Taylor Swift Donates $5 Million to Hurricane Relief Efforts

[rooster59]

Trump signs tax, government spending bills into law

By Susan Heavey and Lisa Lambert

 

U.S. President Donald Trump signs the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul plan in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., December 22, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump signed Republicans' massive $1.5 trillion tax overhaul into law on Friday, cementing the biggest legislative victory of his first year in office, and also approved a short-term spending bill that averts a possible government shutdown.

 

Trump said he wanted to sign the tax bill before leaving Washington on Friday for his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, rather than stage a more formal ceremony in January, so he could keep his promise to finish work before Christmas.

 

"I didn't want you folks to say I wasn't keeping my promise. I'm keeping my promise," he told reporters in the White House.

 

The two pieces of legislation represent Trump's most significant accomplishment with Congress since taking office in January, as well as a sign of what awaits when he returns from Florida after the Christmas holiday.

 

The tax package, the largest such overhaul since the 1980s, slashes the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and temporarily reduces the tax burden for most individuals as well.

 

Trump praised several companies that have announced employee bonuses in the wake of the bill's passage, naming AT&T, Boeing, Wells Fargo, Comcast and Sinclair Broadcast Group.

 

"Corporations are literally going wild over this," he said.

 

Democrats had opposed the bill as a giveaway to the wealthy that would add $1.5 trillion to the $20 trillion national debt during the next decade.

 

The spending bill extends federal funding through Jan. 19, largely at current levels. It does nothing to resolve broader disputes over immigration, healthcare and military spending.

 

Republicans also are divided over whether to follow up their sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code with a dramatic restructuring of federal benefit programs.

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan has said he would like to revamp welfare and health programs but Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told National Public Radio on Monday that he was not interested in cutting those programs without Democratic support.

 

Trump's year also closes with significant turnover of many top staffers who had been in the White House since early in his term. On Friday, the White House confirmed Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn and Jeremy Katz, who worked under White House economic adviser Gary Cohn, were leaving.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-23

[MajarTheLion]

Yes, I read the great news. Now let's see some deep cuts in government spending to go along with the tax cuts. I'm sure the Democrats will be anxious to make a lot of spending cuts, given their concern about the tax cuts adding to debts and deficits. No doubt they're thinking about where they can cut "as we speak"- you know, since they're so concerned about debt and deficits. Right?

 

Also, there is some sort of "tax holiday" for corporations to repatriate funds back into the United States. Those funds will create plenty of new jobs and create more revenue to the Federal treasury. I'm sure everyone loves this aspect of the Trump tax cuts, right?

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-plan-repatriation-14-us-companies-with-most-cash-overseas-2017-9/#13-general-electric-1

Edited December 22, 2017 by MajarTheLion

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Also, there is some sort of "tax holiday" for corporations to repatriate funds back into the United States.

 

Why would they do that?

 

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Those funds will create plenty of new jobs and create more revenue to the Federal treasury.

 

Those funds will be used to buy back company shares and pay dividends to shareholders.  Absolutely nothing for the little guy who needs a job.

 

Meanwhile, republicans cut 1,800 billion in federal revenues but can't scrape together the 8 billion that would fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for five years?

 

[Scott]

A baiting post has been removed.   Continue and face a suspension.  

[MajarTheLion]

55 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Why would they do that?

 

 

Those funds will be used to buy back company shares and pay dividends to shareholders.  Absolutely nothing for the little guy who needs a job.

 

Meanwhile, republicans cut 1,800 billion in federal revenues but can't scrape together the 8 billion that would fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for five years?

 

Why would they do that? To increase business investment in the US.

 

Now... regarding your prediction of repatriated funds. Given the fact at least five corporations have already announced bonuses, raises, capital investments and charity, it appears there's no good basis for your prediction. Do you have any facts that support your speculation?

 

 

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Why would they do that?

 

 

Those funds will be used to buy back company shares and pay dividends to shareholders.  Absolutely nothing for the little guy who needs a job.

