Riddle me this

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

um.

k.

I know I'm not a hypocrite, let me try to convince you of that (although in my current nicotine-deprived state, more effort is being spent backspacing over the dozen or so different variations of "cocksucker" that desperately want to occupy this space).

Thanks. I appreciate the effort and the (slightly) higher level discourse. I will do my part to repay the honor.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

First, let me make sure that I am hearing you correctly. You believe that as long as there are desperately poor people living in our country, there should be no exceedingly rich people.

Glad you asked. Let me be clear, I believe there will be poor, always. Sad, true, The Way Things Are. And a sincere "way to go" to the exceedingly rich. I know it's not all good, but there are worse problems to have.

The fact that there are people on both ends of the scale does NOT bother me. It is unavoidable, and therefore acceptable. We'll get to the "But..." in a minute.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The federal government should arbitrate who gets what;

No, again. YOU should arbitrate that, and I should arbitrate that and UT and all the rest of youse bums. We may choose to delegate the responsibility for the execution of our decisions to the "federal government", but I do not advocate abdication of my responsibility for my own actions, my own decisions.

We, as a people, a society, are obligated to arbitrate that. The mechanism for that distribution doesn't have to be just a single entity, like the feds. Indeed, it isn't today. Think of all the philanthropic organizations that "redistribute" the what to the who. And all the religious traditions I know anything about all exhort the believers to care for their brothers and sisters. Think about families that share. I know when I was out of work, the help we got was really appreciated, whether it came from family, church or the government (in my case, the state government)

And I want to make sure I mention individual giving. I know it sounds repetitious, but people give, give all the time. Out of their pocket and into the tin cup, dirty hand, volunteer roster, offering plate, charity drive, non-profit collections every day. All. The. Time.

Those decisions about who gets what come from individuals. People who think, and act.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

the more wealth you have accumulated, by whatever means, the greater percentage you must give to the government for redistribution, in whatever form. Right? Seems I've heard of that system before...

I'll take this fragment all together, jab and all. I DO believe in a progressive taxation system, and so do the great majority of Americans. It's the system we have, you know, tax "brackets", right? Nothing radical there. Chill out. I do believe

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx

Now you think I'm a communist, right? How about this one then?

Of those to whom much is given, much is required. John F. Kennedy

Flaming liberal you shout, eh? Perhaps you've heard it this way.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Jesus, Luke 12:48 NIV

Now what am I?

If you have more, you should give more. Where are you coming from that makes that a bad thing?

As to the "any means" part...the means do matter. A lot.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The job of government is not to redistribute the private assets of its citizens until everyone feels like they're getting what they deserve. Furthermore, most of the poor people I know (and I know plenty -- my family's full of em, and I myself was unemployed for 2 years until this January) are insulted by the idea that liberals think we are so fucking inept that those who have succeeded should be forced by the government to give us the crumbs off their table.

*sigh*

What's happening is that the current system is not fair, not by a country mile (or a thousand country miles). The reason it's not fair is that money buys influence and influence craves money and on and on in one great big circle jerk. The poor have very little voice in the matter. They have little voice because they have little to offer those that are in a position to make the rules. Unlike the very wealthy that can literally buy the attention of those that govern. You claim to speak for the poor. Well, so do I. And I am talking about what's in their best interest.

And if the poor have little voice, then the future generations have even less. Who, I ask you, who will pay for the increase in the debt this administration has incurred? Your children and their children. Not you. Not me. F'sho not the trust fund babies and the corporations. And because they're unable to protest, the get the shaft. Have you ever seen that joke about the sergeant asking for a volunteer and the whole rank of soldiers except one takes a step back? That hapless "volunteer" was given the role through the complicity of everyone else.

Today that everyone else is you and me and those whose hands are on the levers of power. We're all speeding along the same track, and some are stoking the fire and some are stomping the brake. Would you join the side that is striving to increase the disparity in wealth?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Maybe I would rather use my skills to better myself and my situation, and not suck off the teat of big government. Maybe I want to start my own business. Of course that likelihood recedes if I know that doing so successfully means that the fruits of my labor will be taken from me by force of law and given to those who didn't earn a damn penny of it.

