If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
If given the choice between the government and a CEO to lead a social welfare initiative, I'll take the CEO 8 times out of 10 (Enron and Worldcom being two noteable examples of the rotten eggs in the sample population).

Starbuck, that's because you fail to see through two things.

One is the differenct agendas that the government and CEOs have. The CEOs can at best deliver a sliver of the need, and they have a very different agenda.

Go watch or read "The Corporation" sometime, and recognize how corporations are *required by law* to put the public interest in second place when they are deciding.

CEOs are not immune to that culture, and while some do great, generous things, it's only a tiny part of the need.

The government, on the other hand, has the duty to the public, and it is far, far more effective in many areas, including generally the ones it operates in now.

Only education will teach you this distinction.

The second thing you don't see through is that the CEOs have the propaganda almost entirely on their side. They spend vast sums proclaiming their wonderful traits; there's a slew of popular magazines following the 'business world', but you won't find any analogous ones for the government workers. Quick, name three new initiatives from the department of health and human services last year; I bet you can't.

You are remarkably misguided in your 8 out of 10 figure.

The idea that you actually believe this load of BS is comical in the extreme.

If government always follows its duty to the public, because that is "far, far more effective in many areas," then why is the public always complaining about government, and why is government always doing things the public disapproves of? Or are you telling me that you love the Bush admin and all that it has done because govt. follows it duty to the public?

If the dark nefarious CEO's have no duty to the public, then how do they get people to buy their products? Take a business course. FFS.

 

[sodcha0s]

Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts

null

"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"

Perhaps it had more to do with his skyrocketing oil stocks and need for a tax shelter than his good heartedness.... :disgust:

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Starbuck, that's because you fail to see through two things.

One is the differenct agendas that the government and CEOs have. The CEOs can at best deliver a sliver of the need, and they have a very different agenda.

Go watch or read "The Corporation" sometime, and recognize how corporations are *required by law* to put the public interest in second place when they are deciding.

CEOs are not immune to that culture, and while some do great, generous things, it's only a tiny part of the need.

The government, on the other hand, has the duty to the public, and it is far, far more effective in many areas, including generally the ones it operates in now.

Only education will teach you this distinction.

The second thing you don't see through is that the CEOs have the propaganda almost entirely on their side. They spend vast sums proclaiming their wonderful traits; there's a slew of popular magazines following the 'business world', but you won't find any analogous ones for the government workers. Quick, name three new initiatives from the department of health and human services last year; I bet you can't.

You are remarkably misguided in your 8 out of 10 figure.

Of course corporations put profits first. Their primary duty is to deliver a return of their investors' investment. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about this. To quote Milton Friedman, "The business of business is business."

There's also nothing wrong with a corporation spending your "vast sums" promoting their own image across the world. Nobody ever lost a sale for being well-liked.

I don't know why these things lead to people demonizing corporations as having some shadowy other purpose to pursue good works. Heaven forbid an organization geared towards making money actually do just that, it seems.

 

[verd14]

tax breaks.

 

[LordNoob]

These studies are BS. You can do anything with statistics, trust me. You can change your results to look as you want them by controlling for certain factors but not others, and so on.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Hit google for a few facts:

The Cheneys' return is so complicated that the White House is referring questions to the tax lawyers. The Cheneys? adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006!!!

During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under a 2001 Gift Administration Agreement.

To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.

That's why.

Edit: I just did the math taxes withheld minus refund $2,331,400 - $1,938,930 = $392,470 of NET taxes paid on an adjusted gross income of $8,819,006!!!

$392,470/$8,819,006 = an effective tax rate of only 4.45% Holy Fusking Sh!t

Change the Topic Summary: Who'd you say pays their fare share of taxes Cheney Or Gore ?

now here is a post worth quoting

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yllus
I don't know why these things lead to people demonizing corporations

Heaven forbid an organization geared towards making money actually do just that, it seems.

They've brought it upon themselves.

They bought the Government which in turn gave them power.

They took that power to an extreme and still going even more extreme with it to the point of an all out war of the people against Corporations, Government and the Church.

It's classic bite the hands that feeds you and history repeating itself.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CPA
I see most of you missed the 20/20 special John Stossel had the other night which had the SU Professor on to talk about his study. It was very enlightening. Of course, anything that puts Libs in a bad spotlight is automatically slammed on this board, so it doesn't surprise me of some of the comments so far.