 

Meanwhile, republicans cut 1,800 billion in federal revenues but can't scrape together the 8 billion that would fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for five years?

 

 

Even the buybacks and dividend distributions will create a lot of taxable income. 8%-15% on the repatriation and 15%-20% capital gains on dividends and buybacks.

Edited December 23, 2017 by lannarebirth

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yes, I read the great news. Now let's see some deep cuts in government spending to go along with the tax cuts. I'm sure the Democrats will be anxious to make a lot of spending cuts, given their concern about the tax cuts adding to debts and deficits. No doubt they're thinking about where they can cut "as we speak"- you know, since they're so concerned about debt and deficits. Right?

So you want to see cuts in government spending...5555.  I know the right wingers always talk about cutting welfare, foreign aid, environmental protection, etc., but those things are tiny parts of the budget.  If you really want to make meaningful cuts, you'll have to look at entitlements.  Social security and medicare alone makes up over 60% of the US gov budget.  The US military makes up another 15%, but the GOP is talking about raising that.  Then you have interest on debt (untouchable), veterans benefits...where do you want to start?

[MajarTheLion]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

Even the buybacks and dividend distributions will create a lot of taxable income. 8%-15% on the repatriation and 15%-20 capital gains on dividends and buybacks.

As with many things, I don't think there is just one or two answers as to what will happen with the money. Obviously, the taxes you mentioned are a good thing. And we need to be clear that this taxation won't or would not have occurred with companies continuing to hide their money offshore. I suspect most if not all the money hidden offshore would have have meant 35% of it going to the federal government had it been kept onshore. When government taxes to the point that they've created a black market, or in this case created a market for hiding money, you know you've got a bad policy. We shall see how this works out revenue-wise and what job creation it leads to. More business money coming to the US? It's hard to say that's a bad thing to be sure.

[lannarebirth]

 

Quote

Meanwhile, republicans cut 1,800 billion in federal revenues but can't scrape together the 8 billion that would fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for five years?

 

Frankly, I'd like to see programs like this shitcanned, along with Medicaid and Medicare. I don't see any reason why certain segments of the population should be given free healthcare when other segments are not. Give it to everyone or give it to no one.  Medicare makes the least sense of all giving the relative wealth of old people.

 

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

As with many things, I don't think there is just one or two answers as to what will happen with the money. Obviously, the taxes you mentioned are a good thing. And we need to be clear that this taxation won't or would not have occurred with companies continuing to hide their money offshore. I suspect most if not all the money hidden offshore would have have meant 35% of it going to the federal government had it been kept onshore. When government taxes to the point that they've created a black market, or in this case created a market for hiding money, you know you've got a bad policy. We shall see how this works out revenue-wise and what job creation it leads to. More business money coming to the US? It's hard to say that's a bad thing to be sure.

 

It's a good thing it's coming back but I'd have handled it a different way if I had the opportunity. Rather than grant these corporations this benefit I'd have penalized them for holding the money offshore unless they were using it to invest in offshore expansion or legitimate offshore expenses.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

So you want to see cuts in government spending...5555.  I know the right wingers always talk about cutting welfare, foreign aid, environmental protection, etc., but those things are tiny parts of the budget.  If you really want to make meaningful cuts, you'll have to look at entitlements.  Social security and medicare alone makes up over 60% of the US gov budget.  The US military makes up another 15%, but the GOP is talking about raising that.  Then you have interest on debt (untouchable), veterans benefits...where do you want to start?

Actually, I'd like to see a good 20% or more cut in our defense budget. Democrats love cutting the defense budget, so it would be great to have a rare point of agreement. Social Security- the first thing we need to do is quit robbing the non-existent *trust fund*. If a corporation handled their pension fund the way Republicrats have handled the Social Security trust fund, Republicrats would be calling for people to be jailed. Actually, even that's not true anymore, Republicrats would be more likely be calling for a bailout. Sadly, our government loves rewarding mediocrity.

