Did the state make you great?

[deprave]

how ?????????? ten character bullshit forced the question marks and this sentence.

just one example, fuel tax

 

[canndo]

"other people did that"...


So fine, the infrastructure is paid for by the individuals - but they do so collectively which is the same thing - namely "others did that". But beyond that..

The right is always quick to claim that our way of life was paid for by the blood of our military.

Kindly show us how busnesses have paid for that in full.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

how ?????????? ten character bullshit forced the question marks and this sentence.

I detailed that in the previous post. Every gallon of gas that business purchases includes embedded taxes. As they grow and deliver more products, thereby driving more miles, they pay more of those embedded taxes. If they use a carrier to deliver their products, those embedded taxes are passed along to them by the freight companies with which they're contracting. If they grow and buy more land for increased space, they pay more property tax. If they buy more more vehicles they pay more property tax. Increase in cell phone usage or more lines, all kinds of embedded taxes linked to increased use. Same thing with ISP's for their internet service.

My point is, there is no aspect of infrastructure use that isn't already taxed at a rate that is parallel to the "perceived" burden or wear and tear that the use has on the infrastructure. Many, including myself, would say the level of taxation is remarkably higher than the actual use warrants.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

"other people did that"...


So fine, the infrastructure is paid for by the individuals - but they do so collectively which is the same thing - namely "others did that". But beyond that..

The right is always quick to claim that our way of life was paid for by the blood of our military.

Kindly show us how busnesses have paid for that in full.

A business is just a person conducting business. Why should the business owner who nets $75k a year owe more for that spilled blood than the employee of Walmart making $24k. They enjoyed the exact same freedom and exact same environment for success. It's quite possible they just took different paths or maybe one person simply worked smarter, harder or more efficiently.

 

[canndo]

A business is just a person conducting business. Why should the businessman who nets $75k a year owe more for that spilled blood than the employee of Walmart making $24k. They enjoyed the exact same freedom and exact same environment for success. It's quite possible they just took different paths or maybe one person simply worked smarter, harder or more efficiently.

the business men didn't do it all by themselves, they had the help of everyone who worked or died to make this country a fertile place for sucess, which is what was originaly stated.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

the business men didn't do it all by themselves, they had the help of everyone who worked or died to make this country a fertile place for sucess, which is what was originaly stated.

Just like the hippy who decides to live off the grid with no income. That's EXACTLY the point you fellas keep missing, EVERYONE enjoys that environment equally and in the interest of "fairness", EVERYONE should be on the hook for the same price. But, what the administration is saying is exactly opposite of that. Even though businessmen and businesswomen are already paying substantially more than the person who simply decided to take a different path, Obama and his flunkies want MORE...much MORE, with no end in sight. And all of this with no justifiable or objective formula for determining how much more...it's just got to be MORE. How much more? Your guess is as good as mine, if it's 10% more this time, it will be another 8% in two years. It never freaking ends. Never.

 

[beenthere]

"other people did that"...
So fine, the infrastructure is paid for by the individuals - but they do so collectively which is the same thing - namely "others did that". But beyond that..

The right is always quick to claim that our way of life was paid for by the blood of our military.

Kindly show us how busnesses have paid for that in full.

Charles Wheelchammer
Needs to make a living. Telling it like it is aint gonna fund him

I agree with you.
We need to deregulate business, get rid of wage laws child labor laws the EPA worker safety regulations and we can be as great a Country as China

What I'd like to know, are either of you business owners or is all this just based on your theory?

 

[DonPepe]

And the fact that the culmination of all I have learned over 27 years after being born into thus country leaves me believing that our system is not only corrupt but broken and that I distrust the honor and nobility of most of humanity should tell me what?

 

[canndo]

Just like the hippy who decides to live off the grid with no income. That's EXACTLY the point you fellas keep missing, EVERYONE enjoys that environment equally and in the interest of "fairness", EVERYONE should be on the hook for the same price. But, what the administration is saying is exactly opposite of that. Even though businessmen and businesswomen are already paying substantially more than the person who simply decided to take a different path, Obama and his flunkies want MORE...much MORE, with no end in sight. And all of this with no justifiable or objective formula for determining how much more...it's just got to be MORE. How much more? Your guess is as good as mine, if it's 10% more this time, it will be another 8% in two years. It never freaking ends. Never.

No, everyone doesn't use the same exact things in this country, some use far less, some far more. If I make my fortune, I am using more of the resources of this country than someone who simply lives off the land and uses his telephone once in a while. This is clearly obvious when Walmart is examined. they have a very big social footprint and we as citizens tend to have to support their HR department with food stamps and public aid.

Now tell me how you or I use exactly as much as the Waltons?

 

[canndo]

What I'd like to know, are either of you business owners or is all this just based on your theory?

I am on my 4th realitivly sucessful business Beenthere, but you know that, we have discussed it before. I made full use of this culture and environment in order to be successful.

