|
|
|
AT&T donated almost $1 million to lawmakers who petitioned for their acquisition of T-Mobile
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 21 September, 2011
Yesterday, 100 House Republicans signed a letter that urged the current administration to end the DOJ lawsuit and let AT&T purchase T-Mobile for $39 billion.
Today, Bloomberg is reporting that 99 of those 100 reps have received political donations from AT&T since 2009, raking in a total of $963,275.
Earlier this month, surprisingly, AT&T's bid to buy the rival carrier was blocked by ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
23. September 2011 @ 00:10 |
Link to this message
|
pmshah, why do you have 4 posts in a row which is a forum rule violation?
12. Repeated posts to increase total number of posts is not allowed. Especially if your message is the last in the thread, edit it rather than post a new message.
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
ps355528
Senior Member
|
23. September 2011 @ 00:18 |
Link to this message
|
It's called corruption and conflict of interest.. and it's up to US.. y'know.. THE PEOPLE THESE CRIMINALS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR.. to do something about it.. every few years these bastards want our votes to secure them a few more years to shove their noses in the trough.. it's the ONLY time we get ANY SAY in how our countries are run.. not democracy, plutocracy.. so get out there on the streets and make it known exactly who got paid what, and what for.. and while you are at it see if they declared their illegal bribe windfalls and paid tax on them.. bet they didn't!!!
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/09/22/oc...e-to-manhattan/
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. September 2011 @ 00:19
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
23. September 2011 @ 00:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
All the readers arguing on the subject is not going to yield any positive result.
AT&T has money and desperately needs additional spectrum. There is no way in the world they would have agreed to part with both if there was even a remotest chance of the merger not being approved. So you can take is that the matter is going to drag on till the next presidential election approaches. The democrats will stop opposing as their funds dwindle and need replenishing. The republicans have already sold out.
BTW any idea of the party wise breakup of those 99 representatives? Might prove interesting!
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
23. September 2011 @ 00:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
pmshah, why do you have 4 posts in a row which is a forum rule violation?
12. Repeated posts to increase total number of posts is not allowed. Especially if your message is the last in the thread, edit it rather than post a new message.
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
I am sorry and will not repeat it. I was not quite sure as to how to club responses to different readers in a single post. I guess I have some learning to do.
|
Senior Member
|
23. September 2011 @ 05:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by pmshah:
All the readers arguing on the subject is not going to yield any positive result.
AT&T has money and desperately needs additional spectrum. There is no way in the world they would have agreed to part with both if there was even a remotest chance of the merger not being approved. So you can take is that the matter is going to drag on till the next presidential election approaches. The democrats will stop opposing as their funds dwindle and need replenishing. The republicans have already sold out.
BTW any idea of the party wise breakup of those 99 representatives? Might prove interesting!
AT&T antitrust case gets a trial date. (February 13th 2012)
http://cnet.co/nYDPUA
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. September 2011 @ 05:20
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
23. September 2011 @ 18:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mrguss:
AT&T antitrust case gets a trial date. (February 13th 2012) http://cnet.co/nYDPUA
I suppose they hope everyone will have Holiday amnesia or something by then & forget about them? Possibly try for one more pay-o-la thrust into the congressional pockets for a Valentines Day vote?
|
|
FreddyF
Junior Member
|
24. September 2011 @ 07:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by rick_la:
As Americans, each of us must fiercely defend free speech, but here is the problem with their free speech ruling, I can only afford $100 worth of free speech and AT&T can afford $963,275 worth of free speech.
If I remember correctly they also said something like $1 = 1 vote when it comes to lobying. Mt question is, why are corporations allowed to contribute when they are not allowed to vote. In fact the corporation in this case is a proxy for the stockholders and acting in their interest not in the interest of the company. Only registered voters should be allowed to donate and that should be limited to something like $20/ year. An amount almost everyone can afford.
Quote:
I hear/read it every day from Americans being interviewed, saying that everyone should allow Corporations and Billionaires free rein and keep their tax rates lower than the tax rate paid by the middle class, since the rich are the ones that create jobs.
Obvoiusly you have not thought things out, corporations don't pay taxes, only people pay taxes. When the Government taxes a corporation, the customers pay not only the tax, but the cost for recordkeeping and reporting for that tax which is frequently more than the tax itself. The cost for the tax is just added to the cost of the products, and the politicians know this as does the press. They just assume a majority of the people are too stupid or trusting to understand, and they are correct. In reality, raising taxes on corporations hurts the the people and the economy.