 

But specifically to your "tiny parts" point. There are many tiny parts and we should absolutely go after all of them. Our government is extremely wasteful. Americans have had to learn to do more with less for decades. It's long past time government take its turn doing so.

 

Medicare: we should continue to attack and prosecute fraud. That was one of the few highlights of the Obama administration. His Justice Department took down some pretty big fraud rings. The fact that they are there to begin with tells us there is poor oversight. Better oversight should be cost-effective and not affect legitimate patients with legitimate concerns..

[attrayant]

23 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Why would they do that? To increase business investment in the US.

 

Democrats had put a measure into the bill that would force companies to channel the extra revenue back into the workforce, which is what republicans claimed would happen.  Every single republican voted against it.

 

 

Quote

Now... regarding your prediction of repatriated funds. Given the fact at least five corporations have already announced bonuses, raises, capital investments and charity, it appears there's no good basis for your prediction. Do you have any facts that support your speculation?

 

Historically, supply-side economics has been a dismal failure.  A small handful of companies tossing some scraps to their workers (likely to curry favor with the administration) doesn't change that.  The AT&T bonuses, for example, were $1000.  But white house economists said the result of the corporate tax cuts would be around $4000 per employee.  Where is that other $3000 going?

 

Trump's chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, watches as a room full of CEOs are asked who will channel their tax break back into their company, and barely 4-5 hands go up.  Cohn, dumbfounded, asks "why aren't the other hands up"?

Edited December 23, 2017 by attrayant

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's a good thing it's coming back but I'd have handled it a different way if I had the opportunity. Rather than grant these corporations this benefit I'd have penalized them for holding the money offshore unless they were using it to invest in offshore expansion or legitimate offshore expenses.

Ideally, I agree with you. But a corporation big enough to have money to hide in the first place could probably game the system to give the illusion of the things you'd have been looking for anyway. I totally get and agree with the spirit of your sentiment, though.

[MajarTheLion]

Just now, attrayant said:

 

Democrats had put a measure into the bill that would force companies to channel the extra revenue back into the workforce, which is what republicans claims would happen.  Every single republican voted against it.

 

 

 

Historically, supply-side economics has been a dismal failure.  A small handful of companies tossing some scraps to their workers (likely to curry favor with the administration) doesn't change that.  The AT&T bonuses, for example, were $1000.  But white house economists said the result of the corporate tax cuts would be around $4000 per employee.  Where is that other $3000 going?

 

Trump's chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, watches as a room full of CEOs are asked who will channel their tax break back into their company, and barely 4-5 hands go up.  Cohn, dumbfounded, asks "why aren't the other hands up"?

I find your first point *interesting*. Our federal government can't even balance a check book. And we're going to empower them yet even more to tell others what to do with their own money? I would have certainly voted against that as well.

 

Where is the other $3,000 going? I don't know. Why do you think that's any of your business or mine?

[MajarTheLion]

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

Frankly, I'd like to see programs like this shitcanned, along with Medicaid and Medicare. I don't see any reason why certain segments of the population should be given free healthcare when other segments are not. Give it to everyone or give it to no one.  Medicare makes the least sense of all giving the relative wealth of old people.

 

I love the idea of getting government out of the health care business. Virtually anything they get involved with- prices go up. We pay half a billion dollars for an airplane.

 

To me, health care is very personal. I may want different coverage than you. You may think the coverage I want is silly. We are all different. But back to government and rising costs. Medicare costs overran original projections by 800% in the first 25 years of Medicare's existence. If you want the price of something to go up, get the federal government involved.

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Where is the other $3,000 going? I don't know. Why do you think that's any of your business or mine?

 

According to you, a lot of it is offshore now and you apparently think that is our business.  But more to the point, if you claim (just as an example) that you'll give $90 to charity if I give you $100, and then I say great but you need to sign a paper promising to keep your word, and then you refuse to sign said paper, what does that say about your original promise?

