Mark Cuban says what?!?

[THETAXMAN]

my source for who pays what is the IRS and the politicians do not have the courage it takes to fix the rest

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Rodram

We will never be completely out of debt so lets drop that illusion.

The concept of sustainable deficits forever is idiotic. We may never payoff the debt or at least it will take longer than our lifetimes but we should be on a path to do that.

Tax cuts to save the rich money are not the objective. The objective is tax reform that will enable more economic activity which increases revenue to the government. If the percentage a person or company pays goes down but the overall revenue to the government increases you have accomplished the objective. It is possible to raise taxes in the name of so called fairness and reduce the revenue to the government.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Whitedog

It really baffles me how most of the people that swallow the stuff they hear on FOX and from the AM radio loud-mouths, are ctually voting against their own interests. On the plus side, they do save me money, so I can put more away in my retirement accounts, while they cost themselves more in the long run. If anyone thinks you can balance a budget, either in business or government, simply by cutting costs, they are doomed to failure. If I cut costs and don't increase revenue (sales or taxes, as the case may be) I never will profit. Without increased positive revenues, I wouldn't be here, and sharing those revenues with our great ladies!! Therefore, cutting expenses, along with revenue enhancement, helps the ECCIE economy, along with my disposition. See, compromise is good for all. Tell that to the 'Party of NO'.

The government is not a profit center that creates revenue. It is an expense that needs to be managed and minimized. The nation is the business and the government is an expense that is not sustainable. Like any business we need to evaluate that cost and cut non critical or ineffective activities.

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by Laz

The concept of sustainable deficits forever is idiotic. We may never payoff the debt or at least it will take longer than our lifetimes but we should be on a path to do that.

Tax cuts to save the rich money are not the objective. The objective is tax reform that will enable more economic activity which increases revenue to the government. If the percentage a person or company pays goes down but the overall revenue to the government increases you have accomplished the objective. It is possible to raise taxes in the name of so called fairness and reduce the revenue to the government.

Yep, agreed.

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by Laz

The government is not a profit center that creates revenue. It is an expense that needs to be managed and minimized. The nation is the business and the government is an expense that is not sustainable. Like any business we need to evaluate that cost and cut non critical or ineffective activities.

Yes, but when you have a party that completely disregards all sensible proposals to the extent the republican party has, any kind of management is impossible.

I'm going to give you some push back on this idea that government is just some kind of expense that is not sustainable. Our government is required for this country to live in a civilized society and it assures us a level of security and prosperity. WE are the government and if it fails we fail, and we are tasked as citizens to maintain it and we have not done a good job.

So before we get on this cut and slash agenda the republicans have embarked on, lets call a spade a spade and acknowledge that most of what this is about is making it possible for Corporate America to do its bidding at the expense of the people and I'll go to the mat on this any day.

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by THETAXMAN

my source for who pays what is the IRS and the politicians do not have the courage it takes to fix the rest

That's where we have to take the wheel and steer them in the right direction, agreed?

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Rodram

Yes, but when you have a party that completely disregards all sensible proposals to the extent the republican party has, any kind of management is impossible.

I'm going to give you some push back on this idea that government is just some kind of expense that is not sustainable. Our government is required for this country to live in a civilized society and it assures us a level of security and prosperity. WE are the government and if it fails we fail, and we are tasked as citizens to maintain it and we have not done a good job.

So before we get on this cut and slash agenda the republicans have embarked on, lets call a spade a spade and acknowledge that most of what this is about is making it possible for Corporate America to do its bidding at the expense of the people and I'll go to the mat on this any day.

I did not mean to imply that government was unnecessary just that its current size and spending level was unsustainable. There are many things it tries to do that are completely innappropriate and quite often cause more problems than existed before it got involved.

People need to get over the idea that it is us against the corporations. Most of the time what is good for the corporations is good for the general public. However I do not think a corporation is a person and it should not have the right to lobby politicians. The people that work there can have a voice but not the corporation itself.

As for Republican and or Democrat ideas coming out of DC, I have heard very few that are good. The best ideas I have heard come from Libertarians.

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by Laz

I did not mean to imply that government was unnecessary just that its current size and spending level was unsustainable. There are many things it tries to do that are completely innappropriate and quite often cause more problems than existed before it got involved.

People need to get over the idea that it is us against the corporations. Most of the time what is good for the corporations is good for the general public. However I do not think a corporation is a person and it should not have the right to lobby politicians. The people that work there can have a voice but not the corporation itself.