Let's talk about what's in common here. Rich and poor alike have the same hours in a day. The vast majority are able bodied to some degree. That same majority has some visible means of support. Everyone has certain minimum consumptioni requirements, food, shelter. You agree with me so far, I'm sure. We may begin to diverge here.

As a society, we have affirmed other aspects of life as worthwhile, that every individual in our society can reasonably expect to enjoy. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Public education. Due process. Strong mutual national defense.

Do we still have some overlap? Left a lot out, I know. Here's another important section. Let me appeal to your self interest. So you want to be n entrepreneur? Great. What makes you willing to take the risk? Possible return? Low likelihood of having it fail, or stolen or federalized? What reduces that fear? A trust in the rule of law. You're willing to take personal and finacial risk BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. *sheesh*

Now this government, with all these aspects, costs money. And ya don't have to be an economist to know you just can't "print more." Obviously, government provides these benefits, secures these liberties, protects it's citizens, educates it's people using tax dollars. Not that difficult. Oh, and by the way, you can't pick and choose which policies you'll support with each dollar. I don't write my check to the IRS and then cut of a big hunk of it with my scissors cause I think the war in Iraq was/is a mistake. It's a package deal.

I'll go you one further. It is in your best interest as a potentially wildly successful entrepreneur to overseed the ground you tread on. An educated workforce is the veritable font of innovation. The more skilled minds and gifted hands you have at work out there, the more likely, no, the more often you'll see innovation, that's spelled with a capital $, by the way.

You'll want judges and law enforcement to protect your assets. You want people to be able to get to your store, on public roads and to have enough money to buy your whiz-bang-o-matic, right?

Ok, that last one is really about wages and not tax policy, but the point is that it takes money to make it all go around.

--continued--

[BigV]

--continued--

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Closing the gap, indeed. Shove a potato into the gap between your liberal fangs [/breathes deeply, imagines a cigarette].

*mute*

Dude, I'm not a liberal. I'm not insulted, but since we're gettin all honest with each other, I thought you should know. I'm a progressive. But the liberals, they're cool too! They're the people that brought you The Weekend.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Oh yeah, the hypocrisy thing. Why does the zero-sum idea apply to the potato farmer and not to the country as a whole? I'm no economist, so I can't answer in a way that will immunize me from jabs from intellectuals and arrogant pricks. But I know that the potato farmer is concerned about a far smaller set of economic factors than "the country" is. Raising the minimum wage to, say, $10/hour will run him out of business, and it really won't do the employee much good to win some kind of moral victory, yet still be out of a job.

No problem, I never mistook you for an economist anyway. Just be a man. Yourself. If it's cold outside and your hands are freezing, but your pockets are warm, why would you deny your hands the comfort of those warm pockets? Of course you wouldn't . But if you're out in the cold and you have a knit cap but no shoes, you have a problem. Sure, you might redistribute your cap to your feet, but now you have a cold head. And if you have only shoes, your head's just out of luck. If you need it and you have it you'll use it.

Now imagine you're a father and a husband. You have plenty of money coming in, would you let your children and your wife go shoeless cold and hungry? No, you'll share. Duh. I mean, they don't make the money, but all share.

Do you require the scorekeeper of your beer league softball team to count the runs you score as yours or the team's? You have surplus ammo and the other guy in your recon patrol is out? Share? Probably. Would you carry some of the items from the too heavy pack of one of your hiking buddies or leave the dope behind? Man, you share the burden all the time.

It's in the interest of the producer to have consumers that are able to complete the deal. Absent other motivating factors, why would a business pay a cent more for labor? How does starving a necessary aspect of the whole work toward the good of the whole?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

...sorry, back to the media bias thing.

Right. On the whole, you'd be far healthier if you smoked enough cigarettes that you could no longer see FOXNews on the tv across the room.

[LCanal]

[quote]those with more money should be somehow forced to feel the same amount of "suffering" as everyone else.

Just in case you don't know in Norway road traffic fines are a percantage of one's income. Maybe that would be a start in the US.

[lookout123]

Who, I ask you, who will pay for the increase in the debt this administration has incurred?

Hope it works this time. click onThe Budget Deficit Shrinks in the upper right.

