Go to Janes Opinion
- Add a comment
- Go to I Wonder IF They've Been PAID to do the DIRTY WORK?
Thanks for your comments, enlightenrod --
I appreciate the effort you took. Since I've been so danged busy with work it may be awhile before I can take a break and ponder what you've written, but I will do my best to somehow respond. It's obvious you've done your reading/research. The question for me is, where did all this info come from.
Thanks!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 20, 2005 at 4:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Should You Quit Working?
I hope you’ve read the essay “How the Income Tax Became a Tax on Labor.” I want to add some points.
A thing is known by its actions. The Republican Party throughout history has shifted more of the tax burden onto the poor and off of the rich. With that consistency I don’t know how anyone could consider them anything but America’s Aristocracy.
Supply-side economics is not some new theory. It’s been around as long as there have been taxes. Supply-side puts money at to the top. Demand-side puts money at the bottom. The Republican Party has consistently pushed supply-side theory for more than 100 years even though no proof has ever been found to support the theory.
Trickle down or bubble up. They’re both wrong because neither consider how the money was made. Your argument either way will be flawed. It’s easy to shoot holes in either side. This author does a good job showing that interest rate cuts create growth; not tax cuts.
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/004671.html
This story is about how Republicans try to paint JFK as a supply-sider. Talk about flip-flopping.
http://www.slate.com/id/2093947
For me the best argument ‘against’ supply-side is an argument that Republicans make ‘for’ supply-side. They argue that if you don’t give tax breaks to the wealthy then the wealthy will just do more business off of the books, so your tax revenues will decrease. So they say your only choice is to make laws that allow the wealthy to keep their money legally, or they will just keep it illegally. That kind of thinking is in line with their preference for open borders. Illegal aliens are cheap workers with no rights. Making laws so supply-siders can be legal without paying their fair share lets them have some dignity. If you’re a thief then you shouldn’t have your dignity.
Republicans like to change the names of things so they sound exactly like the opposite of what they are. They call the “estate tax” the “death tax.” It sounds like you’re getting taxed in the grave or taxed to death. The thing is it only effects inheritances of more than $2 million dollars. They claim it’s being taxed twice. That’s not the case either. It’s capital gains, which has never been taxed. The most vocal opponents of doing away with the estate tax are Bill Gates, Sr and his son Bill Gates of Microsoft (the wealthiest man in America). They represent a solid core of some of the wealthiest and most successful businessmen in America (Warren Buffet, David Rockefeller, Sr, George Soros, et al) who made their fortunes by providing good products and services. When you make your money that way it’s offensive when you see the abuses of those who made theirs with lies, distortions and theft. Read what the Gates’ have to say about Republican tax cuts in general, and the estate tax in particular.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-01-12-gates_x.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0604-06.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030127/gates
http://www.theangryliberal.com/05-07-02.htm
In the essay “How the Income Tax Become a Tax on Labor” the authors state that if the tariffs had been reduced and an income installed in its place the Civil War would probably have been averted. Of course it was Lincoln’s Republican base that rejected the idea. Henry George had a better solution. He called for a tax on the businesses and wealthy families of the North who had made their fortunes on the slave trade. That tax would be used to buy the freedom of the Southern slaves.
The slave trade had dried up for the North, because the South was successfully breeding all they needed without importing more. So the slave traders had turned their attention to being arms dealers, and promoting a war to free the slaves. “It’s not just a matter of how much you have, but how did you get it.” Churchill
A slave trader works hard. It’s hard work to keep those blacks chained and alive. It’s hard work to throw the dead over the side. It’s hard work to stand the smell coming from the ships hold. It’s hard work, but someone has to do it and if I don’t do it someone else will. If I don’t do it to them first then they will do it to me. That is the psychology of many of America’s oldest Aristocracies.
Legal teams have sought reparations of Corporations for their involvement in slavery. You may think that is absurd, but I think it also needs to be sought from the families that profited from those companies. Each generation that goes unaccountable for how their family made their fortunes passes on the psychology of “if I don’t do it to you first, then you will do it to me.” Accountability should reach to the descendants in order to stop that kind of thinking from being perpetuated.
The reparations legal team has filed suits against the following companies who had their beginnings tied to the slave trade.
Aetna
New York Life
AIG
J.P. Morgan
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05130/501997.stm
Chase Manhattan Bank
FleetBoston Financial Group
There is documentation showing that the following list of companies also had such beginnings and suits will depend on outcomes of the above pending cases.