WOW, you mean somebody even takes John Stossel seriously? He's a bigger tool/fool then Rush.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on that beyond childish insults? Has Rush won 19 Emmy awards? Is Rush a leader in AIDS and drug abuse philantropy?

What part of John Stossel is a tool/fool don't you get? I really don't see how I can be more specific then that. I think he's trying to be the next Rush.

Case in point.

:laugh:

He dug the hole and pushed himself right on in. :laugh:

If you two can't see the similarities that Stossel and Rush share then I feel for you. You are like a couple of groupies, willing to believe what he says because it's what YOU want to hear.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1133

ABC News reporter John Stossel enjoys a special position in broadcast network news: Though not usually often identified as a commentator, Stossel is routinely allowed to use his one-hour primetime specials and his regular "Give Me A Break" features on 20/20 to explicitly promote his personal ideological agenda--from singing the virtues of corporate greed to attacking child labor laws--a perspective that is distinctly different from the generally muted centrism that pervades broadcast TV news.
.........................


At the core of much of Stossel's reporting is his fervent belief in the efficiency and justice of laissez-faire capitalism, and the evils of most forms of government regulation. To Stossel, a fact like persistent U.S. income inequality is merely dogma circulated by lazy journalists who don't know the truth. But it is Stossel's reporting that often gets it backward. In his "Greed" special (2/3/98), Stossel reported that while management compensation had increased in the past 15 years, "that doesn't mean the workers were hurt. Factory wages were up, too--up 70 percent." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at the time the show aired, wages for manufacturing workers had risen 55 percent since January 1983. But Stossel's real statistical sleight of hand is that he didn't adjust for inflation. Taking inflation into account--which is indispensable for determining whether "workers were hurt"-- factory workers' real wages fell by more than 6 percent between 1983 and 1998.
........................

Above all, Stossel's reports are often directed toward advancing free markets and attacking most forms of government regulation. While his claims sometime rest on dubious statistical evidence, at other times his comments are simply incredibly broad: for example, "Economists say regulations make a country a little poorer" (4/21/94).
........................

When Stossel did a one-hour special on government regulation and waste (1/27/01), topics then in the headlines like California's deregulation-induced energy crisis were off-limits. While private energy companies extracted billions from the state's residents, citizens in California towns with publicly owned utilities were largely unaffected by the rolling blackouts and soaring rates that had crippled the rest of the state. Instead, Stossel stuck to urging more unrestrained market solutions, making statements like: "Look at the sky. Even over an airport, there's lots of room. Why can't they fly more planes in this empty space?"
.........................

It's that government intervention that really gets to Stossel: "Governments, because they're monopolies, just tend not to do things very well. I thought we learned that watching the fall of the Soviet bloc, but apparently not." Once, ABC anchor John Miller (7/19/02) asked Stossel a straight-forward question: "Has government ever, in the history of time, done something more effectively than a private outfit?" Stossel's response: "Not to my knowledge."

As Stossel would say. "Give us a break." Anybody who buys into Stossel's biased BS is either can't serperate the wheat from the chaffe or is just pushing their own agenda and it it's the latter, I hope they waste lots of their time and resources supporting such an obvious tool as Stossel. The LAST thing this country needs right now is another lying a-hole like Stossel trying to direct public opinion.

 

[Vic]

Stick to the point, Duzit. I don't recall where I said I liked Stossel, I just said his politics weren't like Rush (and that is true BTW). You need to figure out how to discuss without your personal emotions flapping all over the place. I really don't care that you don't like free markets. especially when you seem to think that just mentioning *GASP* free markets is in itself some type of argument. Funny how your all-powerful government ideal doesn't work very well whenever you get a bad leader, like Bush for example...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

Truth? Yeah, the conservatives are just soooo, soooo concerned about the poor, that's why they are standing in line to raise the minimum wage.

Really Vic, sometimes I think you wouldn't know the truth if you were drowning in it. Like this statment:

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

The bolded part seems to me to be a more accurate description of the current state of capitalism in this country. I still think that most conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity because of a guilty conscience then any real concern for the less fortunate.

1. John Stossel is not a conservative.

2. Capitalism is the economics of free and voluntary associations. Would you care to explain to me what is selfish or coercive about that? Especially in this context of using government force as "charity"?