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

According to you, a lot of it is offshore now and you apparently think that is our business.  But more to the point, if you claim (just as an example) that you'll give $90 to charity if I give you $100, and then I say great but you need to sign a paper promising to keep your word, and then you refuse to sign said paper, what does that say about your original promise?

It's not according to me that a lot of money is offshore. That is verifiable fact. Government has chosen to make it their business and address the issue with tax policy in order to get that money invested in the US. So I'm not so sure I'd classify it as *my business* per se. As to your analogy, I don't see the relevance. Your example is one of contract law. The topic here is tax policy.

 

With that said, how many corporations have made specific promises as to what they would do with funds held offshore if given a tax break? Just who are these corporations specifically, and why would government craft legislation based claims made?

 

Oh but I did forget to reply to something in a previous post you made. Please link me to where the Trump administration predicted $4,000 bonuses for employees.

[lannarebirth]

20 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I love the idea of getting government out of the health care business. Virtually anything they get involved with- prices go up. We pay half a billion dollars for an airplane.

 

To me, health care is very personal. I may want different coverage than you. You may think the coverage I want is silly. We are all different. But back to government and rising costs. Medicare costs overran original projections by 800% in the first 25 years of Medicare's existence. If you want the price of something to go up, get the federal government involved.

 

I could live with government being in the healthcare business though I'm sure it would take them a couple of decades to get it right. Likewise I could live with an all privitized healthcare system. What i do not like is a half public half private type healthcare system.  I think that reality is what is driving healthcare costs sky high. Can you spot where this private healthcare company got access to the govt. trough?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by lannarebirth

[attrayant]

3 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I love the idea of getting government out of the health care business. Virtually anything they get involved with- prices go up. We pay half a billion dollars for an airplane.

 

But it buys them from a private company.  The government is involved in that transaction as a customer, not a supplier.  Are you suggesting that, if somebody else ordered that same airplane from Lockheed Martin, built to the same specifications, that it wouldn't cost the same?  And if that price is so outlandish, why are so many other countries buying our $500M airplanes? 

 

Maybe you could back that up with a few comparisons on drug prices in the US compared to, say Canada.  I'm sure the prices are a lot lower in the US due to all that non-interference by the government.

 

The federal government has bargaining power.  I used to be a government program manager in charge of buying software licenses from Microsoft and other vendors.  I got deep discounts compared to standard retail prices.  Any large entity has the power to haggle with its suppliers.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I could live with government being in the healthcare business though I'm sure it would take them a couple of decades to get it right. Likewise I could live with an all privitized healthcare system. What i do not like is a half public half private type healthcare system.  I think that reality is what is driving healthcare costs sky high. Can you spot where this private healthcare company got access to the govt. trough?

 

 

NYSE_UNH - Google Search.mhtml

Excellent. Government spots problem. Government decides to fix problem. Problem gets worse. Rinse and repeat. OK, so it's a bit cliche, but it's true.

 

I prefer a private health care system. Much of my belief is based a single principle. When you remove the consumer's exposure to the cost of a given product or service, the cost of that product or service is likely to go up. With health insurance the way it is run, there is no incentive for the consumer to shop around. But still, there are ways to save a lot of money. Example: I had a day procedure done on my prostate. Total cost to insurance: over $13,000. Cash price at Surgery Center of Oklahoma: less than $5,000. That's quite a range. That tells me there's plenty of room to negotiate and/or that there are people at the trough ripping us off. Without an incentive for the consumer to save, prices will continue to rise. Given government has a horrendous record at lowering the price of anything, I choose private health insurance as my preference.

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Oh but I did forget to reply to something in a previous post you made. Please link me to where the Trump administration predicted $4,000 bonuses for employees.

 

White House: $4,000 more for families with business tax cuts:

 

Quote

By slashing corporate tax rates, the Trump administration said Monday, the average U.S. household will get an estimated $4,000 more a year. This stunning 5 percent increase was met with skepticism from tax experts and Democratic lawmakers who said the math was flawed. 