The accompanying chart of quarterly data shows how overplayed are the acute deficit fears that have frozen investors from time to time for several years now. The data graphed here show the federal deficit (or surplus) as a percentage of GDP for the past 35 years. This ratio is the best way to analyze the deficit. The dollar figures can mislead because everything becomes larger in dollar terms over time, including also the economy, federal revenues, federal outlays, and, frequently, deficits. But even more than this need to get away from the up trend in all dollar figures, the ratio of deficits to GDP has analytical value because it states the liability right next to the ultimate means by which the government can discharge it. Here, it is evident that deficits have become much less burdensome than last year or in 2003. In fact, deficits have retraced almost half the distance from the worst of the red ink to balance. What is more, the deficits currently differ little from much of this long past experience. Today's red ink looks bad, of course, compared with the impressive surpluses of 1998-2000, but otherwise, today's burden looks lighter than in much of the 1990s, 1980s, and even the 1970s, when taxes skyrocketed.

Though the fear-mongering that has accompanied deficits looks misplaced in this context, it still would be misleading to suggest that federal finances are in good shape. Today's deficits may look manageable, but even the least bit of red ink carries an ominous quality when looking farther out on the horizon to see the nation facing the retirement of the baby-boomers and the financial strains that phenomena will place on Social Security and Medicare. Indeed, the prospect of these great long-term strains makes an argument for the government to try amassing surpluses in the near term or, at least, to balance its budget. Today's deficits, no matter how moderate in an historical context, will only make that future financial burden more difficult to bear.

Still, however much these distant burdens loom, the government's finances at present clearly do not burden financial markets, as some have suggested. Longer-term budget strains give cause for concern, but the fact is, stocks and bonds will rise and fall several times before the nation has to confront its fundamental burdens of Social Security and Medicare. In the interim, federal financial demands clearly are manageable.

Just so we are being somewhat accurate about the sky is falling and all that jazz. the deficit is not a good thing, by a long shot - but it has been worse and we've made it through - so let's keep that in mind.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

Now imagine you're a father and a husband. You have plenty of money coming in, would you let your children and your wife go shoeless cold and hungry? No, you'll share. Duh. I mean, they don't make the money, but all share.

And yet, if that wife had an affair and left the husband, taking the kids with her, he would all of a sudden feel really pissed off at having to still give them money for shoes and food. Charity and sharing only works when it is not required.

There have been tons of studies on the different types of incentives. Social and moral incentives rank way, way higher in people's minds than financial and punitive incentives. People would prefer to give because it feels good, not because they have to. Tell them they have to, and all of a sudden the social and moral incentives that might have been there in the first place are taken away from them.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by LCanal

Just in case you don't know in Norway road traffic fines are a percantage of one's income. Maybe that would be a start in the US.

Exactly my point. It's punitive. Used as a punishment for traffic violations, it deters people from breaking the law. Used as a basis for taxation, it deters people from becoming successful and contributing voluntarily.

[jaguar]

Then remove the numbers that bother you and answer the basic question.

Then ask the basic question and avoid trying to puff up your argument with spurious bullshit your made up because you thought it'd help your case.

To answer, I don't remember defining the minimum wage at a level that allowed someone to feed a family of four and put some back for college tuition. it should however be a living wage and I think that is doable without hyperinflation.

Maybe I would rather use my skills to better myself and my situation, and not suck off the teat of big government. Maybe I want to start my own business.

Hard to do that when you have no money, who's gonna lend you money? You have no assets. A government-subsidised small business loan might help. This is my point about social mobility you never addressed.

noodle - I challenge you to find me one person who said 'well, I could start a successful business, become wealthy and pay one arseload of tax which i'll do with by platinum card while on my yacht in the carribean but no, darn that progressive tax system! I'll work 60hrs a week in an office instead.

lookout - very, very few would pay more if they could get away with less no matter how low their tax burden. Secondly - surely the problem there is the holey tax system not the progressive system. I call bullshit on this whole idea that people would give more if they didn't have to. Sure, some people would but the vast majority would give nothing, particuarly to something as large and opque as government. Whether that is a problem in itself is another issue.