As for Republican and or Democrat ideas coming out of DC, I have heard very few that are good. The best ideas I have heard come from Libertarians.

I think part of the rhetoric that I and Dems/Libs sometimes use leads to the perception that they and I are against Corporate America and I understand that.
There is no country on this earth that functions without capitalism and we are here, in many respects, as a result of capitalism, but it's the degree to which capitalism is practiced that I am concerned with.

Free market capitalism is not the problem, it's the people that are.

This is a passage I found from an article called Capitalism and Morality by Dr. Edward Younkins, Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia and author of Capitalism and Commerce.

"The free market rewards polite, cooperative, tolerant, open, honest, realistic, trustworthy, discerning, creative, fair businessmen. Lying to and cheating other businesses, misleading consumers, and mistreating workers all have serious adverse consequences. In the long run, profitable businesses tend to be operated in accordance with the basic ethical principles most people hold dear."

Whitedog has a great comment about this and how he treats his employees.

Free Market Capitalism and this morality that Dr, Younkins described is definitely not the environment that exists in Corporate America. Therein lies the problem with Libertarian views of deregulated industries and free markets.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Rodram

Free Market Capitalism and this morality that Dr, Younkins described is definitely not the environment that exists in Corporate America. Therein lies the problem with Libertarian views of deregulated industries and free markets.

I disagree. I think most successful companies are ethical. There will always be exceptions as the people that run them change over time but there are mechanisms that bring those that behave in an extreme back to the middle.

Companies like Solyndra would never have gotten as far as it did without government intervention. It is a perfect example of why the government should set the rules by which a corporation should behave then get out of the way.

[Whitedog]

WOW, I'm impressed by the logical arguments being presented here, and that's no bull. There are some differing ideas, but nothing insurmountable. Now, all we need to do is get that idea across to the Congressmen, and vote out the radicals from both sides, and maybe something could be accomplished. I've always prided myself on being a 'fierce' Independent, that is probaly slightly to the Right, but I can't swallow the crap being put out by the current bunch of crazies. It's going to turn me into a straight ticket Democrat if the so-called Conservatives won't become rational.

[TexanAtPlay]

Originally Posted by Rodram

Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks Owner: Wealthy Should 'Pay Lots Of Taxes'

The Huffington Post Posted: 9/19/11 06:13 PM ET

Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, said wealthy Americans should pay "lots of taxes" in a post on his blog on Monday.

Titled "The Most Patriotic Thing You Can Do," the post told readers that wealthy Americans should "do something positive" with their money by hiring, training and paying employees and spending money on rent, equipment and services.

"I don’t care what anyone says. Being rich is a good thing," Cuban wrote. "Not just in the obvious sense of benefiting you and your family, but in the broader sense. Profits are not a zero sum game. The more you make the more of a financial impact you can have."

Cuban -- who has a net worth of $2.5 billion -- encouraged his readers to "get out there and make a boatload of money" and "enjoy the shit out your money" knowing that making more and paying higher taxes would help others.

So be Patriotic. Go out there and get rich. Get so obnoxiously rich that when that tax bill comes , your first thought will be to choke on how big a check you have to write. Your 2nd thought will be “what a great problem to have”, and your 3rd should be a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you.
Cuban's post came in the wake of Rep. John Fleming's (R-La.) suggestion that he couldn't afford a tax hike because he had only "maybe $400,000 left over" from his $6.3 million in business profits. Fleming said that he opposed Obama's plan to tax the wealthy during an appearance on MSNBC.

Uh, huh. So...hmm. What have I learned from this?

That I have discovered just ONE MORE REASON why I HATE Mark Cuban!

It's not enough to just own the Evil Dallas Mavericks. It's not enough to threaten to buy the LA Dodgers and be an even WORSE owner than Frank McCourt (Note: I'd rather see McCourt keep the team than Mark Cuban owning it! And that says a lot.)

But, now....he's lined himself up with all sorts of socialists and marxists and backing redistributionist policies.

What, does he need the GOVERNMENT to force him to give up his wealth to "help others".....if he believes that way, he's FREE to send any additional amount he desires to help others to the US Treasury. Better yet, sell the Mavericks and send the proceeds in.

These marxist rich aren't about to give up their wealth and become poor. They would gladly give up half of what they have to keep the other half SAFE and to perhaps prevent competition in the process, and using the power of government to make their position permanent.

I haven't yet heard a convincing argument on just HOW government confiscating wealth creates MORE wealth overall?