Brown Bros. Harriman
Lehman Bros.
Railroads Norfolk Southern,
CSX,
Union Pacific
Canadian National
Textile maker WestPoint Stevens.
Newspaper publishers Knight Ridder, Tribune, Media General, Advance Publications, E.W. Scripps and Gannett, parent and publisher of USA TODAY.
Brown Bros. was formed in 1818 as an importing and exporting company. It traded slaves until the Civil War. During the war it ran Southern cotton past Northern blockades without ever losing a ship. When entering the South the cargo was arms. It became Brown Bros. Harriman in the late 1800’s. It was the main financier that brought Adolf Hitler to power.
Prescott S. Bush Sr (father of Bush 41 and grandfather of Bush 43) was senior partner of Brown Bros. Harriman in 1931 when the company financed Hitler’s rise to power. On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis and in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. Prescott Bush was a director. Bank shares were owned by Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazis.
Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush; the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. They were trading with the Nazis.
On November 8, 1942, the federal government seized assets of Silesian-American Corporation for trading with the Nazis. Bush-Harriman owned that company.
http://www.spectrezine.org/resist/bush.htm
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html
A detailed book: “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush” by Kevin Phillips.
“Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” Aristotle
Despotism is when all the power is in the hands of a few. We no longer have our checks and balances. Republicans control all three branches of government, the media and the corporations that make the voting machines. Democrats have the internet.
Some believe that the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by their lead plumbing. Lead poisoning effected their thinking. I think future generations will blame the fall of the United States on cell phones.
No, they don’t cause brain tumors or cancer. Research shows that intelligence is directly related to the amount of brain wave coherence that a person has. Cell phone use has been shown to reduce brain wave coherence.
Do you make enough to quit working? The wealthiest man in America works, but the current occupant of the oval office has never done an honest day’s work in his life. It’s not what you have, but how you got it. Work’s not what it got you, but what you gave. If you don’t give value, nothing you get will satisfy.
posted by
enlighteningrod
on December 19, 2005 at 7:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Same essay--different web site
http://www.schalkenbach.org/library/cobbroweincometax.html
posted by
enlighteningrod
on December 14, 2005 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
Try again, enlighten. That was a non working link you provided. (Hmmmmmm, does that mean the link was Republican? Corbin, what say you?) Arrrgh.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 13, 2005 at 6:02 PM
| link to this | reply
not a short answer
I'll try to write as short an answer as I can, but here is a good start. Notice how Winston Churchill begins. It's not a matter of how much you've got, but how did you get it.
How the Income Tax Became a Tax on Labor
http://www.inequality.org/cobbrowe2.html
posted by
enlighteningrod
on December 13, 2005 at 11:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Deflection alert!
Since you choose to lead the charge on this topic....
I would really like to hear your definitions in my questions? In monetary terms define poor......define working American.....and define Non-Working Rich? I really would like to hear it, in case I qualify to stop working.......
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 12, 2005 at 5:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Divide and Conquer
If you can't divide the working class you can't conquer the working class. The GOP always likes to hang its hat on being the party of Abraham Lincoln. When the South said there would be war if Lincoln was elected president, the GOP was estatic. The rich get to crank up the money machine selling newspapers and arms. And when the war is over they get a new influx of cheap labor from the southern plantations. Divide and conquer. Republicans took us from the greatest surplus to the greatest deficit in one administration. The wealthy invested their tax refunds in Treasury Bonds. The wealthy bought the debt created by their tax refund. Now, how does that help the economy grow? Republicans have spent the last 100 years erasing the memory of Henry George. If you erase the memory of Henry George you erase the possibility of fair taxation.
posted by
enlighteningrod
on December 12, 2005 at 11:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, I'm laughing! Great comments. And yes, I concur completely with your very succinct remarks. Thanks!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 11, 2005 at 6:56 PM
| link to this | reply
The oldest lie in the LIBDem playbook.
Republicans are for the rich...Dems are for the working people......
Where do some of these people come off with this garbage? Working people? So at what income level does one no longer have the right to be called a working person.
I'd love to hear a definition in monetary terms of what poor is...what a working American is.....and at what point do those of us, that still have a hope for acheiving a better life, become promoted to the "Non-Working Rich"?
