Non aviation subject. This is well put!

[Jeff G]

Speaking of corporate welfare:

Now, when you think about it, corporate taxes are really double taxation. What are corporate taxes? Taxes on corporate profits. Who makes corporate profits? A corporation, which either plows the profits back into the business (thus growing the business and employing more people, who pay more in personal income taxes), pays the corporation's employees more (thus generating more personal income taxes), or distributes profits to shareholders as dividends (which is then taxed as capital gains). In other words, every dollar of "corporate profits" is distributed to people who then pay taxes on it again.

So what is "corporate welfare"? Mostly tax breaks on corporate profits for politically deserving companies. IOW, politicians reduce the amount of double taxation for certain companies.

So here's a novel concept. Eliminate corporate taxation entirely. Corporations will still pay sales taxes and excise taxes on products they buy but will no longer be forced to give the government a cut when they have a good year. Instead, their employees will pay taxes on their personal income. This also eliminates political games regarding which companies are "worthy" of welfare.

Corporations are not nameless, faceless, money-generating, tax revenue-producing monoliths. They are made up of taxpayers. So why cripple successful companies with double-taxation to begin with?

Makes about as much sense as taxing the dead and reducing the estate to be left to descendents. But that's another story.

 

[waka]

No, sir, that is history

"history"? according to?..... hmmm, the National Review and similar spinmeister rags?

It amuses me when folks use the word "history" in such a way that it's use somehow gives them sole rights to objectivity.

____________________________________________

Very good points mar. I sometimes fall into that trap.

 

[pipers]

... I take some solace in the knowledge that flawed liberal viewpoints are becoming exposed and are nearing the end of their lifespan. Just look to the recent mid term election results to see the result of Americans fed up with Democrats off in la la land.

I will try to make this my last reply on the subject, I promise. I just wanted to point out that the recent mid-term elections don't in any way indicate that America is fed up with democrats of in la la land and liberal thought. The problem with the Bush administration is that they are governing as if they won by a land slide. (What happened to being "a uniter, not a divider"?) The truth is, more people voted with either the green or democrat party in 2000 then did republican. I'm not saying George didn't win (we don't need another argument) but, Ralph turned out to be a very useful tool to the republican party. New Hampshire and Flordia would have gone to Gore. In 2002, the republicans did win more of the "toss-up" elections (by out spending democrats 8-1 in some case I might add), but this doesn't indicate a dramatic change to the right. These were the races that were "to close to call." I honestly believe that this political diveristiy is a powerful thing. I would be scared to death to see what would happen if there were no checks and balances in our government. Thanks for your opinions. Vote.
Cheers.

PS...May I just ask one question? Where does unemployment fit in with all this? Because, I know for a fact that there are many who visit this site in that boat. If I remember correctly, it was the Dems that wanted to push through a bill that would extend unemplyment benefits (those affected by 9/11) through the holiday season, but the rep. didn't agree and went home with our resolving it. Suks.

 

[Rizer]

...and when your fearless leader Slick, signed it into law when did he do it? That's right, the friggin dead of night on a Fri, so he wouldn't get tarred and feathered by Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt before the sting wore off. Ya might want to surf some microfiche at the library before ya claim that one for the Dems.

Here is a picture of Clinton signing the Welfare Reform Bill.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/welref.html

Hardly the dead of night. You must be confusing this with George W's signing of the Campaign Finance Reform Bill. Now that was in the dead of night.

Originally posted by Timebuilder
Actually, Mr Rizer, it was a republican congress that reformed the welfare system. What part did Mr. Clinton have?

Welfare reform was a one of Clinton's 1992 campaign pledges. 1992...two years before anyone even knew who Newt Gingrich was...before Gingrich's absurd "Contract Against Ameri...errr Contract With America".

He looked at some polls, determined that this idea had popular support, and went along with it to advance his legacy.

Timebuilder, you have got to stop listening to so much talk radio.

 

[Timebuilder]

It amuses me when folks use the word "history" in such a way that it's use somehow gives them sole rights to objectivity.