[mrnoodle]

I'll grant all your points about social mobility, and take my lumps on using unverified numbers. But we're still left with very basic questions that you still haven't answered. I'll reword them: Why should the federal government increase the percentage of income it takes from you to offset the costs incurred by its inability to wisely use the money it has already soaked you for? Why does "society," with all the grand implications of that term, owe anyone a living? What is the incentive for someone who manages a small business on family income to succeed in that business when they know at some point, they will be punished monetarily for it and that which they have honestly earned will be stolen and Robin-Hooded out to those who did not earn it? Furthermore, if they know this is to happen, what's the point of charitable giving on a personal level?

The people fanning the flames of class warfare are ultra-rich Boston trust fund Democrats, and the only reason they're doing it is for votes. Someone as smart as you should see that. Like I said, I know lots of poor people, and am almost poor myself. Any of us with any pride feels marginalized by the idea that some fat cat is telling his fellow fat cats that they owe us crumbs from their table. We'd far rather buy our own damn table with money we earned. That's not everyone, of course. The lazy ones are lazy at any income level. Don't fool yourself into thinking that everyone at a certain income level is some bluecollar hero who just can't get by because "the rich" took all the available money and left none for the lower classes.

As to your point about social mobility: it's damn hard to break out of a rut where you're not making any money and don't see any money coming in in the foreseeable future. Extremely hard. And nearly impossible if you have mouths to feed. But social mobility is not enabled by handouts. The gap between rich and poor doesn't close when you take away incentives for small business.

I know 2 people personally who owned small businesses in my town. One of them had such a tiny tiny profit margin that when the city came in and ordered him to dig a new septic tank, it took him 2 years to come up with the money. Luckily the second year was really good for him.....except it put his personal income into the next tax bracket, and he couldn't afford the CPA to tell him how to get around the loopholes. We're talking an ADDITIONAL $5,000 owed to the government, for making about $12,000 more.

In other words, all the extra work he did, all the extra hours and sweat, netted him abou $7k towards a (can't remember the number exactly...$11k?) construction project. Hmm. Who gets the pound of flesh? The city water board or the feds? He's automatically put in a position of having to cheat to get by. So, he sold the only saleable asset he had -- his truck -- and paid for the digging and got his taxes in on time. All this because he was considered "rich" by the standards of the left and therefore owed a greater percentage of his income.

Oh, but selling the truck meant that he couldn't run the delivery part of his business, which had been funding his shop for the past 3 years. Shop closed, land sold to a whitewater rafting outfit. The taxes he paid on the income from the sale must've been impressive, but I don't know what happened to him after that.

He didn't cheat or use loopholes, and was put out of business in part by unfair taxes. Well, he cheated a little. I worked for him part time for a few years and he paid me in fishing tackle and cash under the table. Paying unemployment insurance, payroll tax, workman's comp, and all the other garbage would've sunk him even sooner. This is the environment that liberals create in their lust to punish oil company executives and Republicans.

[warch]

Paying unemployment insurance, payroll tax, workman's comp, and all the other garbage would've sunk him even sooner. This is the environment that liberals create in their lust to punish oil company executives and Republicans.

I know many citizens who have been quite relieved to find they have pesky garbage like workers comp and funding as they look for new work, enabling them to keep their homes in the face of hospital bills or outsourcing. That allows them a chance to stay afloat.

Most of the small business owners I know that have struggled and failed (besides just having bad business sense, or faced smarter competition) have been most burdened by the cost of healthcare. Those that have succeeded have been greatly assisted by startup loans, small business grants, local city investments, and tax breaks. Also, having a community that can afford your product or services helps.

As a liberal, it’s true that I feel little, ok, no pity for the weasels at Enron or Walmart. Particularly when good workers of all levels get screwed out of earnings as the executive profits soar. Perhaps I'm silly, but I think that you can have ethical and strong, profitable, creative business. What you see as burden, I see as investment in creating a good place to live for the majority of people. Quality of life. I don’t want to live in the Midwest of Argentina.

“There isn't a single measure in which the U.S. excels in the health arena. We spend half of the world's health care bill and we are less healthy than all the other rich countries... Fifty-five years ago, we were one of the healthiest countries in the world. What changed? We have increased the gap between rich and poor. Nothing determines the health of a population more than the gap between rich and poor.”
— Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, School of Public Health, University of Washington

That Walmart manages to keep so many of their employees on government assisted healthcare that I must pay for, while they work and earn profits for, rather than take that responsibility....that's annoying. So there is a growing underclass, working their asses off, and they get even a little sick, or their kids, just a bit, and end up in the emergency room on my tab, probably far sicker and definitely more costly than if they had the security of care.

