Mass Protest Planned At David Trott’s Posh Real Estate Office in Birmingham

[nain rouge]

Here we go, now we have BankruptcyGuy moving the goalposts. There is a huge difference between evasion and a corrupt system of deductions, and I'm sure you know that. In America, we're very careful to codify and legalize corruption.

I see China actually loses less taxes to evasion as measured by percentage of its GDP than the US. Are you gonna sit here and tell me China isn't corrupt? Your argument is irrelevant.

[nain rouge]

People wouldn't "cheat" if they thought they weren't getting fleeced. It's not about "welfare leeches"... to me it's things like mortgage interest deductions on vacation homes and boats and all the other various and sundry breaks only available to the wealthy individuals or giant corporations.

Cheating, to me, is not a valid way to participate in a democracy or representative republic. What you're essentially endorsing is anti-state method of rebellion, abetted by corrupt politicians that are also anti-state. You want to benefit from America's economic power but you don't want to pay for anything you don't feel like paying for. You call that being "fleeced".

Though I can't speak for you, I know a lot people believe fudging their taxes is a way to get back at the country for the breaks it gives to the rich. But, to me, that's a self-defeatist approach. Why don't we just elect people that would fix the tax system? Oh, that's right, because the ADD American public only votes for people that can afford shiny ads.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Here we go, now we have BankruptcyGuy moving the goalposts. There is a huge difference between evasion and a corrupt system of deductions, and I'm sure you know that. In America, we're very careful to codify and legalize corruption.

I see China actually loses less taxes to evasion as measured by percentage of its GDP than the US. Are you gonna sit here and tell me China isn't corrupt? Your argument is irrelevant.

So there's no difference in you mind between: a) evading tax laws, and b) accepting a tax break that, by the way, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by a President?

[nain rouge]

So there's no difference in you mind between: a) evading tax laws, and b) accepting a tax break that, by the way, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by a President?

There is a difference. That said, the absence of tax evasion does not indicate a lack of corruption within existing tax laws. I mean, c'mon, you're throwing weak sauce at me here. There is no significant correlation to be had.

[BankruptcyGuy]

There is a difference. That said, the absence of tax evasion does not indicate a lack of corruption within existing tax laws. I mean, c'mon, you're throwing weak sauce at me here. There is no significant correlation to be had.[/COLOR]

I was just responding to the person who described this as an "American" problem. It is not.

[nain rouge]

Again, I don't get the correlation. Other countries are corrupt, therefore America is fine. Is that your point? Otherwise, I don't get your line of reasoning.

Changing the argument to tax evasion in other countries - or anything about other countries, period - is an irrelevant deflection on your part. We're talking about tax corruption in America.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Again, I don't get the correlation. Other countries are corrupt, therefore America is fine. Is that your point? Otherwise, I don't get your line of reasoning.

Changing the argument to tax evasion in other countries - or anything about other countries, period - is an irrelevant deflection on your part. We're talking about tax corruption in America.

The original post to which I was responding wrote "the problem with America...", making it appear that this problem is somehow unique to America.

Let me try this:

The problem with Democrats is that they take too much money from special interests.

That statement would be at the best misleading, and at the worst, false. That's a problem with both parties. Adding "with Democrats" makes it seem like a problem unique to them, which it most certainly is not.

That's all I was saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

The problem with Democrats is that they take too much money from special interests.

How is this not the case with Republicans as well? I don't see any difference with ANY political party. Please explain because, I must be missing something.

[nain rouge]

Cincinnati_Kid: He was using that statement about Democrats to back up why he had to 'correct' me for saying America has corrupt tax laws. It's just an elaborate exercise in wheel spinning. His view is that entire world is basically corrupt and America is comparatively good. Take that for what you will.

[Honky Tonk]

The problem with Democrats is that they take too much money from special interests.

How is this not the case with Republicans as well? I don't see any difference with ANY political party. Please explain because, I must be missing something.

Absolutely, a remedial reading and comprehension course. I have no dog in this fight, but he just explained it the post above yours. How can you NOT understand the explanation? His viewpoint isn't "The problem with Democrats is that they take too much money from special interests", he's merely using the statement as an example, to explain his point.

[Wesley Mouch]

The problem with Democrats is that they take too much money from special interests.

How is this not the case with Republicans as well? I don't see any difference with ANY political party. Please explain because, I must be missing something.

I do not see a difference between the parties. Republicans are just as 'bad' as Democrats.

I don't understand what a 'special interest' is? Shouldn't everyone be interested in politics? Should they not advocate for their cause?

Are Soros and Koch special interests? Are Coke and Planned Parenthood? Are the MEA and the Realtors?

[Honky Tonk]

The "secret" Super-Pacs, pouring in gonzo dollars to back candidates, scare me. I think the general public has a right to know who they are and what do they want. From what little I know about politics, they don't do this because they think he's a great guy. Anyone who donates heavily, and pushes a candidate to election, to perpetuate THEIR cause, and not for the general good of the public, is "special interest"

[Richard]

The "secret" Super-Pacs, pouring in gonzo dollars to back candidates, scare me. I think the general public has a right to know who they are and what do they want. From what little I know about politics, they don't do this because they think he's a great guy. Anyone who donates heavily, and pushes a candidate to election, to perpetuate THEIR cause, and not for the general good of the public, is "special interest"

You can always justify public good in the end.