 

[InCognition]

This is the ultimate straw man argument. A civil society does not "lie outside of government", it lies squarely within it, it is defined by it, nurtured by it, protected by it and even enforced by it.

Unfortunately the government has stepped far, far, beyond it's bounds. The government's sole intent is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (without taking it from others - that would be a contradiction).

So yes, a a society does need to lie within government but, when every aspect within in a society is encroached on further and further by the government, you will see very real problems arise from such interference. The situation the USA is in now, is the epitome of such.

The USA is in trouble solely due to the foundation of corrupt government-enabling, which in return reaps terrible repercussions on the fundamental principles of capitalism. The government and it's "everything must lie within it" mentality, provides the foundation for these very problems we have today, and will continue to experience, as government grows and takes a hold of more... all while making more entities "lie within" it's umbrella of devastation.

If one cannot see the devastation that the government has brought upon this nation, it either means one is not aware, or is ignorant of the true cause. The true cause is irrefutably government.

 

[canndo]

Unfortunately the government has stepped far, far, beyond it's bounds. The government's sole intent is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (without taking it from others - that would be a contradiction).

So yes, a a society does need to lie within government but, when every aspect within in a society is encroached on further and further by the government, you will see very real problems arise from such interference. The situation the USA is in now, is the epitome of such.

The USA is in trouble solely due to the foundation of corrupt government-enabling, which in return reaps terrible repercussions on the fundamental principles of capitalism. The government and it's "everything must lie within it" mentality, provides the foundation for these very problems we have today, and will continue to experience, as government grows and takes a hold of more... all while making more entities "lie within" it's umbrella of devastation.

If one cannot see the devastation that the government has brought upon this nation, it either means one is not aware, or is ignorant of the true cause. The true cause is irrefutably government.

Yet again, someone explores the dark harbinger of the destruction of capitalism. There is no provision for our economic system in the constitution. Capitalism, contrary to many's beliefs is not a legal entity. Some actually believe there is the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch and.... capitalism.

In fact it may well be the destructive nature of capitalism that brings this country down and not the actions of government at all. I wonder how few folks consider that.

Now as I have been talking about here, government's sole responsibility is to provide order. There is nothing about "protecting life liberty or property" as the only right you are guaranteed is the right to due process.

Look carefully at corporatism before you go claiming that everyone who doesn't believe that government is the only danger is a fool.

 

[Doer]

Yes, we are always at war. The needs of the many. The motivations of self preservation at every level are at war with the noticeable advantage of taking care with every citizen, as much as possible. The need of the few, gives society the unique sense of altruism needed to fight for. The needs of the many gives of the weapons for the fight.

But, I don't see that the US is in trouble. Far from it. Maybe wishful thinking? Anti-globalism? We can't afford capitalism?

The US economy is 3 times any of the next three in line. Japan, China, Germany. That is, the US is larger than the next 3 combined.

So, as much as the soap box communism has enough mass appeal, it may very well lift the incompetent back into office. If not, the other incompetent gets in. It doesn't matter. This is not the first time we've deeked the world in the economic wars.

Remember the gloom and doom when we sold Madison Square Gardens to the Japanese? We got all that back for a song. Our economy is much more robust. Big money each way. That's what it's all about.

Elections to me are the Stupid test for America. How much Info Quota is there, really? How much are the blatant lies, actually believed? Good show. Not real.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

No, everyone doesn't use the same exact things in this country, some use far less, some far more. If I make my fortune, I am using more of the resources of this country than someone who simply lives off the land and uses his telephone once in a while. This is clearly obvious when Walmart is examined. they have a very big social footprint and we as citizens tend to have to support their HR department with food stamps and public aid.

Now tell me how you or I use exactly as much as the Waltons?

Now I think you're being deliberately obtuse. My last post was SPECIFICALLY addressing your earlier post about indebtedness of businesses to the sacrifice of past countrymen. Which is why I quoted it before answering. That didn't have anything to do with the previous subject of infrastructure use. I already covered how their increased use of that is paid for automatically.

Our use doesn't even begin to approach the levels that the Waltons use of the national infrastructure. And by the same token, our contribution to maintaining and expanding that infrastructure through our payment of various embedded and non-embedded taxes doesn't begin to approach what they pay in the course of doing business.

I've clearly stated this several times and no one has refuted it yet. Because it can't be refuted, it's fact. It's been ignored and argued around, but only barely acknowledged by London so far. This is the hinge pin of the entire debate and to argue that businesses aren't already paying for their increased usage is simply ignoring reality.

 

[InCognition]

Yet again, someone explores the dark harbinger of the destruction of capitalism. There is no provision for our economic system in the constitution. Capitalism, contrary to many's beliefs is not a legal entity. Some actually believe there is the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch and.... capitalism.

In fact it may well be the destructive nature of capitalism that brings this country down and not the actions of government at all. I wonder how few folks consider that.

