911) — also known as Albert A. Ames — of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minn. Born in Garden Prairie, Boone County, Ill., . Served in the Union Army during the Civil War; physician; member of 5th District, 1867; , 1876-77, 1882-84, 1886-89, 1901-02; resigned 1902; candidate for , 1886 (Democratic), 1896 (Independent); delegate to Democratic
National Convention from Minnesota, 1888; indicted in 1902 on bribery charges, over a scheme to induce county commissioners to appoint his secretary

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.

Gipper said:

Well, in my world, "minimum" doesn't have the same meaning as "living". Are you saying a 16 year old working at McDonalds should earn a "living" wage? Having said that, should anyone working there make a "living" wage? When push comes to shove, they could take the illegal Mexican model and just pack into a small apartment like sardines.

By the way. Do you know how many people making minimum wage are raising families on it? Less than one-sixth. Hardly a concern.

Guess they shoulda thought about that before they fumbled through high school getting stoned.

Click to expand...

Most of the new jobs in Texas, that are not new public jobs, are minimum wage jobs. Is this what you propose for the rest of the country? This is your ideal of the new middle class standard so the rich can gain even more of the country's wealth than the 85% they already own?

That's misleading. Of course there are lots of minimum wage jobs being created. Wanna guess which age category carries the highest rate of unemployment? Here's a hint - the letters "teen" show up somewhere. The bulk of jobs created for the largest unemployment demographic are the only jobs they can do. By the way, when politicians say "minimum wage jobs", it's not literal. Many retail and fast food joints pay comfortably above minimum wage. It's just a demagougery buzzword.

Gipper said:

That's misleading. Of course there are lots of minimum wage jobs being created. Wanna guess which age category carries the highest rate of unemployment? Here's a hint - the letters "teen" show up somewhere. The bulk of jobs created for the largest unemployment demographic are the only jobs they can do. By the way, when politicians say "minimum wage jobs", it's not literal. Many retail and fast food joints pay comfortably above minimum wage. It's just a demagougery buzzword.

Click to expand...

So this is your ideal income disparity?

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.

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Does this mean that you don't believe in equal opportunity or you just believe that all of our income disparity is completely due to individual differences in qualities such as I.Q., charisma, drive, originality, economic prowess, etc. ? Please remember equal opportunity and equal outcome are not the same; while I agree there should be a significant amount of income disparity, I feel like our current income disparity is due to a lack of equal opportunity. A country with true equal opportunity would have a less severe income disparity as while not all humans are equally capable, intelligent, driven etc., the differences in such traits are not as severely different as one would think (as long as we are talking about those within the "normal" I.Q. range)

LesGovt said:

Number 1 is correct. Very good.
Number 2 is not accurate. Actually, a company can have tons of customers and lose money, where a smaller company can make money if they manage their business correctly.

If what you mean by "dog eat dog," you mean that 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, then you would be correct. That makes "dog eat dog" a good thing.

Click to expand...

Customers or cosumers either way you slice it.

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 .

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?eace

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.

Gipper said:

The richest man in America turned a five thousand dollar loan in the mid 70s into a Seattle juggernaut.

Click to expand...

I'm curious ... how did that person acquire the loan? Additionally, I have heard of many people winning the lottery as well, however, I'm not sure that had anything to do with them being superior to others in any way.

Gipper said:

I'm sorry not all men are created equal.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

OK, but conceptually, do you agree or disagree with the governments current position on preventing monopolies?

TurtleDude said:

your analogy is stupid I said I value my property more than I value your life. that is not the same as saying killing over pure property is right. You did not accurately read my posts (big surprise)

I should have no duty to sacrifice my property to help you. and you should not have to do that for me either

Click to expand...

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.eace

LesGovt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

presluc said:

Customers or cosumers either way you slice it.

Click to expand...

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.

presluc said:

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 .

Click to expand...

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

presluc said:

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?eace

Click to expand...

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." :shock:

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.eace

LesGovt said:

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." :shock:

Click to expand...

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.eace

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

presluc said:

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.eace

Click to expand...

Its just a small percentage of country, the me, me, me generation that feels this way. Fortunately, most people are responsible citizens. :sun

presluc said:

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.eace

Click to expand...

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.

