The Court made the right decision according to the constitution. You could amend the constitution or you could pass harsher laws for selling influence and imprison lawmakers that initiate or vote on legislation that directly benefits their contributors.

(03-04-2015 03:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Democrats and Republicans are ALL controlled by money interests. Sometimes the interests are the same, sometimes they're different. But they all answer to someone.

No doubt about it. When Obama was campaigning the first time he was wailing about Main St. vs. Wall Street, and all along taking in large contributions from Wall Street.

McCain Feingold has made matters worse, more polarization, hidden donations, and control by the Super PACs.

(03-04-2015 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.
Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??
1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all
B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Except that didn't happen. See my post above.

Thanks for stating the facts... It is important to debate facts.
having said that, I know that you don't dispute the premise (that because of politicians, corporations can often shield many profits)... only the hyperbole.

Exactly, my point would be the same as I think you would make.

If you're going to put these things into the tax code, then people are going to take advantage of them. Nothing evil or sinister or dishonest about that, they're competing with people who minimize THEIR taxes, so they have to do the same to compete. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable business/economic decision.

So should be criticize people who make perfectly logical and reasonable business/economic decisions, or should we criticize the people who rig the system that way.

Notice the amount that both companies saved by having foreign source income taxes overseas. That's the problem. As long as we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, that is going to happen.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The Court made the right decision according to the constitution. You could amend the constitution or you could pass harsher laws for selling influence and imprison lawmakers that initiate or vote on legislation that directly benefits their contributors.

Didnt' they have to rule that corporations have the same rights as people?

(03-04-2015 03:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The Court made the right decision according to the constitution. You could amend the constitution or you could pass harsher laws for selling influence and imprison lawmakers that initiate or vote on legislation that directly benefits their contributors.

Didnt' they have to rule that corporations have the same rights as people?

No.
That's one of many misstatements about that ruling.

(03-04-2015 03:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me see if I can explain this in few words....

Set a scale for elections. President = $100mm, COngress = 5mm, city council $10,000 etc. AMounts voted on by the sitting members, but all persons who meet certain thresholds of petitioners get that amount. No additional spending whatsoever.

Anyone wanting to give to campaigns gives to the pot which is distributed to all candidates equally. Any group that TRULY wants fair elections would want this. What will keep spending under control is that those amounts will be voted on and it can become an issue in the next election.

Job one would be to work effectively within a budget, which SHOULD be job 1 for ANY politician.

It's the $3 to the Presidential election fund question on steroids. Ultimately we (taxpayers) pay for it anyway. This way we get to essentially have a vote on it.

See.

If those in power wanted to reform the spending in elections it could easily be done - but as I said earlier - those that benefit most from the current system are the ones in power now.

They really like the system as it is, in fact they like the power soo much - they took over the whole health care industry in a grab for the additional power of picking winners and losers in that arena.

It will never change until the people get fed up enough and revolt.

(03-04-2015 02:47 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  The is the current tax code (law) of the land.

On the flip side, why should 50% of the people working not pay any taxes? Why are over 50% on some type of govt assistance?

Do away with child tax credits, property tax writeoffs and mortgage interest deductions and that won't be the case.

That'd be a big blow to the real estate market though.

Why does the following make conservatives everyone think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??

1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/t...-politics/

…7. JPMorgan (JPM) -- $20.3 million
Another top financial services firm, JPMorgan Chase has contributed over $20 million to political campaigns since 1989. Its favorites are split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and its donations influence contests around the country. Currently, the company's top five beneficiaries include New York Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Scott Murphy, as well as Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, and Illinois Republican Mark Kirk.

3. Citigroup © -- $27.5 million
CitigroupThe second-biggest campaign contributor from the financial services sector, Citigroup has given more than $27 million to a fairly even slate of Democrat and Republican candidates. Its spending spiked in the 2008 election cycle, when it contributed almost $5 million to various candidates. Today, its contributions are way down.

FIFY

What? Why get rid of a write off on personal property?

(03-04-2015 03:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The Court made the right decision according to the constitution. You could amend the constitution or you could pass harsher laws for selling influence and imprison lawmakers that initiate or vote on legislation that directly benefits their contributors.

Didnt' they have to rule that corporations have the same rights as people?

No.
That's one of many misstatements about that ruling.

How did they determine it? Certainly the First Amendment says nothing about it, you have to very generously interpret it as free speech, but that seems ridiculous. And certainly the obvious outcome of the decision is bad for the United States. I don't think anybody can seriously argue that. Anyway, my main point is that I agree with Hambone, we need to change the setup to limit how much money goes into these campaigns.