Now as I have been talking about here, government's sole responsibility is to provide order. There is nothing about "protecting life liberty or property" as the only right you are guaranteed is the right to due process.

Look carefully at corporatism before you go claiming that everyone who doesn't believe that government is the only danger is a fool.

And I bet you would have a successful day in court telling someone they can't practice capitalism...

There doesn't need to be a "capitalism branch" in order for such conduct to exist. The same way a "socialism branch" wouldn't need to exist for such conduct. It just so happens that pure capitalism is the embodiment of freedom, while "socialism" is the polar opposite. Neither needs a "legislative branch" to exist in government... The thing is, freedom is the only thing that is genuinely righteous.

Government enables corporatism. Therefore Government holds priority over corporations in regards to "corporatism's destruction". They are the enabler of the problem, thus they have caused it.

You need to smoke cigarettes before you get cancer. The cigarettes are the cancer, before the cancer manifest itself into what is cancer. Government is to cigarettes, what corporatism is to cancer. Plain and simple.

Solely blaming "corporatism" for any myriad of reasons, is simply a mental bypass maneuver in logically evaluating the real issues. For doing such, one can very well be labeled a fool, as they have not looked carefully at government and it's affiliated conduct regarding corporatism. It's just a fallacy believed by one who's attempting to back their invalid assertion, that capitalism is at a fault.

 

[ChesusRice]

It just so happens that pure capitalism is the embodiment of freedom.

Pure Capitalism without regulation is the Embodiment of Slavery and failure

I invite you to read
"tragedy of the commons"

Central to Hardin's article is an example (first sketched in an 1833 pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd) involving medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is damaged for all as a result, through overgrazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all. Hardin also cites modern examples, including the overfishing of the world's oceans and ranchers who graze their cattle on government lands in the American West.[SUP][1][/SUP]

 

[Moses Mobetta]

Pure Capitalism without regulation is the Embodiment of Slavery and failure

I invite you to read
"tragedy of the commons"

Central to Hardin's article is an example (first sketched in an 1833 pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd) involving medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is damaged for all as a result, through overgrazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all. Hardin also cites modern examples, including the overfishing of the world's oceans and ranchers who graze their cattle on government lands in the American West.[SUP][1][/SUP]

There are many good regulations and some like this - Say I am an expert mechanic and want to open up my own shop but the regulations say that unless I have the same type of experience as Chesus and have worked in Massachusettes in a same size city like Milton as Chesus has that is on the leading edge of it's industry I am not qualified to be licenced as Chesus is. So now I have to go see Chesus and get a job working for him or ask him to carry the licence for the bussiness and work under his licence as a partner if I'm lucky. This kind of thing is restrictive to me even though I am an expert I still can't become licenced on my own. This is more common than you would think, bussiness lobbies for this type of regulation to prevent competition. I ran into this bidding on lucrative state projects- The State rep told me if I left an envelope with around ten thousand dollars in it on the table he would ensure that I had no problems at all and guaranteed that I would be awarded the contracts.

 

[ChesusRice]

There are many good regulations and some like this - Say I am an expert mechanic and want to open up my own shop but the regulations say that unless I have the same type of experience as Chesus and have worked in Massachusettes in a same size city like Milton as Chesus has that is on the leading edge of it's industry I am not qualified to be licenced as Chesus is. So now I have to go see Chesus and get a job working for him or ask him to carry the licence for the bussiness and work under his licence as a partner if I'm lucky. This kind of thing is restrictive to me even though I am an expert I still can't become licenced on my own. This is more common than you would think, bussiness lobbies for this type of regulation to prevent competition. I ran into this bidding on lucrative state projects- The State rep told me if I left an envelope with around ten thousand dollars in it on the table he would ensure that I had no problems at all and guaranteed that I would be awarded the contracts.

Or let's say you are a plumber and in the state all you need to be a plumber is a sign
So you go and plumb a house and you have inadequate vents for the system. Not only did you screw the job up that you alreay got paid for
but the methane gas built up and exploded the house

 

[ginwilly]

This is the ultimate straw man argument. A civil society does not "lie outside of government", it lies squarely within it, it is defined by it, nurtured by it, protected by it and even enforced by it.

isn't this exactly the opposite of the vision our founders had for this great country.

A government does not lie outside of society, it lies squarely within it, it is defined by it, nurtured by it, protected by it and even enforced by it. I like their plan better.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

Or let's say you are a plumber and in the state all you need to be a plumber is a sign
So you go and plumb a house and you have inadequate vents for the system. Not only did you screw the job up that you alreay got paid for
but the methane gas built up and exploded the house

I see that exact thing all the time. Sewer lines backed up and overflowing out of toilets and filling tubs with sewage. I am not a deregulate everything guy. I know rasonable regulations are necessary. Drains don't work properly without vents. But even though in my previous scenario I possesed an active licence and met the insurance requirements, I needed to kick back ten grand to the guy overseeing everything or I was never going to qualify to bid because of corruption personal greed and over regulation was the tool.