Is you state looking into this? From the Mpls Star Tribune:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. does not want Minnesotans to know how many of its workers in this state receive public health care assistance.

The world's largest retailer has denounced as a public-relations ploy legislation -- which some state legislators have dubbed the "anti-Wal-Mart bill" -- that would create a public list of companies whose workers are enrolled in MinnesotaCare and other government-funded health care programs.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based retail giant recently sent two executives to St. Paul to lobby against the bill, which the Legislature may vote on in special session this month. Wal-Mart also sent a two-page letter describing its health care benefits to every legislator in the state.

"This is not health care reform," said Nate Hurst, public and government relations manager for Wal-Mart. "This is a campaign against Wal-Mart."

But proponents of the bill, whose chief author is Sen. Becky Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, say the public has a right to know which employers have become a drain on the state's public health care system. They say the bill does not target Wal-Mart in particular but is meant to see how the state can work with companies to provide better health care programs.

In the last fiscal year, the state government spent $270.2 million for MinnesotaCare, a program that provides assistance for people who don't have access to affordable insurance. Yet no one in the state government knows which employers have the most workers enrolled in the program.

"If it's true what people say, that big multinational companies are outsourcing health care to taxpayers, then it would be good to have a handle on which ones," said Rep. Sheldon Johnson, DFL-St. Paul. "It's just information."

But it's information that Wal-Mart fears, and for good reason. In other states that have compiled such lists, Wal-Mart has come at or near the top among employers with workers enrolled in state medical assistance. Once such findings are made public, they can be used by opponents of Wal-Mart to stir up support for punitive measures against big-box retailers.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the Department of Health and Family Services reported last week that Wal-Mart employees topped the list of BadgerCare recipients, a state health care program for low-income residents.

A Wisconsin state representative has introduced a bill that would force big-box retailers to reimburse the state for providing the health care needs of their under-paid and under-insured employees.

The bill would place a graduated 1 percent to 2 percent tax on gross receipts on any store that exceeds $20 million in sales in a taxable year, and that allocates less than 10 percent of its payroll to health insurance for its employees. The bill applies only if the retailer fails to pay full-time, entry-level employees at least $22,000 a year, or about $10.58 per hour; or if more than 25 percent of the retailer's workforce is part-time. The revenue would go to the state's Medical Assistance trust fund. ...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Luckily the second year was really good for him.....except it put his personal income into the next tax bracket, and he couldn't afford the CPA to tell him how to get around the loopholes.

Um, when you enter a higher tax bracket, the higher rate doesn't apply to your entire income, just the amount over the bracket cutoff. You don't suddenly owe $5000 more when you enter a higher bracket.

[wolf]

Walmart does indeed provide health coverage for their full time employees.

You work part time, you don't get benefits, or in some cases, full benefits. That's not unusual.

Yes, I know that Walmart is frequently accused of making sure employees don't get enough hours to make full time ... but you don't have to work there. Retail is pretty much an open field. There's always the KMart. Or Target. Or the local stupidmarket chain.

[mrnoodle]

I don't know what other factors might have been present, I only go by what he complained about. As I said, he was utterly uneducated about finance, and I'm sure the line between the money he earned/spent personally and the money he earned/spent on the business was quite blurry. He also worked full time in manufacturing as a support tech.

That does bring up another issue about the tax code, though. It really should be something that's translatable by the average schmo. After all, the average schmo is footing the bill. If the money my friend lost was actually lost somewhere other than through taxes, and he was just an inept businessman, then that's the breaks. But for someone who doesn't have an MBA, and just wants to make a family-run business work, it's quite easy to get bumfuzzled.

So, if he lost $X thousand and saw that a simultaneous increase in his tax rate, there might not be a DIRECT cause/effect relationship, but isn't the outcome the same? I ask in all humbleness, not arguing here.

[Troubleshooter]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/666837/posts

Have we covered this yet?