(03-04-2015 03:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:47 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  The is the current tax code (law) of the land.

On the flip side, why should 50% of the people working not pay any taxes? Why are over 50% on some type of govt assistance?

Do away with child tax credits, property tax writeoffs and mortgage interest deductions and that won't be the case.

That'd be a big blow to the real estate market though.

That would be an even bigger blow to middle-class families, especially when they are in the midst of a population crisis. I actually think we need to raise the child tax credit.

(03-04-2015 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.

Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??

1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all

B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Not exactly.

Citigroup actual numbers - pretax income $19.5 billion, taxes $5.9 billion, after tax income $13.6 billion, effective tax rate 30.1%, reduced from statutory 35% by several factors including 2.2% reduction for foreign source income taxed at lower foreign rates

JP Morgan actual numbers - pretax income $25.9 billion, taxes $8.0 billion, after tax income $17.9 billion, effective tax rate 30.8%, reduced from statutory 35% by several factors including 5% reduction for foreign source income taxed at lower foreign rates

Source: Audited financial statements for 2013 (you can find them easily online if you have questions). Where did you get your numbers?

Otherwise I agree with Hambone.

I'm just glad someone else can read a corporate income statement.

(03-04-2015 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.

Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??

1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all

B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Who says conservatives think this is ok?

I suspect the CAUSE of these untaxed profits is mostly tied to government bail-outs, which conservatives (not republicans, but conservatives) are (by and large) opposed to... and many of them were passed by liberals/Democrats. (not blaming liberals... merely saying that it isn't an issue of 'one party') It's the cronies in Washington who want the cronies of the bank and wall street to have all that money because they can extort their pound of flesh in return.

It's why many conservatives are now part of some version of a third party

It baffles me that more ACTUAL liberals don't see this and join those third parties against 'big' government. The reality is that a small central government means that they would lack the power to issue those sorts of 'waivers'... and that being 'liberal' means a freedom to do as you see fit, so long as you don't hurt others... which is actually what Conservatives want.

Is there really any difference between a typical republican and a typical democrat, other than 'which beliefs' they seek to suppress? Suppression takes power and power takes money.


Having said that, and it is important that you keep that in mind...

I WILL say that conservatives would also argue that 'playing by the rules' set forth by the government is perfectly acceptable. If you don't like the outcome (and we generally don't) you have to change the rules... not vilify the players.

you just defined the JP Morgan 'principles' that he knew before 'they' did...

it pains me at times people don't understand central banking origin....

(03-04-2015 03:56 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:47 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  The is the current tax code (law) of the land.

On the flip side, why should 50% of the people working not pay any taxes? Why are over 50% on some type of govt assistance?

Do away with child tax credits, property tax writeoffs and mortgage interest deductions and that won't be the case.

That'd be a big blow to the real estate market though.

That would be an even bigger blow to middle-class families, especially when they are in the midst of a population crisis. I actually think we need to raise the child tax credit.

That credit is useless if a family makes a decent income.

(03-04-2015 03:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Didnt' they have to rule that corporations have the same rights as people?

No.
That's one of many misstatements about that ruling.

How did they determine it? Certainly the First Amendment says nothing about it, you have to very generously interpret it as free speech, but that seems ridiculous. And certainly the obvious outcome of the decision is bad for the United States. I don't think anybody can seriously argue that.

As I understand it, the court essentially ruled that for certain purposes (giving to political causes) a corporation, much like a Union constitutes a 'person'. That does not mean that they are actually 'people' and have all of the rights that people do. Merely that in a specific context, the rule would be inconsistent if it allowed unions... people acting in concert for a shared purpose, but not corporations... people similarly acting in concert for a shared purpose... to give to political parties.

The alternative would be to decide that corporations and other groups of people acting in concert could not contribute to a cause.

I'm also confident that someone will correct me... and someone else like Owl will correctly correct me.

Ha, the experiment of making inflammatory post worked! There are some good comments in here. My first post worked just as I intended, everything people have said here is very fascinating. Thank you all for the input, makes for a very intellectually stimulating read.

(03-04-2015 03:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The Court made the right decision according to the constitution. You could amend the constitution or you could pass harsher laws for selling influence and imprison lawmakers that initiate or vote on legislation that directly benefits their contributors.

Didnt' they have to rule that corporations have the same rights as people?