I see the truth all too clearly unfortunately. It's you and those like you who are awash in doublethink, slogans, bitterness, hate, force, and half-assed bullsh!t. All those minimum wage arguments we had, I told you repeatedly that I was never opposed to the minimum wage, I just wanted you to explain to me what good it does (because only started from there could we understand how best to improve it). But you never did that (in fact, I would have to volunteer the positives), you would just keep attacking me for daring to even question your rhetoric. This is typical of all of you, sad to say.

LMAO, and you claim to be representing the truth?? Capitalism, by it's very nature needs to have the playing feild leveld every now and then, and IMO that correction is long overdue.

Well, we all live in our seperate realities, but your idea of reality had it's 15 minutes of fame. The Libertarian cause is now nothing but a footnote for the history books.

NEXT!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Hit google for a few facts:

The Cheneys' return is so complicated that the White House is referring questions to the tax lawyers. The Cheneys? adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006!!!

During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under a 2001 Gift Administration Agreement.

To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.

That's why.

Edit: I just did the math taxes withheld minus refund $2,331,400 - $1,938,930 = $392,470 of NET taxes paid on an adjusted gross income of $8,819,006!!!

$392,470/$8,819,006 = an effective tax rate of only 4.45% Holy Fusking Sh!t

Change the Topic Summary: Who'd you say pays their fare share of taxes Cheney Or Gore ?

now here is a post worth quoting

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

Truth? Yeah, the conservatives are just soooo, soooo concerned about the poor, that's why they are standing in line to raise the minimum wage.

Really Vic, sometimes I think you wouldn't know the truth if you were drowning in it. Like this statment:

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

The bolded part seems to me to be a more accurate description of the current state of capitalism in this country. I still think that most conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity because of a guilty conscience then any real concern for the less fortunate.

1. John Stossel is not a conservative.

2. Capitalism is the economics of free and voluntary associations. Would you care to explain to me what is selfish or coercive about that? Especially in this context of using government force as "charity"?

I see the truth all too clearly unfortunately. It's you and those like you who are awash in doublethink, slogans, bitterness, hate, force, and half-assed bullsh!t. All those minimum wage arguments we had, I told you repeatedly that I was never opposed to the minimum wage, I just wanted you to explain to me what good it does (because only started from there could we understand how best to improve it). But you never did that (in fact, I would have to volunteer the positives), you would just keep attacking me for daring to even question your rhetoric. This is typical of all of you, sad to say.

LMAO, and you claim to be representing the truth?? Capitalism, by it's very nature needs to have the playing feild leveld every now and then, and IMO that correction is long overdue.

Well, we all live in our seperate realities, but your idea of reality had it's 15 minutes of fame. The Libertarian cause is now nothing but a footnote for the history books.

NEXT!!

You really need to get treatment for that crack problem of yours. That is exactly what happened in that thread, don't make me post screenshots.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
Stick to the point, Duzit. I don't recall where I said I liked Stossel, I just said his politics weren't like Rush (and that is true BTW). You need to figure out how to discuss without your personal emotions flapping all over the place. I really don't care that you don't like free markets. especially when you seem to think that just mentioning *GASP* free markets is in itself some type of argument. Funny how your all-powerful government ideal doesn't work very well whenever you get a bad leader, like Bush for example...

You were sticking up for Stossel, don't try and backtrack now.

You said:

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on that beyond childish insults? Has Rush won 19 Emmy awards? Is Rush a leader in AIDS and drug abuse philantropy?

Well, I did and now your trying to argue that you don't like Stossel. OK, Whatever, I hope you have a nice argument, but it will be with yourself.

The fact is that your hallowed "free markets" are nothing but a farce and everyone knows it. Labor in the US making $15/hr will never be bler to compete on a level playing field with Chinese labor making $0.15/hr. I LOL at your notion of "free" markets.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

Truth? Yeah, the conservatives are just soooo, soooo concerned about the poor, that's why they are standing in line to raise the minimum wage.

Really Vic, sometimes I think you wouldn't know the truth if you were drowning in it. Like this statment:

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

The bolded part seems to me to be a more accurate description of the current state of capitalism in this country. I still think that most conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity because of a guilty conscience then any real concern for the less fortunate.

1. John Stossel is not a conservative.

2. Capitalism is the economics of free and voluntary associations. Would you care to explain to me what is selfish or coercive about that? Especially in this context of using government force as "charity"?

