Taxes on the rich already gone...

I wouldn't go to work unless the private sector paid multimillion dollar bonuses, even if we have to apply for corporate welfare.

 

Understanding what your ideology is, is one thing. Understanding the results of that ideology and the reality of it, is quite another.

Personal income tax doesn't effect business....[/QUOTE]

 

You can't refute the facts I identified, so you posted something stupid and irrelevant to help keep yourself ignorant of them. Simple.

 

Shouldn't we be getting better (Post) infrastructure that may even include potable and waste water management systems, fiber optics, etc. but even capable of handling industrial waste, ostensibly for Post purposes; and fixed to a federal Standard for our republic.

 

What is Obama doing to create jobs? I'm not talking about government jobs or fast food jobs.

 

Why aren't we having a hiring boom, if tax preferences for business are supposed to induce hiring?

 

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, not to mention job-killing regulations.

 

What about the payroll tax holiday, how much of a hiring ethic did that windfall" for the wealthier, engender?

 

If we were talking about Bush I would have said so. But in fact you have to go back to Clinton, continue through Bush and on into Obama.

When and if it is the American tax payer which owns that mobile capital they have a say in its use. Until then he who owns the capital may do with it what they believe will be better for the bottom line. I iterate, "Union costs and government taxes have forced people to move their capital to make sufficient return," has continue to work to the advantage of the American economy. For every job mobile capital has moved overseas at least 1 has been created to replace it in America.

Inside scoop? Hardly! Every intelligent American already knew that.

 

I posted a link to a well thought out and written economic news piece. I'm sorry you are not smart enough to understand the value of what it said.

 

Why was he supposed to be creating jobs? According to Bush, the tax cuts for the job creators should have already been taking care of that.

 

That can be a back and forth scenario based on the economic needs and investment portfolio of one country or another as to how that capital needs to shift. That doesn't necessarily mean the capital is guaranteed to keep coming back here. And it certainly does not give one the right to take an unfair advantage by taking Capital and tax cuts both, along for the ride in the event it all could be just a gamble. It's the same thing with Wall street and the gambling they did with our money. They took FDIC money that was secured and was not to be gambled with, did it anyway, and look what happened. Taking our tax cuts overseas isn't any different. Inside scoop? Hardly! Every intelligent American already knew that.[/QUOTE]

 

I believe we should merely be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of morals and that Tradition of respect for the rule of law.

 

All are our laws moral?

Have you been in a law library? There are so many laws, regulations, and legislation that everyone is guilty of violating one or more.

What moral tells me I have to support those fully capable of doing productive work, just because the government deem they need my money more than I do?

 

If you took greed out of the equation, that's a very real possibility.

 

No matter how much we have, we are never satisfied. That isn't "greed", it is the result of natural selection. Those life forms that were satisfied were overtaken by those that weren't.

Capitalism is the one economic form that pits us against each other, dog eat dog. The funny part, to be a winner, you have to provide your customer something better than the other guy.

Who is governments "customer"? The poor, the voter, or the special interests? What tempers a politician's greed?

 

<yawn> The article you posted a link to was not even relevant to the post you purported to be responding to. Too bad you had to resort to a dishonest ignoratio elenchi fallacy to try to make yourself feel like you hadn't made a fool of yourself.

 

That's what I thought.

 

Why is it so difficult to be better Angels on Earth who have no need for the expense of Government?

 

We'll, why don't you be the first Angel on Earth to start the process of living your life without the benefits of government expenditures that have benefited you, and get back to us on how that's going.

 

I am still trying to convince our elected representatives to be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws.

 

Why worry about that? You can start today from a personal level and quit excepting government benefits. Just stop using what they "give" you. Setting the example would be the perfect place to start, don't you think? And since you have "NO" need for the expense of the government, probably a good place to start, would be to begin walking all the time to make sure you are not benefiting from using our nations roads. After all, you didn't build all those roads right?

 

From another perspective, and in that alternative; corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to civil persons in our republic. In my opinion, we should merely "free ride" on those privileges and immunities already established by persons of wealth.

 

Yes, but multi-million dollar bonuses are not possible to civil persons if there is no mode of travel by which to get to those civil people. Looking "back" at it from the original perspective that is, your alternative wouldn't work. So it is a physical impossibility, unless they walk of course, that government made that multi-million dollar bonus possible. Which destroys the notion of not needing the expense from government.

This fantasy of living without the expense of government and the benefits it incurs, is a fantasy that was always, and will continue to be, a dead argument for people of logical reasoning.

 

Baloney! Read, understand before jumping to conclusions.