If I were rich...really filthy rich, I'd ENJOY it. The best way to spread around the wealth is to SPEND it on yourself....that's the BEST way to create jobs. Not give it to government who "centrally plans" the economy and picks who wins and who loses.

It's just so wrong!

[Whitedog]

Ooops!! I take it back about the rationality of this thread, now that I see the Marxist/Socialist/Redistributionist card being played. Sure glad I didn't say anything about the fools that actually believe that crap.

[TexanAtPlay]

Originally Posted by Whitedog

WOW, I'm impressed by the logical arguments being presented here, and that's no bull. There are some differing ideas, but nothing insurmountable. Now, all we need to do is get that idea across to the Congressmen, and vote out the radicals from both sides, and maybe something could be accomplished. I've always prided myself on being a 'fierce' Independent, that is probaly slightly to the Right, but I can't swallow the crap being put out by the current bunch of crazies. It's going to turn me into a straight ticket Democrat if the so-called Conservatives won't become rational.

I'm not a fan of most of the arguments. They are simply wrong.

There is only a single argument which is correct. The document...the United States Constitution lays out the manner and procedure of government of this political union of sovereign States. It addresses the structure and powers of the FEDERAL government. It is the FINAL word. Anybody who believes otherwise is completely wrong. No court no law can overrule the document.

The Executive Branch is not allowed to make laws...they call them "rules". But "treated as law". Nor are they allowed to impose judicial punishments but they do by imposing fines every day, with no judicial review of that action.

The Federal government performs thousands of tasks through taxes raised. But the Constitution only provides for 18 specific tasks...all other tasks and powers are reserved to the States individually or to the people. They levy taxes and spend on thousands of processes. The FEDERAL in federalism, is that the "central government" is limited. A reminder...the States created the Federal government, and should be allowed to opt-out when it does not agree and want to overrule an action. No provision in the constitution was made for the punishment of a State who refuses to go along with the will of the majority. It's because the Founders did not envision that it would be necessary, because the Union was a loose grouping by their design.

The fact that some people are "helped" by Federal wealth redistribution is not relevant. The States are to provide those needs. If Texas wants to create an Obamacare-like program...then it's free to do so....but will have to tax their own citizens to provide for it. Same with Social Security....each STATE would be expected to provide it. The role of the Federal government was to be limited to being the referee, not the 800 pound gorilla.

Separation of Church and State.....it's proclaimed to be a Constitutional Mandate....but I just seem not to be able to find the words....have it right here.

Constitutional lawyers often are not taught the Constitution. They are taught "case law"...as if a Congressionally passed law can overrule the constitutional requirement? Ask ANY constitutional lawyer...any question on what it REALLY says...they can't answer! And this business of the Supreme Court as the final determiner on what the Constitution means....is also.....not a power of the Constitution awarded to that branch of government.

So my position....is the document....as it is written! Literally. My candidates are measured against that standard. (Ron Paul.....he's the closest.) It's not a left-vs-right argument. It's about faithfulness to the model and structure of the government --- the law of the land, and overruling ALL OTHER sources of law and rulings. That is the fight.

It doesn't mean Social Security ends....it just means it gets broken up and administered by the States...individually. Medicare doesn't go away over night...but again...the State fund it. It doesn't mean everybody gets to carry guns on the streets either, unless that State wants that to happen.

Better government is government that happens locally and is more responsive to the people.

When was the last time you were able to convince (personally) a Member of Congress to change their vote...just on a general issue? It's the current party system which has locked the politics into red vs blue, Elephant vs Ass.

And just going for the middle...means that each side compromises....and that means even more money gets spent on these bi-partisan grand bargains! They all go home with their "cut" for their districts.

It's time to end it. Go back to the original blueprint and stick to it. And elect men and women who also believe in this.

[Laz]

I agree.

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by Laz

I disagree. I think most successful companies are ethical. There will always be exceptions as the people that run them change over time but there are mechanisms that bring those that behave in an extreme back to the middle.

Companies like Solyndra would never have gotten as far as it did without government intervention. It is a perfect example of why the government should set the rules by which a corporation should behave then get out of the way.

Maybe I should clarify what I mean by Corporate America. Corporate America, when I and dems/libs use it, refers to those corporations like the big banks, Hedge fund managers, BP, GE, AT&T, etc and admittedly we should make that distinction and yes I am referring to a minority, but in numbers only and not in the immenseness of their power and influence to steer the entire economy of this country at their whim and their ability and willingness to hold us hostage.