Why are we a divided Nation?

It's called the Small Business Administration. Another source is the US Census Bureau and another is the US Commerce Department.

The Tax Foundation says 5% of businesses are corporations, but that includes all corporations, including personal service corporations, professional corporations and businesses incorporated under subchapter "S" or S-Corps as they're commonly known, and none of those three groups can legally sell stocks.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ase/data/tables.html

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/econ/susb/2015-susb-annual.html

As you can plainly see, 85% of corporations that can sell stocks have less than 20 employees, 96% less than 100 employees and 99% have fewer than 500 workers.

Corporations do have a greater volume of revenues -- not profits, but revenues -- but that is due to part to the fact that corporations tend to sell big-ticket items, like durable goods.

When you start a business, you need start-up Capital.

A bank will laugh in your face if you ask them for $6 Million.

The government won't lend you $6 Million.

But the venture capitalists -- the 1% you hate -- will give you $6 Million.

That's how jobs are created.

That $6 Million isn't free...you have to pay it back and pay it back with interest, because $6 Million can only be loaned to one person/group -- you know, because of the Laws of Physics -- and your interest rate will be determined by competition and risk.

Your loan will likely be in the form of a promissory note, a written contract that spells out the details of the loan and repayments, because it falls under the statute of frauds which has nothing to do with fraud and everything to do with certain things that must be writing to be valid.

If your business is successful and you pay back the 1% you hate, maybe you want to do an IPO or not, If you enjoy the control you exercise over your company, you'll shy away from an IPO.

 

Except you don't need them to do that, and they won't do it anyway.

This is what you want....

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Section 1

No person or organization shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to a campaign or candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.

Section 2

Political parties shall disburse monies only within the State in which the campaign funds were raised, donated or accumulated, and shall not transfer monies to other States.

Section 3

Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount of money, goods or services or tangible property transferred or conferred upon the candidate, campaign or ballot measure.

Section 4

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In plain English, if you cannot vote for a candidate, then you cannot contribute money or any services in-kind.

That means people like George Soros can only contribute money to presidential candidates, to his two senators and no other senators in other States; to his congressional representative for his district and no other congress-critters anywhere in the US; to gubernatorial candidates in his State and no other States; to the State senators and representatives that represent him in his State and no others; to his candidates for county offices in the county in which he resides and no other counties anywhere in the US; to mayorial and council candidates in the city in which he resides and no other cities anywhere in the US.

That also means he can only contribute monies to ballot measures in his State of residence and not contribute monies for or against ballot measures in other States, like casino gambling, marihuana legislation, pharmaceutical drugs etc etc.

Yes, that means businesses, unions, think-tanks, policy groups, PACs, lobbyists and the like cannot contribute any money to any candidate or ballot issue.

That means all political candidates and ballot issues are funded privately.

That would open up the flood-gates, because you'd now have half-a-dozen to a dozen candidates in a congressional primary, and then several candidates including 3rd Party candidates to choose in primaries and elections, because everyone can afford to run for political office.

 

Courtesy Capitalism. I wonder if you know how much the tax rate is for the rich?

It's more than I'm paying by far.

 

You think that's lower than suggesting black people will do anything for a dollar? Wow.

 

Things are already beyond the control of the moderate Left, because the moderate Left is rapidly being demonised out of existence. It's not unlike when the Church was in control, and citizens dared to skip church on Sundays. They may well have believed just as they always did, but they didn't demonstrate it publicly. That could not be tolerated. Progressivism will be a religion before the next decade is out, guaranteed.

Meantime, there's no possible way Progs will ever adopt communism.They are utterly depedent upon their infinite liberties and middle class lifestyles. A poor, rural, arch-conservative is probably vastly more able to adapt to collectivism, than a Progressive. And yes, that irony is particularly delicious

 

That is a good point, DA, and quite true. However, you're talking about the old Left .. before they got religion.

 

And that's also a good point.

 

Yes, as they are legally free to do.

 

Though of course, they would have been free to refuse service.

 

So why the rush to replace the old religion with a new one? (you don't need a deity to be religious). Shouldn't we be aiming for liberal atheism, and avioding all ideologies?

 

Because they didn't want to bake it.

 

Of course you wouldn't. That would be FAR too much like socialism.

Anyone bothering to read my posts .. see my earlier point about Progressives' hatred of collectivism.

 

I pains me to say this, as a Leftist, but the assumption they mean well is a bit of a misfire. I think they're just lazy and easily seduced, unfortunately. IOW, instant and easy approval of 'compassion', is a really seductive replacement for action.

 

You mean ... mutually interdependent, community conscience, very little crime, answerable to each other, responsible, no homeless, no addicts, no gamblers, clean living, fit and healthy due to all that farming? Sounds positively TOXIC (to the average Progressive)!

 

Worth remembering that Private Property laws trump such service laws. In which case, it's legal to refuse entry or service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. Just as it is in your home.

 

Lack of meaningful external enemies first and foremost. Human populations always find reasons to form tribes and fight and compete. Many of us are relatively unintelligent and paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories and prejudices. Every nation is, in reality, a divided nation.

Now, in our case, the whole dynamic is also being exacerbated by certain influencing agents, whether that's the liar in chief, the fake news on right right and alt-right, or foreign disinformation agents. They all serve to make things a bit worse, and they are all helped immensely by the internet, of course.

 

So we agree on forcing beliefs. Good. Maybe there's hope!

 

The bakers refused to participate in a ceremony that was against their religion.. in this case a gay "wedding". The bakers had no problem, otherwise, serving customers who may or may not be homosexuals,; I doubt they'd even ask or care.

 

You are incorrect. One may not legally refuse goods, services, employment or housing based on the persons protected class. One must also accommodate those with disabilities.

 

I don't know if you come in in the middle or if you just don't understand when someone questions another person. But it's annoying.

 

Again, private property laws trump THOSE laws.

It is perfectly legal in a private property (aka, your home or your business) to 'refuse entry or service to anyone, at any time, for any reason'. It's also perfectly legal to refuse to give a reason for the first refusal.

What you're talking about is a law pertaining to 'reasons' .. which is quite a different thing altogether. If you - as the private property owner or representative - give no reason (and no sane person does), then those laws don't apply.

It's pretty simple, actually.

 

Their mistake was in TELLING the customer why they were refusing to make the cake. Incredibly stupid. You have to wonder what their motivation for that was ... grandstanding?

Sensible business owners just ask the person to leave, or say 'we're closed now, sorry', or whatever doesn't involve any personal attribute or activity of the potential customer.

 

Their mistake was in TELLING the customer why they were refusing to make the cake. Incredibly stupid. You have to wonder what their motivation for that was ... grandstanding?

Sensible business owners just ask the person to leave, or say 'we're closed now, sorry', or whatever doesn't involve any personal attribute or activity of the potential customer.

 

I really want you to be right, but that only works when denying services to white males. Everyone else will have their lawyers come up with a reason.

 

I think supporting Trump raises the bar for being low