 

Mark Mazur, director of the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, called the estimated income gains "absurd."

[MajarTheLion]

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

But it buys them from a private company.  The government is involved in that transaction as a customer, not a supplier.  Are you suggesting that, if somebody else ordered that same airplane from Lockheed Martin, built to the same specifications, that it wouldn't cost the same?  And if that price is so outlandish, why are so many other countries buying our $500M airplanes? 

 

Maybe you could back that up with a few comparisons on drug prices in the US compared to, say Canada.  I'm sure the prices are a lot lower in the US due to all that non-interference by the government.

 

The federal government has bargaining power.  I used to be a government program manager in charge of buying software licenses from Microsoft and other vendors.  I got deep discounts compared to standard retail prices.  Any large entity has the power to haggle with its suppliers.

In order to not pay half a billion dollars for the airplane, a different approach has to be taken from the start. If the word is out government is paying for it and you can charge government an arm and a leg, the plane is going to be expensive. If there is a private developer who is shrewd, cost-conscious and pays attention, that same plane will end up costing less.

 

As to drug prices in Canada versus the US, I concede I am no expert. However, I suspect there are two things that are part of the difference: development costs and litigation.

 

As for the federal government bargaining power, anyone can get deep discounts on software for buying in bulk. But it's funny you should mention that. When I was in the military, I stopped at a hotel. The lady at the counter asked me if I wanted the government rate. I asked her how much the room was. It seemed high, so I asked for the AAA rate. It was much lower. So I think I'll take the plethora of examples of government paying too much, and my own personal anecdote over your standard discounts on software.

[MajarTheLion]

10 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

White House: $4,000 more for families with business tax cuts:

 

 

A few points. First off, the estimate is per family. The bonuses mentioned are for individuals. Secondly, we are about 48 hours into the tax law. Thirdly, it's not even 2018. Fourthly, the estimate includes repatriation of funds held offshore. And lastly, I think $4,000 is an exaggeration. But time will tell. And obviously, two days after the passage of the bill is a bit premature to jump to any conclusions.

Edited December 23, 2017 by MajarTheLion

[MajarTheLion]

26 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I could live with government being in the healthcare business though I'm sure it would take them a couple of decades to get it right. Likewise I could live with an all privitized healthcare system. What i do not like is a half public half private type healthcare system.  I think that reality is what is driving healthcare costs sky high. Can you spot where this private healthcare company got access to the govt. trough?

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't see the chart the first time I looked at your reply. I find it interesting that volume decreased as the price went up. That goes against fundamentals. On the other hand, look at when the steady trend up began. And yes, I realize that's precisely the point. And I agree 100%.

Edited December 23, 2017 by MajarTheLion

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

A few points. First off, the estimate is per family. The bonuses mentioned are for individuals. Secondly, we are about 48 hours into the tax law. Thirdly, it's not even 2018. Fourthly, the estimate includes repatriation of funds held offshore. And lastly, I think $4,000 is an exaggeration. But time will tell. And obviously, two days after the passage of the bill is a bit premature to jump to any conclusions.

Well, one thing that has already been establilshed is that there are going to be a lot more loopholes than expected thanks to the sloppy and hurried way that the bill was written.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, one thing that has already been establilshed is that there are going to be a lot more loopholes than expected thanks to the sloppy and hurried way that the bill was written.

Your tax dollars at work. While definitely sad, this is certainly nothing new. Oh but I would add  that many if not most of the loopholes aren't an accident at all, but by design.

 

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

In order to not pay half a billion dollars for the airplane, a different approach has to be taken from the start. If the word is out government is paying for it and you can charge government an arm and a leg, the plane is going to be expensive.

 

The point of my last point is that you can't just arbitrarily decide to charge government an arm and a leg.  Have you heard of the GSA schedules?  No, F-35s don't appear on the GSA schedule, but a lot of things do.

 

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

If there is a private developer who is shrewd, cost-conscious and pays attention, that same plane will end up costing less.