I see the truth all too clearly unfortunately. It's you and those like you who are awash in doublethink, slogans, bitterness, hate, force, and half-assed bullsh!t. All those minimum wage arguments we had, I told you repeatedly that I was never opposed to the minimum wage, I just wanted you to explain to me what good it does (because only started from there could we understand how best to improve it). But you never did that (in fact, I would have to volunteer the positives), you would just keep attacking me for daring to even question your rhetoric. This is typical of all of you, sad to say.

LMAO, and you claim to be representing the truth?? Capitalism, by it's very nature needs to have the playing feild leveld every now and then, and IMO that correction is long overdue.

Well, we all live in our seperate realities, but your idea of reality had it's 15 minutes of fame. The Libertarian cause is now nothing but a footnote for the history books.

NEXT!!

You really need to get treatment for that crack problem of yours. That is exactly what happened in that thread, don't make me post screenshots.

And of course you as as innocent and pure as fresh snow at the top of Mount Everest.

Give us a break.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic
Excuse me, but that wasn't his argument, and you made a needless personal attack along with your straw man. ..

Oh woops, I forgot though, your idea of argument is that for example if someone were to say for example that illicit drug abuse can't be stopped through legislation because legislation doesn't address the supply of illicit drugs, you would come mocking in a sarcastic tone over and over again claiming that that person said the supply of drugs was infinite, and you'd keep doing that just to be a jerk even when it was proven you were wrong. Then... when someone pointed out just how trollishly rude your behavior is, you'd accuse that person of threatening you. And then you'd go back to trolling. Ah yes, that's right... you're that person.

Vic, you really need to crawl back under what rock you came from. I've already indicated I don't care to discuss issues with someone who has behaved as you have, but you post.

And the crap you post: here, you can't go two sentences without going from saying I use a straw man, to making your attack based on the straw man of what you say I would say.

Of course, you get both terribly wrong, but the irony is shameless.

What? You think I'll stop posting because you ask me to? That's hilarious.

Like all the other trolls on ATPN, you have a predictable pattern. Yours is straw man. Everytime some posts something you disagree with, you ignore their post and go off on a longwinded argument about how they posted something else, usually extreme and ridiculous, the easier for you to mock and condescend, and with which to contrast the beauteous light of your beloved agenda (which, of course, can never be viewed critically but only in the most glowing terms). In short, you're a pompous partisan hack.

Oh BTW, telling me that am "terribly wrong" without any proof besides your word is beyond weak.

Vic, the thing is, you are nothing but a windbag, filled with hot air and no substance.

You lie, you name call, you are the two year old who runs around posting the equivalient of "poopoohead" to each of my posts. Unfortunately, the best thing I can do for most of them is to not respond, you can't say a whole lot to the poopyhead poster other than to occassionally point out their problem.

You throw around words like troll and hack, because like the two year old who has learned that yelling POOP or a curse word gets them attention, you find the only power you can get by using them, since you lack any from your actual argument, though you also get some attention by trolling absurd arguments - and shamelessly say anyone else is a troll.

You're the worst poster I know of here; I've had PM saying you are hopefully getting an involuntary vacation for your behavior. Apparently that hasn't happened yet.

So I'll leave it to this post for now as the occassional reminder that you lack the courtesy to refrain from butting in where you are unwanted, my comments to others, which for technical reasons I am unable to exclude you from, the equivalent of a public forum where I don't have security guards to keep the riff raff out. That's your right to be rude, though, but you aren't impressing anyone with the junk you post.

If this has a lack of specifics, it's because there's a lack of specifics in your post to respond to. It's a poopyhead post.

But for the record, I'll also get your following unwanted response to my next post out of the way. I haven't read it yet; I'm going to cut and past and respond now:

The idea that you actually believe this load of BS is comical in the extreme.

Another poopyhead comment lacking any substance. Pretty hypocritical too given your comment previously about a lack of substance in criticism.

If government always follows its duty to the public,

Let's just stop there for a moment, since you yet again use a straw man to post your nonsense - I never said government always *follows* its duty to the public. You are twisting the point I made, in discussing why CEOs are not better to turn to for charity to replace the government in meeting society's social services needs. I made the point that they have different agendas and government *has* a duty to the public. Your changing my words into a straw man that it *always follows* the duty sets you up to nit pick.

because that is "far, far more effective in many areas," then why is the public always complaining about government, and why is government always doing things the public disapproves of? Or are you telling me that you love the Bush admin and all that it has done because govt. follows it duty to the public?