When we talk about facts, not feelings that are not a part of today, then we are talking about them as history. Hey, that is amusing!

I'm not saying George didn't win (we don't need another argument) but, Ralph turned out to be a very useful tool to the republican party.

If you mean that he was a "spoiler" candidate, republicans are familiar with that. For them, it was Ross Perot, which lead to the election of Bill Clinton. I'm sure that neither Ross nor Ralph would describe themselves as "useful tools", though.

Welfare reform was a one of Clinton's 1992 campaign pledges. 1992...two years before anyone even knew who Newt Gingrich was...before Gingrich's absurd "Contract Against Ameri...errr Contract With America".

Clinton's acceptance of the republican idea of welfare reform for his 1992 campaign was a direct result of the kind of polling that I described. Instead of leadership, he sent up trial ballons, and played to those who follow the slant of Peter Jennings. Ten years after 1992, this method is no longer effective for the dems.

It was the Contract with America that helped sweep in the first republican congress in how many years? What an absurd idea: to think that a group of politicians would break the mold and actually DO the things that they promsed to do! How repugnant.

Talk radio? I was in talk radio, my friend. As a liberal democrat! I think this gives me a unique insight into this controversy. You know what talk radio is nowadays? It's people who never had a voice in the mainstream media, finding that America hasn't really lost its greatness, as ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN would have us all believe. It's the voice of America, bubbling to the surface. I hear conservative voices of every race and both genders speaking out against the mainstream tide of Paul Begalla and James Carville.

Do liberals wish that talk radio would go away? Sure. It interferes with their sense of control, and sublimates their agenda to the genuine desires of Americans.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[AV8OR]

Hey Rizer,

I'll tell ya what, why don't you and Ted K. and the rest take as much of your own money as you want give as much away as you want to help others. That's what I do. Better yet if you think the liberal democrat government way is the way to go, why don't you just have em take a little more out and let Ted and the boys pour more of it into that crap hole in Boston called the Big Dig. I can hardly wait for John Kerry to campaign on the success of that one. Listen here's my last opinion on the subject and I'm done. ....

There are greedy democrats and greedy republicans. I'm sure some of both are charitable with their personal funds. As far as Constitutionally mandated programs being payed for through taxes, that's great, but when Ted K, or George W., or whoever, takes our money, redistributes it, and then claims the benevolency as their own, that is just pure self promotion through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. If that's not the legislation of someones morality or immorality, I don't know what is.

Adios

 

[Rizer]

Timebuilder-

I'm sure we will never agree but I did enjoy the exchange of ideas. But I do make it a rule never to argue with a former Liberal Democrat radio talk show host turned Conservative Republican Lear Jet pilot. I guess I am just odd that way.
Fly Safe.


AV8TOR-

I don't know what the heck you are talking about with the big hole in Boston and I pretty sure I don't want to know. Nothing you have written has made any sense, why should your last post be any different.

Ciao!

 

[Wolf King]

Rizer,

Didn't I see you on an MTV episode recently?..... Oh, yeah, now I remember.... you did Anna Nicole Smith's bedroom decor. You're Bobby Trendy, aren't you? C'mon, I'd be proud of those pink pillows!

 

[ShawnC]

Good point. I've never discussed politics in the cockpit and don't intend too. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone and the truth is that while we may have politics differences, we're all here becuase we love to fly. We some times forget that this is an aviation website and not a political one. Let's get back to aviation.

What do you mean, my flight instructor brought up politics all the time, right between slow flight, and steep turns...

Please with 500 hrs how many chances have you had to talk about anything in the cockpit other than flying.

As far as DEM vs GOP, I'll stay out of it I prefer to leave that for times when I can hit the other person over the head.

 

[waka]

When we talk about facts, not feelings that are not a part of today, then we are talking about them as history. Hey, that is amusing!

Heh heh, if I didn't buy into your claim to history, I certainly won't buy into your claim to "fact" (so-called).

Cliche's don't cut it.

Oh, and that would have more appropriately named "Contract ON America", most which flopped, (fortunately). Yes, this apt renaming is cliche but it's d@mn funny. Truth in humor I guess.