 

So all we need is a private developer for F-35 combat fighters... problem solved!  Lockheed Martin is already a private company.  What exactly do you mean by "private developer" and how can you be sure that it would have the investment capital, technology and human resources needed for such huge megaprojects that are typically needed by the federal government? 

 

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

As to drug prices in Canada versus the US, I concede I am no expert. However, I suspect there are two things that are part of the difference: development costs and litigation.

 

Tort reform in Texas had no impact on healthcare costs.  There were a lot fewer lawsuits, as expected, but healthcare costs didn't go down.  Gee I wonder where all those "savings" went.  This is good evidence that, in a profit-driven healthcare system, cost reductions don't always get passed on to the consumer.

 

2 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

As for the federal government bargaining power, anyone can get deep discounts on software for buying in bulk. But it's funny you should mention that. When I was in the military, I stopped at a hotel. The lady at the counter asked me if I wanted the government rate. I asked her how much the room was. It seemed high, so I asked for the AAA rate. It was much lower. So I think I'll take the plethora of examples of government paying too much, and my own personal anecdote over your standard discounts on software.

 

That's your prerogative.  Why did the hotel have several different rates that you could choose from?  Who in their right mind would opt for the higher rate in your anecdotal example?

[Ricardo]

I'm not American, so don't have a dog in the political-race, but do wonder why taxes are being cut, when the US is running a fiscal-deficit ?  And how much credit can lobbying take for that ?

 

Is it because the economic-experts think more stimulus is still needed, to boost the feel-good factor & consumer-spending, I thought unemployment was now reasonably low & the economy growing at a reasonable rate already ? 

 

Or else why have the Fed felt able to finally start edging-up interest-rates at last, this year ?

 

With no major wars or disasters on-the-horizon, why isn't the US-government now starting to pay-down its outstanding debts, will the money returning from offshore & the one-off bonuses to the workers (and no doubt massively-bigger ones to the bosses too) really generate enough extra-activity & extra-tax to increase the overall tax-take enough to finally start to do that ?

 

I'd like to understand better, what's really going on here.

[lannarebirth]

49 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

The point of my last point is that you can't just arbitrarily decide to charge government an arm and a leg.  Have you heard of the GSA schedules?  No, F-35s don't appear on the GSA schedule, but a lot of things do.

 

 

So all we need is a private developer for F-35 combat fighters... problem solved!  Lockheed Martin is already a private company.  What exactly do you mean by "private developer" and how can you be sure that it would have the investment capital, technology and human resources needed for such huge megaprojects that are typically needed by the federal government? 

 

 

The problem is the nature of the contract. No real incentives to control costs.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/16.306#

[Berkshire]

17 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

I'm not American, so don't have a dog in the political-race, but do wonder why taxes are being cut, when the US is running a fiscal-deficit ?  And how much credit can lobbying take for that ?

 

Is it because the economic-experts think more stimulus is still needed, to boost the feel-good factor & consumer-spending, I thought unemployment was now reasonably low & the economy growing at a reasonable rate already ? 

 

Or else why have the Fed felt able to finally start edging-up interest-rates at last, this year ?

 

With no major wars or disasters on-the-horizon, why isn't the US-government now starting to pay-down its outstanding debts, will the money returning from offshore & the one-off bonuses to the workers (and no doubt massively-bigger ones to the bosses too) really generate enough extra-activity & extra-tax to increase the overall tax-take enough to finally start to do that ?

 

I'd like to understand better, what's really going on here.

You're right, actually, it doesn't make any sense.  Our corporations are already making record profits.  So to give them even more profits...well, it's going to reward corporate officers and shareholders.  The mission of corporations is not to create jobs or eliminate inequality.  It's to make profits for its owners (i.e., shareholders).  They, as well as hedge funds and the like, can afford lobbyists.  The average American cannot.  They are the ones who put politicians in office and they get to decide how to make laws to benefit themselves.  The lobbyists have got our Congress by the balls.  Money talks, BS walks.