So, your question is, with the hundreds of billions of dollars our government spends on services, why there are any complaints from the public about those services?

Are you that clueless? Name me any service provided by any group in society to another involving billions of dollars and millions of people for low budgets as we typically have with tax-based programs about which there is no complaint. Because there are many complaints about healthcare, should we let the infomercial 'diet pill' sellers take over all health care in America, the way you are agreeing to respond to any complaints about government services be replaced by the tiny amounts available from private charity?

What do you not grasp about the difference between the sliver of money available from charity compared to the far larger need which is met through democratically elected government, what do you hate so much about democracy that any time the public votes for programs for the public good you are there to hate them?

If the dark nefarious CEO's have no duty to the public, then how do they get people to buy their products? Take a business course. FFS.

Hey, whaddya know, another straw man - "no duty to the public" of course they have no duties to the public, you again twist what I said to set you up for the absurd response.

They have the duty to follow the law, for example. As for things benefitting the public, we need to distinguish between their role as CEO and as private citizen; recognize that in their role as CEO, they have far less duty to the public than you might think. Much of the things they do in the public interest are really things they need to do to protect the shareholders. Does putting out dangerous products help the shareholders when customers stop buying their brand? No, so they put out safer ones.

That's not adequate of course; we have all kinds of unsafe products and dishonest advertising that would happen if not for the laws to protect consumers.

So we're talking about CEOs as private citizens - and as such, they *cannot begin* to addres the need for social services the government provides. Just look at the numbers to see how absurd your point is. They are able to provide a fine *supplement* to the social services society needs, and that's it.

This exchange with you was as always a waste of our and the forum readers' time because you bring absurd points to the post.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
A study recently conducted by a graduate student at Southern Connecticut University showed that mentally ill patients were more likely to have voted for George Bush in the last presidential race. Graduate student Christopher Lohse, SCSU psychology professor Jaak Rakfelt and statistical analyst Misty Ginacola studied a group of psychiatric outpatients and found that the more severe the delusional thinking, the more likely that person was to declare his or her support for Bush.

Interviewed recently by the New Haven Advocate newspaper, Lohse said that the research they were doing was unrelated to these findings, but he theorizes that the more psychotic the patient, the more likely he or she is to unquestionably embrace an authoritarian leader telling them what?s what in the world.

Incidentally, or perhaps predictably, Bush supporters in the study exhibited more ignorance about what?s what in the world. ?Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,? the study says.

The researchers said the results are supported by a study in 1977 that found mentally ill patients were more likely to have supported Richard Nixon over George McGovern.

:laugh:

BTW sleazy tax writeoffs and giving money to some christo-taliban mega church is not charity.

oh please provide us a link. i need to send this one out.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA
BTW, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - all Liberals, and all getting wealthier. Where's the outrage?

Kind of hard to be outraged at them when they are/ will be giving away the vast majority of their wealth. And check it out, it's not with strings attached like a lot of the charity given away by Religious institutions.

Actually, Gates proclaimed in 2004 that he supports Bush. (The article also published Jobs as being a Kerry supporter). It sparked a little micro-controversy at the time: should CEOs of major corporations make their political leanings public? (I'd say: no)

Anyway...I wouldn't call him liberal; although he sure as hell acts like one. Either way, Gates kicks ass and no one can deny that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234
Starbuck, that's because you fail to see through two things.

One is the differenct agendas that the government and CEOs have. The CEOs can at best deliver a sliver of the need, and they have a very different agenda.

Go watch or read "The Corporation" sometime, and recognize how corporations are *required by law* to put the public interest in second place when they are deciding.

CEOs are not immune to that culture, and while some do great, generous things, it's only a tiny part of the need.

The government, on the other hand, has the duty to the public, and it is far, far more effective in many areas, including generally the ones it operates in now.

Only education will teach you this distinction.

The second thing you don't see through is that the CEOs have the propaganda almost entirely on their side. They spend vast sums proclaiming their wonderful traits; there's a slew of popular magazines following the 'business world', but you won't find any analogous ones for the government workers. Quick, name three new initiatives from the department of health and human services last year; I bet you can't.

You are remarkably misguided in your 8 out of 10 figure.

Of course corporations put profits first. Their primary duty is to deliver a return of their investors' investment. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about this. To quote Milton Friedman, "The business of business is business."

There's also nothing wrong with a corporation spending your "vast sums" promoting their own image across the world. Nobody ever lost a sale for being well-liked.