You are watching the news too much and not looking at the facts. The number of people making over $1 million a year and paying a lower rate than people making less than $1million is very small, just over 1k and requires very specifiv things the government wants people to do. Government's fault not millionares. In general "Rich" people pay far more than everyone else in both total taxes as well as effective tax rates. Obama is attempting to shift the blame and start a class war in hopes he will get reelected. He is in that class he calls "Rich" although not by his own efforts. His ghost written "biographies", which apperantly he has not read as he contradicts all the time, are what have made him his millions. The numbers are there if you look.
Quote:
Weren’t these the guys/gals making tens and hundreds of millions a year that plunged us into this crappy economy? I am trying to understand, how does bowing down work, we give tax breaks to billionaires, hoping and wishing they will create new jobs with the money.
Again, in reality this is not true. Some people did take advantage of government regulations to make money, as we all do, but the fact is our governments (not just the US, although they probably had a larger part in it) created this mess. The whole morgtage bust was totally their fault and they know it. Again do the research, the information is there.
Quote:
we all know Billionaires are too smart to just create jobs for no reason…like everyone else, they will only create jobs when they have someone willing to buy whatever these new employees produce. We have come to accept that we shouldn’t raise taxes on the rich, since that will drag down the economy, but I propose that we should tax the rich and use that tax money to give tax breaks to the middle class. That will without any doubt stimulate spending and spending will stimulate the economy and as we know, a stimulated economy will create job growth.
We have been sold a theory, that if we raise the taxes on the rich, then the rich won’t create jobs. I am trying to understand this concept, and if I am missing something, then please explain it to me using dollars and cents. As an example, let’s say Billionaire Mr. Rich’s tax rate increases from 15% to 30%. Also assume that this rich person plans on hiring a new employee for $60,000, and that the employee will increase their revenues by $100,000, yielding a $40,000 net profit. At their current rate of 15%, their after tax profit = $34,000, but if they are taxed at 30%, their after tax profit = $28,000. Anybody who would give up $28,000 because their tax went up by $6,000 won’t be a Billionaire very long.
Again, you need to look at the numbers. The problem is not with taxes at all. The problem is Government spending and regualtion. Billionares are too smart to create new jobs when it will cost them more than they could possibly make. The current economy, taxes and very expensive regulations make it almost impossible to make money. They won't create more jobs until that changes, and untill the government starts helping economic growth rather than hurting it. The theory about raising taxes is correct, check your history. Increased taxes decreases the economy, always has, what has changed to change that?
The one thing that has changes is the government has consistantly increased spending well past the sustainable level. Regardless of the tax rate tax revenue stays at about 19% of GDP. Logically the government should do whatever they can to improve the economy even if that means reducing taxes on the people who are in a position to spend more. THe middle class isn't spending more when they get more money, they are too worried about losing their jobs! They are paying off their debt and saving. Also a historical fact in a bad economy. Besides, you could tax the "Rich" at 100% and still not balance the budget the first year, and because of the negative effect that would have on the economy, the next year's spending on social programs would skyrocket and revenue will plumet.
Educate yourself and you would see the Fair Tax is the most logical solution. Basically no taxes except a national sales tax with credits to everyone for the cost of basic necessaties. Also as everyone who is not living with their parents knows, you have to control spending, yet our own government can't grasp this basic concept. It's very simple, but is constantly rejected bacause it limits their power. We all are being screwed by political power struggles in our own government.
Ploiticians have to start looking out for what is best for the country and not themselves, unfortunately that is counter to the definition of the word politician, as well as their actions.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
24. September 2011 @ 09:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Although we are a third world / developing country I think we have a better and smarter tax structure.
The founder of the largest Indian private sector corporation, Reliance Industries, had worked out some method of reinvesting whereby they never paid taxes. At that point of time there was ZERO tax on the dividends paid out. It was taxed at the individual recipient level.
The government quickly plugged that loophole with an amendment requiring minimum tax % for the corporates. Now we have a straight 40% tax on corporate net taxable income. There is further 10% tax of dividends paid out. There is no further tax on these amounts.
At personal level there is zero income tax below a fairly decent subsistence level income for a family of 4 which goes up to 33⅓ % at the maximum. With this new level the governments' estimates have proven wrong for the past 5 years. Their collection has exceeded their yearly estimate in less than 9 months. every year!
BTW remuneration paid out to every employee - in excess of a certain amount - regardless of form (salary, bonus, holidays, medical benefits or what have you - HAS to be precisely detailed in annual general reports, which can be questioned by any shareholder.
|
|
