I didn't single out corporations
Yes, you did — you are in full agreement with Dutchmaan as evidenced by your own talk of "complete control" and "gorging".
So, answer the question: are you challenging the assertion that corporations are in complete control and gorging themselves at the public trough?
This piece of rustic but still colorful rhetoric is too vague too agree or disagree with. Debating this is pointless — it will come down to trying to nail jellybeans like what constitutes "completeness" of control.
1) Obama would've gotten the vast majority of the black/poor (your cell video) vote without giving away cell phones
Not at all obvious. And, of course, it was not just the cell-phones — many people expected something: "free" healthcare, "free" college education, etcaetera. Those people "gorge themselves", as you put it, at the public trough and/or want to. That Obama got elected — despite being a junior senator (from a State famous for its corruption) without any notable accomplishment to his name — suggests rather strongly, it was that expectation of "spreading the wealth around" he promised, that helped him.
2) The cost of Obamaphones doesn't even qualify as a gnat's eyelash when compared the the largesse handed out to the corporations
Complete and utter bullshit. The single largest and dominating "hand out" given by the US government to KKKorporations (the proper spelling in the rants like yours, BTW) is for the military — planes, tanks, ships et al. It is big, but it is dwarfed by the costs of "War on Poverty", which costed the "public trough" more (inflation-adjusted), than all of the USA's real wars combined. Indeed, the much maligned Military-Industrial Complex, that Illiberals constantly complain about, constitutes "only" 13% of federal spending today less than education (14%) and healthcare (22%) (on which no tax monies should be spent at all). Now, which of these is a "gnat's eyelash"?
With both of your "clues" crumbled, I would not be surprised, if you claimed a sudden "lack of time" for debating me further. But let me answer your other questions, in case you decide to become a better human being by educating yourself quietly...
Why would I?
I don't know, why you would, but you did — by putting "confiscating the monies" into quotes.
Whatever term is your preference, government needs funds to operate.
Federal Income Tax did not exist in the US until 1913 — earlier attempts to introduce it were deemed unconstitutional by the courts. (My point here is not to question its constitutionality, but to show, how it is unnecessary.) Yes, I prefer the term "confiscate", because it is more to the point. "Collect" may apply to donations as well as willing purchases, whereas "confiscate" unmistakably refers to involuntary payments.
Yes, government needs to collect taxes, but their levels in today's Western world are outrageously high and a burden on our growth.
Let's hear it! (anarchy doesn't count)
Anarchy my behind — not forcing people to "help the poor" is not anarchy. What taxes would I approve of? Consider the following hypothetical scenario: a town facing an assault by barbarians... They need to organize fighting units, train, arm and feed them, and build fortifications — so they can confiscate money and food, disassemble wrought-iron fences to make pikes, melt church bells into cannon, conscript non-fighters into construction, and the like. In other words, taxation is justified, when the alternative is destruction and death of those taxed and most others.
But it does not have to be all about defense even — the US funded its participation in WW1 (where none of the belligerents have threatened us any more than Saddam Hussein did 90 years later) with Federal Income tax receipts of less than $100 million (less than 0.3% of the country's then-GDP) — how do you justify today's personal income tax of $1.7 trillion (8% of GDP)? You can't — not without the people (rather than corporations) voting themselves monies confiscated from others — and gorging on it.