I don't know why these things lead to people demonizing corporations as having some shadowy other purpose to pursue good works. Heaven forbid an organization geared towards making money actually do just that, it seems.

You are arguing against something I did not say. I never said corporations are 'nefarious' generally. You did not look at the context - the fact that I was answering the suggestion that CEOs *should replace the government for delivering all social services*. You took the comments that were addressed at the idea of their replacing the government out of the context as general comments, and created ones that weren't there.

You also utterly failed to get the context when I pointed out that an error the poster I was responding to made that the fact that he has fallen for a vast amount of propaganda that puts CEOs in a very good light while the 'other side', the government, does not have the big propaganda budgets to do the same, resulting in an unbalanced set of information, you again ripped it out of context and posted some silly 'what's wrong with some PR for them' comment.

While I dislike a lot of the huge level of advertising our corporate culture has, seeing it as a poisonous influence and anti-democratic at times, that wasn't my point at all, and I was not critizing the corporate advertising and the related industry of 'business publications' which is the main source of the CEO cult worship. I simply pointed out how this imbalance has led the poster to reach an absurd conclusion that the CEOs can replace the government and encouraged him to recognize that he's being fed a huge imbalance.

For example, the largest government programs - medical, social security - are very efficiently administered. I've seen estimates that social security administration costs would go up *at least three times* if it were privatized, with the profit requirement added. And yet the SS administration, in part to keep the costs low, has virtually no budget to toot its own horn on that, while the people who stand to make hundreds of billions in profits if it is privatized can afford to invest large sums to say that privatization is a good idea.

This has the perverse result that the public only hears one side of the story and begins to believe the false message which serves the interests of the privatizers, at their expense.

There's nothing wrong with a lot of corporate advertising, but it's important to note the skewing when you get into the corporation versus the government issues.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
A study recently conducted by a graduate student at Southern Connecticut University showed that mentally ill patients were more likely to have voted for George Bush in the last presidential race. Graduate student Christopher Lohse, SCSU psychology professor Jaak Rakfelt and statistical analyst Misty Ginacola studied a group of psychiatric outpatients and found that the more severe the delusional thinking, the more likely that person was to declare his or her support for Bush.

Interviewed recently by the New Haven Advocate newspaper, Lohse said that the research they were doing was unrelated to these findings, but he theorizes that the more psychotic the patient, the more likely he or she is to unquestionably embrace an authoritarian leader telling them what?s what in the world.

Incidentally, or perhaps predictably, Bush supporters in the study exhibited more ignorance about what?s what in the world. ?Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,? the study says.

The researchers said the results are supported by a study in 1977 that found mentally ill patients were more likely to have supported Richard Nixon over George McGovern.

:laugh:

BTW sleazy tax writeoffs and giving money to some christo-taliban mega church is not charity.

oh please provide us a link. i need to send this one out.

With pleasure:


Are George W. Bush supporters more likely to be psychos?

A collective ?I told you so? will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse?s study gets out.

Lohse, a social work master?s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse?s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person?s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse?s explanation.

?Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,? Lohse says. ?If your world is very mixed up, there?s something very comforting about someone telling you, ?This is how it?s going to be.??

The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.

The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.

?Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,? the study says.

Lohse says the trend isn?t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

Rakfeldt says the study was legitimate, though not intended to show what it did.

?Yes it was a legitimate study but these data were mined after the fact,? Rakfeldt says. ?You can ask new questions of the data. I haven?t looked at? Lohse?s conclusions regarding Bush, Rakfeldt says.

?That doesn?t make it illegitimate, it just wasn?t part of the original project.?

For his part, Lohse is a self-described ?Reagan revolution fanatic? but said that W. is just ?beyond the pale.?

Link

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Hit google for a few facts:

The Cheneys' return is so complicated that the White House is referring questions to the tax lawyers. The Cheneys? adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006!!!

During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under a 2001 Gift Administration Agreement.

To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.

That's why.

Edit: I just did the math taxes withheld minus refund $2,331,400 - $1,938,930 = $392,470 of NET taxes paid on an adjusted gross income of $8,819,006!!!

$392,470/$8,819,006 = an effective tax rate of only 4.45% Holy Fusking Sh!t

Change the Topic Summary: Who'd you say pays their fare share of taxes Cheney Or Gore ?

My God he should be in jail.