Say a local bridge owner has a super PAC to gather support adding another span,some have expressed displeasure at his support for those who would see it his way.

If the bridge was twinned and the public benefited by decreased travel time and the flow of goods was smoother,would that not be considered in the public good?

[Wesley Mouch]

You can always justify public good in the end.

Say a local bridge owner has a super PAC to gather support adding another span,some have expressed displeasure at his support for those who would see it his way.

If the bridge was twinned and the public benefited by decreased travel time and the flow of goods was smoother,would that not be considered in the public good?

Precisely. 'Public Good' is not a 100% agreed upon principle. Reasonable people have differing opinions.

The problem with limits on political campaigns is that they assume agreement on what can be said and who is allowed to speak, and by what means.

I prefer to trust the public. Look at the election vote where Matty spent massive sums of 'dark' money all over the place. He still lost. No, he got slapped down.

Tell me how it is that Matty's money didn't work, but the Koch Brothers does?

Viva free speech -- say no to limits on ads -- always. Let the public decide elections. Not bureaucrats nor the current incumbents of both parties that sometimes think campaign finance needs reforming. No. It doesn't. [[But I'd vote for a huge dose of transparency.)

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Absolutely, a remedial reading and comprehension course. I have no dog in this fight, but he just explained it the post above yours. How can you NOT understand the explanation? His viewpoint isn't "The problem with Democrats is that they take too much money from special interests", he's merely using the statement as an example, to explain his point.

OK...OK.. I see it now.. Had a brain fart I guess.... Don't beat me up about it.

[Honky Tonk]

OK...OK.. I see it now.. Had a brain fart I guess.... Don't beat me up about it.

No, I won't. Your posts are usually pretty good. I thought it was going to turn into one of those red & blue things.

[Richard]

Precisely. 'Public Good' is not a 100% agreed upon principle. Reasonable people have differing opinions.

The problem with limits on political campaigns is that they assume agreement on what can be said and who is allowed to speak, and by what means.

I prefer to trust the public. Look at the election vote where Matty spent massive sums of 'dark' money all over the place. He still lost. No, he got slapped down.

Tell me how it is that Matty's money didn't work, but the Koch Brothers does?

Viva free speech -- say no to limits on ads -- always. Let the public decide elections. Not bureaucrats nor the current incumbents of both parties that sometimes think campaign finance needs reforming. No. It doesn't. [[But I'd vote for a huge dose of transparency.)

It is hard at this point to say it did not work for DIBC because even if everybody up the line says build it ,until the check is cut for the customs plaza it does not get built , no check yet.The only thing you have at this point is history repeating itself in Detroit. [[Poletown)

Koch is into every state in so many ways they are in essence more powerful then the president.presidents Roosevelt,Taft,and Carter were the only ones that saw the danger in that and did something about it.

I think the biggest problem is the public in general has been hard pressed in their daily lives they are missing or out of touch in the big picture,DIBC is micro politics,the rest of the country could care less other then the argument of why pay for a bridge in another city when we need a bridge here,Koch effects everybody everyday no matter where you live.

Eggs for breakfast and chicken for dinner ? No matter where you live in the country 90% chance it came from Koch that is only 2 of the many.

Because everybody is so concerned about eating from day to day they do not have time so they place the trust in others to do the right thing,that is why I say instead of fighting for $15 per per hour the same energy should have been placed towards the government and systematic change and clearly define the role of the government.

Do that and everything else is pointless,you would not need PAC or politic favors because thier job is the common good for all Americans.

[Wesley Mouch]

It is hard at this point to say it did not work for DIBC because even if everybody up the line says build it ,until the check is cut for the customs plaza it does not get built , no check yet.The only thing you have at this point is history repeating itself in Detroit. [[Poletown)

Koch is into every state in so many ways they are in essence more powerful then the president.presidents Roosevelt,Taft,and Carter were the only ones that saw the danger in that and did something about it.

I think the biggest problem is the public in general has been hard pressed in their daily lives they are missing or out of touch in the big picture,DIBC is micro politics,the rest of the country could care less other then the argument of why pay for a bridge in another city when we need a bridge here,Koch effects everybody everyday no matter where you live.

Eggs for breakfast and chicken for dinner ? No matter where you live in the country 90% chance it came from Koch that is only 2 of the many.

Because everybody is so concerned about eating from day to day they do not have time so they place the trust in others to do the right thing,that is why I say instead of fighting for $15 per per hour the same energy should have been placed towards the government and systematic change and clearly define the role of the government.

Do that and everything else is pointless,you would not need PAC or politic favors because thier job is the common good for all Americans.

Richard, my sole point was money does not determine election outcomes.

Matty spent massively. Matty did not win. Thus, money does not determine outcomes.

Is it an influence? Yes, of course. Does saying stupid 'stuff' in massive volume convince everyone? Of course not. Matty did not win -- and the progressive movement has put the '1%' into our vocabulary. And I guarantee you that the Koch Brothers did not plant that idea with their money, nor by GMO implants in my eggs and chicken.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

No, I won't. Your posts are usually pretty good. I thought it was going to turn into one of those red & blue things.

Thanks HT...