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 11, 2005 at 3:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Uhhh, lightening rod, you're simplifying and generalizing wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much. You're assuming that Republican vs Democrat is all about the classes, or wealthy vs poor when, in fact, many Republicans are Republicans because they are pro life. I am a Republican because I am pro life, not because I'm looking to stomp on the lower middle classes and keep them in their place. I'm a Republican because I am pro life, not because I am white and believe in keeping whites in power over blacks.
Really, it's far more complex an issue than what you've made it.
And regarding Republican vs Democrat, let me just say that I am not in favor of the huge expansion of government that has taken place during Pres Bush's tenure. But that said, I would think many Democrats WOULD be in favor of this expansion because it's all about what Democrats are into -- expanding government, more entitlement programs, etc. Demos should be cheering Bush's policies but instead, as usual, they're griping and complaining. Oh well.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 11, 2005 at 9:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Trevor, please SHOW ME where in the Constitution, that abortion is legal????? You're going to have to bend over backwards to prove that one!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 11, 2005 at 9:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Let me try again.
Abortions will occur at the same rate whether they are legal or not, safe or not--in most cases. You can’t change the rate that rape and incest victims will continue to seek to terminate pregnancies. You can’t change the rate that those who want to maintain their current lifestyles will continue to seek to terminate pregnancies. You can influence abortion rates among the poor by improving their economic conditions. Economic freedom provides more options.
Blacks cheered the O.J. Simpson verdict because it showed to whites the injustice that blacks experience on a regular basis at the hands of our legal system. The wealthy can get away with murder while the poor have no rights. If you don’t have economic freedom, you don’t have freedom. Blacks align with the labor party--Democrats.
Whenever you vote Republican you increase the difference between the very wealthy and the rest of us. When you vote Republican you increase the abortion rate among the poor; whether it is legal or illegal. When you talk about federal oversight of abortion clinics you are talking about increasing the size of government. Republicans stand for reducing government. Government is the people. Republicans always want to reduce the power of the people so their corporations can’t be held accountable for the damages they cause to the health and welfare of people. If you are not in the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the USA then Republicans want to reduce you.
posted by
enlighteningrod
on December 10, 2005 at 11:47 PM
| link to this | reply
OK
But you haven't said how it's unconstitutional. You just said "so-and-so said it was unconstitutional" I don't find that convincing. I don't care if they are a law professor. There are some idiot professors, believe it or not. And just because "even" Liberals have said this Law is unconstitutional does not automatically make all Liberals of this belief suddenly.
posted by
Trevor_Cunnington
on December 10, 2005 at 12:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Interesting, enlightenrod. So class warfare/welfare justifies keeping in place a law that is essentially unconstitutional?
In case you're interested, I'm not necessarily for doing away with Roe v Wade; it's a behemoth that is likely here to stay. Rather, I am for very tight and strict controls of abortion clinics. I am for making it illegal in all situations to abort beyond the first trimester. Abortion clinics have virtually ZERO federal oversight and they get away with painful murder and sterility on a regular basis -- and I'm NOT talking about murder of unborn children although that's obvious. What I'm talking about is all the side effects that occur, up to murder, of the women who have abortions. This is thanks in great part to the lack of strict controls and oversight of clinics.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 10, 2005 at 9:04 AM
| link to this | reply
It is about results.
It is all about getting the result. Whether abortion is legal or illegal does not change the abortion rate. The same number of abortions will occur either way. Overthrowing Roe v Wade takes us back to a time when we didn’t care about who or how it is done. Anyone with a good use of a coat hangar will be back in the business of giving abortions. Wealthy women can afford to go to countries where it is legal. Poor women can't. It’s class warfare. It's an issue like gay marriage. It's a non-issue being touted as an issue by Republicans for support from the religious right. The Democratic Party is the party of the working man. There are more workers so the workers party will always remain in power unless they can be divided against themselves. That is and has always been the strategy of the Republican Party. England has its commoners and nobles; we have our Democrats and Republicans. You’re born either a Democrat or Republican.
posted by
enlighteningrod
on December 9, 2005 at 1:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks Justso -- I'm guessing your arm is still causing a great deal of pain. I trust the healing will come in short order!!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 8, 2005 at 6:36 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
Justi
on December 8, 2005 at 1:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin I think you're right. I pray that somehow they lose.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 8, 2005 at 11:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Jane
They are calculating their moves based on the premise that they've got nothing to lose....and it think they're very misguided at thinking they want to make a fight of this nomination.........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 6, 2005 at 8:02 PM
| link to this | reply