Profiting from death? Lawsuit filed in Wal-Mart life insurance case
Houston Chronicle ^ | April 15, 2002 | L.M. SIXEL

Posted on 04/16/2002 4:15:37 AM PDT by ValerieUSA

Jane Sims always knew her husband was a valuable employee to Wal-Mart. She just didn't know how valuable. Sims discovered recently that Wal-Mart, the company her husband, Douglas, worked for before he died, had taken out a life insurance policy in his name. When Douglas Sims died in 1998 of a sudden heart attack, Wal-Mart received about $64,000. She got nothing from that policy.
"I never dreamed that they could profit from my husband's death," said Sims, whose husband worked in receiving at Wal-Mart's distribution center in Plainview for 11 years.

Companies routinely take out secret life insurance policies on the lives of their low-level employees and collect thousands of dollars when they die. The families never know the policies are in place and typically receive none of the money.
The policies are called corporate-owned life insurance policies or COLIs for short. But they're better known in the insurance industry as "dead peasant" and "dead janitor" policies.

...more...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

So, if he lost $X thousand and saw that a simultaneous increase in his tax rate, there might not be a DIRECT cause/effect relationship, but isn't the outcome the same? I ask in all humbleness, not arguing here.

I'm not sure what "lost $X thousand" means. Was his after-tax income actually $X thousand less in his good year than in his bad year? Or was his tax $X thousand more in a year where his income was $X*Y more?

[jaguar]

I'll grant all your points about social mobility, and take my lumps on using unverified numbers. But we're still left with very basic questions that you still haven't answered. I'll reword them: Why should the federal government increase the percentage of income it takes from you to offset the costs incurred by its inability to wisely use the money it has already soaked you for? Why does "society," with all the grand implications of that term, owe anyone a living? What is the incentive for someone who manages a small business on family income to succeed in that business when they know at some point, they will be punished monetarily for it and that which they have honestly earned will be stolen and Robin-Hooded out to those who did not earn it? Furthermore, if they know this is to happen, what's the point of charitable giving on a personal level?

Ok, let's break this down because you're lumping stuff together.
The key point, other stuff stripped is why does tax increase as income does. As far as I can see, society as a whole has deemed that those with more can afford to contribute more to the collective kitty we all benefit from in the forms of police, roads and floral clocks. Simple as that. Arguably the turrany of the majority in action but that's another point entirely.

Moving on to the other bits and pieces. I don't see the relevancy of efficiency of government spending, see above. As for owing a living, outside those who cannot work or have earnt their pensions, arguably society doesn't. Once again, clearly the majority feel that the severely disabled and the old deserve that, if not, I'm sure the 'boot the cripples onto the street' party would sweep in at the next election. Beyond that, that money doesn't just go into the pockets of the poor, it goes into the roads you drive your merc on, the airport you land the private jet on was probably built with government money and the marina for the yacht probably was as well.

I really don't get you on this small business stuff. Seriously. As I've said enough, I've never heard of someone not starting a business because their tax bracket might change. You don't seem to have a perfect grip of the tax system yourself and if your friend is totally uneducated at finance he should get himself a CPA, it's common bloody sense, would you go into a courtroom without a lawyer if you knew nothing without law? I don't see how moving up a tax bracket would cause him to have a lower income, the only kind of situations where that kind of thing could occur is if his business was so tiny as to fall outside the bottom bracket for things like having to apply sales tax. In which case he can't possibly have been living off it to start with. Should the tax code be more understandable? Same applies to law. The answer is that anything that has to deal with so many situations and complex financial arrangements is never going to be that simple, it's just not possible. There is also a governmental role here, good documentation and advice are important and good tax departments provide them.

From a purely economic standpoint your friend's business clearly wasn't competitive, that's what the market does, weeds out uncompetitive businesses. If you want to get all libertarian on my ass you better accept that. Pride? No-one's making you take out unemployment benefit or the small business loan, hardass. Class war? I'm calling them as I see them. Wanna talk about big money connections? Since '94 when DeLay and other misc. scum swept in they stuck a pretty sweet deal where the money goes to republican lobbyists and in exchange industry gets to write legislation, look at stuff like the failed energy bill for a particularly extreme example. There's wealth at the top of both political pyramids but this particular republican one seems notably scummier than most.