LesGovt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.[SUP][2][/SUP] Speaker of the House Michael C. Kerr wrote to the Senate that Belknap resigned "with intent to evade the proceedings of impeachment against him."[SUP][3][/SUP] Belknap was tried by the Senate, which ruled by a vote of 37-29 that it had jurisdiction despite the resignation.[SUP][4][/SUP] 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.[SUP][5]

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

LesGovt said:

I'll see what else I can find.

Click to expand...

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 Assemblyman Charles 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).[SUP][1][/SUP] 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.

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you know what a price floor is? Do you know why capitalism doesn't have a put in place price floor?

Gipper said:

I think you're being obtuse with regards to macroeconomic impact. Seriously, what do you think will happen if minimum wage suddenly increased to 50 bucks an hour? Minimum wage is a price floor. If you raise the floor, everything above the floor goes up too. See where I'm getting at?

I know even you can't possibly think that minimum wage can go up while everything else stays the same.

Click to expand...

If you are correct, that should be very esy for you to prove your theory by examing the cities in the US which have adopted a living wage law and showing is it made no difference. This should help you get started

In the United States, the state of Maryland and several municipalities and local governments have enacted ordinances which set a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum for the purpose of requiring all jobs to meet the living wage for that region. This usually works out to be $3 to $7 above the federal minimum wage. However, San Francisco, California and Santa Fe, New Mexico have notably passed very wide-reaching living wage ordinances.[citation needed] U.S. cities with living wage laws include Santa Fe and Albuquerque in New Mexico; San Francisco, California; and Washington D.C.[4] (The city of Chicago, Illinois also passed a living wage ordinance in 2006, but it was vetoed by the mayor.)[5] Living wage laws typically cover only businesses that receive state assistance or have contracts with the government.[6]
This effort began in 1994 when an alliance between a labor union and religious leaders in Baltimore launched a successful campaign requiring city service contractors to pay a living wage.[7] Subsequent to this effort, community advocates have won similar ordinances in cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis. In 2007, there were at least 140 living wage ordinances in cities throughout the United States and more than 100 living wage campaigns underway in cities, counties, states, and college campuses.[8]

Click to expand...

I await your findings.

That didn't even say anything.

Find something that says something haymarket.

Henrin said:

That didn't even say anything.

Find something that says something haymarket.

Click to expand...

Then you need to go back and read it again. It says very clearly that if Gipper is correct, that should be easy for him to prove using many cities where the minimum wage has been elevated to a living wage.

Of course, the idea of taking some libertarian fantasy out of the realm of pure theory into the world of reality that the rest of us inhabit may be something lost upon you.

Catawba said:

Its just a small percentage of country, the me, me, me generation that feels this way. Fortunately, most people are responsible citizens. :sun

Click to expand...

The boys in D.C. ,Wall Street or the CEOS of corporatins may not know this but bottom line there are a lot of pissed off people out here.
I'm not the only one that has went from buying American products to foreign products.eace

LesGovt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Companies do seek consumers, employed people are consumers, profits dropped once companies needed bailouts.
Wall Street the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P dropped 3 times in one month.
Math is math somebody is not spending enough could this have something to do with the less job market in America MAYBE?

Those cheap laborers in Tai Wan and Mexico aren't targeted consumers Americans are.
We had less regulations that caused bailouts and more loss of employment.
If corporations want American consumers business give Americans jobs cause foreign products are cheaper and better improved, so why buy American so they can have cheap labor in third world country and sell high in America.
You forget the average American has to deal with taxes, regulations lower wages too, as well as budget cuts, salary cuts, education cuts without a bunch of Harvard lawyers and accountents.

Hell the American government spent hundreds of millions on bailouts, grants and fat no bid contracts
What else you got?

What fiscal policies in order?
The tricle down theory don't work
Outsourceing don't work
Budget cuts don't work.
Ask GMC, AIG,FREDDY MAC,FANNY MAE, ENRON, BUDWEISER, REAL ESTATE. Sears just to name a few.

You will find that my hungry dog theory works for although corporations and the top rich have the money, the average lower and poor working class has the numbers just a matter of time before investors start asking questions about the amount of their checks.
Other than shelter food, gas and car what new thing corporations has to sell is how do say,on the endangered species list, just like American jobs.eace