No.
That's one of many misstatements about that ruling.

How did they determine it? Certainly the First Amendment says nothing about it, you have to very generously interpret it as free speech, but that seems ridiculous. And certainly the obvious outcome of the decision is bad for the United States. I don't think anybody can seriously argue that. Anyway, my main point is that I agree with Hambone, we need to change the setup to limit how much money goes into these campaigns.

Corporations have always had the same rights as natural persons, except corporations don't get the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. All this "corporation is not a person" crap is pure nonsense. The law HAS to treat a corporation as a person, with essentially the same rights (except the aforementioned 5th), in order for a corporation to make legal sense, and that has been the case throughout the history of the republic.

What happened here is that Citizens United (the corporation) initially filed and FEC complaint that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 constituted political advertising and thus could not be distributed just before the 2004 election because that would violate McCain-Feingold (the BCRA). The FEC ruled against them, so Citizens United became a filmmaker producing films with a right wing point of view. The produced a film critical of Hillary, which FEC said was a political film that violated BCRA.

The issue really came down to whether you could permit some people but not others produce and distribute such films, or whether everybody had to play by the same rules. The supreme court basically said everybody has to play by the same rules. I think that's right, if you let some of unions, PACs, 501©3's, make such films, you have to let everybody.

I think they are right in saying the playing field has to be level. If it were up to me, I would level it somewhat differently. I'd say only individuals can make political contributions--no unions, no corporations, no PACs, no 501©3's, no bundlers. And every political contribution has to be reported on the Internet within 10 minutes--if it's good enough for gas trades, it's good enough for political contributions.

(03-04-2015 07:12 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Ha, the experiment of making inflammatory post worked! There are some good comments in here. My first post worked just as I intended, everything people have said here is very fascinating. Thank you all for the input, makes for a very intellectually stimulating read.

So you just post a bunch of lies to get a reaction? Clever.

(03-04-2015 05:37 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:56 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:43 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:47 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  The is the current tax code (law) of the land.

On the flip side, why should 50% of the people working not pay any taxes? Why are over 50% on some type of govt assistance?

Do away with child tax credits, property tax writeoffs and mortgage interest deductions and that won't be the case.

That'd be a big blow to the real estate market though.

That would be an even bigger blow to middle-class families, especially when they are in the midst of a population crisis. I actually think we need to raise the child tax credit.

That credit is useless if a family makes a decent income.

I get it and we do very well. But a credit is a credit especial to those that actually own property and are contributing.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-04-2015 07:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The Court made the right decision according to the constitution. You could amend the constitution or you could pass harsher laws for selling influence and imprison lawmakers that initiate or vote on legislation that directly benefits their contributors.

Didnt' they have to rule that corporations have the same rights as people?

No.
That's one of many misstatements about that ruling.

How did they determine it? Certainly the First Amendment says nothing about it, you have to very generously interpret it as free speech, but that seems ridiculous. And certainly the obvious outcome of the decision is bad for the United States. I don't think anybody can seriously argue that. Anyway, my main point is that I agree with Hambone, we need to change the setup to limit how much money goes into these campaigns.

Corporations have always had the same rights as natural persons, except corporations don't get the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. All this "corporation is not a person" crap is pure nonsense. The law HAS to treat a corporation as a person, with essentially the same rights (except the aforementioned 5th), in order for a corporation to make legal sense, and that has been the case throughout the history of the republic.

What happened here is that Citizens United (the corporation) initially filed and FEC complaint that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 constituted political advertising and thus could not be distributed just before the 2004 election because that would violate McCain-Feingold (the BCRA). The FEC ruled against them, so Citizens United became a filmmaker producing films with a right wing point of view. The produced a film critical of Hillary, which FEC said was a political film that violated BCRA.

The issue really came down to whether you could permit some people but not others produce and distribute such films, or whether everybody had to play by the same rules. The supreme court basically said everybody has to play by the same rules. I think that's right, if you let some of unions, PACs, 501©3's, make such films, you have to let everybody.

I think they are right in saying the playing field has to be level. If it were up to me, I would level it somewhat differently. I'd say only individuals can make political contributions--no unions, no corporations, no PACs, no 501©3's, no bundlers. And every political contribution has to be reported on the Internet within 10 minutes--if it's good enough for gas trades, it's good enough for political contributions.

I agree that the playing field has to be level, and that only individuals should be able to make political contributions. No unions, corporations, PACs etc.