That should shut up permanently the resident Republicans that continously spout how the rich pay more than their fair share of taxes.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Hit google for a few facts:

The Cheneys' return is so complicated that the White House is referring questions to the tax lawyers. The Cheneys? adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006!!!

During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under a 2001 Gift Administration Agreement.

To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.

That's why.

Edit: I just did the math taxes withheld minus refund $2,331,400 - $1,938,930 = $392,470 of NET taxes paid on an adjusted gross income of $8,819,006!!!

$392,470/$8,819,006 = an effective tax rate of only 4.45% Holy Fusking Sh!t

Change the Topic Summary: Who'd you say pays their fare share of taxes Cheney Or Gore ?

But if you add the $392,470 and the $2,331,400 (which he gave to charity) that 4.45% becomes 30.8%.

Though honestly, he could give all his money to charity, and I'd still think he's a douche.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Hit google for a few facts:

The Cheneys' return is so complicated that the White House is referring questions to the tax lawyers. The Cheneys? adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006!!!

During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under a 2001 Gift Administration Agreement.

To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.

That's why.

Edit: I just did the math taxes withheld minus refund $2,331,400 - $1,938,930 = $392,470 of NET taxes paid on an adjusted gross income of $8,819,006!!!

$392,470/$8,819,006 = an effective tax rate of only 4.45% Holy Fusking Sh!t

Change the Topic Summary: Who'd you say pays their fare share of taxes Cheney Or Gore ?

now here is a post worth quoting

:thumbsup:

It would be worth quoting if it were at all accurate. Right now it's as misleading and inaccurate as they come, basically a flat out lie.

The Adjusted gross income of $8,819,006 included stock options which were irrevocably set aside for charity when Cheney took office. They were designated to be donated to several different charities upon exercise. Because of how the tax system works, the Cheney's had paid $2,468,566 in witholdings on this total, meaning that they substantially overpaid on their actual income.

When the time came to donate the money, due to the witholdings they only paid out $6,869,655 from the exercise of the options, and then Cheney wrote a personal check for $2,331,400 in addition to this. This was done to maximize the amount which could be donated to charity.

After this was all said and done...

As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options. The transactions were tax neutral to the Cheneys. The amount of taxes paid by the Cheneys from their income, other than the income from the exercise of the stock options, was the equivalent of what they would have paid if the options had not been exercised.

The bolded parts are what HomeAppraiser chose to omit (probably because it directly contradicts his lies).

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jrenz
The bolded parts are what HomeAppraiser chose to omit (probably because it directly contradicts his lies).

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

So, big whoop. The way resident Republicans scream that the rich pay all the taxes in the U.S. you would expect that to be closer to at least 50%.

I'm self employed so I am paying 43% of my income to the thieves.

Why does the VP only get to shell out 27% while little me has to pay so much more?

How is that right?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
The bolded parts are what HomeAppraiser chose to omit (probably because it directly contradicts his lies).

So in actuality,

[the] Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2005 of $529,636 on taxable income of $1,961,157.

So $529,636 / $1,961,157 = effective tax rate of 27%

Nice try though... you almost pulled your little stunt off.

So, big whoop. The way resident Republicans scream that the rich pay all the taxes in the U.S. you would expect that to be closer to at least 50%.

I'm self employed so I am paying 43% of my income to the thieves.

Why does the VP only get to shell out 27% while little me has to pay so much more?

How is that right?

I'll ignore the fact that you can't admit when you're wrong and instead try to change the subject.

You're self employed? You have 3 jobs? You commute 800 miles? Your story changes daily. You're either full of crap, or you're an idiot who can't manage his personal finances. If you really are paying out 47% in taxes, then I'll go with the "Idiot who can't figure out his own finances" answer. This would fit, as you've already demonstrated a complete lack of any economic sense.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jrenz
You're self employed? You have 3 jobs? You commute 800 miles? Your story changes daily. You're either full of crap, or you're an idiot who can't manage his personal finances. If you really are paying out 47% in taxes, then I'll go with the "Idiot who can't figure out his own finances" answer. This would fit, as you've already demonstrated a complete lack of any economic sense.

I am the ultimate new Nomadic American worker as dictated by Republican doctrine rule.

As job contracts end, I am always in search of new ones.

The job 800 miles away is done and I am looking for a new job while working two smaller paid jobs.

How else do you expect me to put food on the plate and keep a roof overhead???

Have no insurance and no retirement.

This is what you Republicans wanted and got, are you not satisfied and happy about it???