|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 0:04:21 GMT -5
Post by jakesrocks on Feb 13, 2013 0:04:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 0:47:27 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 13, 2013 0:47:27 GMT -5
Closing tax loopholes so corporations, profiting billions a year, pay more than the 0% some of them get away with sounds like a SOS to you?
You'd rather they take away medicare like the Republicans keep pushing for?
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 11:45:33 GMT -5
Post by Sabre52 on Feb 13, 2013 11:45:33 GMT -5
The only problem Democrats continue to ignore is corporations are responsible to their stockholders and will try to keep up profits no matter what the government does. In the end, they simply pass on to consumers, most of extra costs caused by government hassles, credit cuts, loophole closures, and over regulation.
So, Obama screws the gas and oil and coal industries and the government gets more money to waste. Meanwhile, consumers pay for higher food, transportation, fuel, heating, and electrical costs. In the end, it's always the folks that pay and the government that takes in money most of which it wastes, as no one operates in a more inefficient and crooked manner than government.
Meanwhile, businesses, in order to preserve profits, not only pass on costs to consumers but they lean down, lay off workers, hire more part time folks to cut perk costs, and go to other countries where it's cheaper to operate thus costing us even more jobs. It's a vicious circle of endless screwing. *L* The government screws businesses and workers, the businesses screw consumers and lay off more workers until more folks go on the dole, foodstamps etc., then the government is screwed because it has to pay all the folks on the dole and to pay for that, it has to screw business and workers even more *L*.
I know you don't agree Helen, but unless we have a total government takeover, with price controls on everything, which I'm sure is Obamie the Commie's wet dream, big corporations will just keep perking along. The one's who wind up paying the bill when they buy anything, are still the working class whether high paid executive or lowly janitor....Mel
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 13:42:54 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 13, 2013 13:42:54 GMT -5
They can pass on the costs if they have a monopoly. But few do. If GE, who paid 0% tax in 2009, decided to raise appliance prices 39% to cover their taxes (on 10 BILLION dollar pure profits after all expenses), everyone would buy Whirlpool or Maytag instead. Let em raise prices, it's a boon to their competitor and the wreckage of their stock.
If PapaJohn's raised their pizza prices by 20%, everyone would get Domino's or Little Caesar's or Pizza Hut instead.
If Walmart raised their prices 10%, mom and pop retail might have a fighting chance to survive.
If Chrysler raised the prices of cars 10%, Toyotas and Ford would sell more cars.
This is capitalism, and no one has ever proposed that the US change the way we do business.
Please keep in mind that only a few corporations try to cheat and steal from the Fed with excessive tax deductions. You can check their stock statements directly for all public stocks to see exactly who the deadbeat corporations are... and they ALL have competitors who pay their fair share of taxes and who would gloat hard if they tried to 'pass the costs' on to the consumer. It would mean the end of their business, and that's not going to happen.
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 13:54:43 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 13, 2013 13:54:43 GMT -5
And Mel, with your knowledge of agriculture, imagine if Monsanto suddenly had to give up their excessive and unfair corporation tax deductions... how many small family farms might that save?
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 13:58:42 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 13, 2013 13:58:42 GMT -5
One more thing... what makes you think I disagree? The argument you just made was 100% accurate when Reagan came to office. I've made the same exact argument myself.
Absolutely, at the time, crippling corporations with 75% tax rates which is what Reagan was elected into, was causing MASSIVE inflation, with prices constantly rising, sometimes weekly. 75% was too much, but it was still lower than the 92% corporations paid in the 1960s. It was NECESSARY to stop that price increase, to stop that inflation, to help the economy. And that was done... and done... and done some more... and now...
Today, for some corporations it's 0. That's Z E R O paid in Federal taxes, on BILLIONS in profit. All that profit that gets socked in foreign bank accounts, they simply cannot spend it all, except on political contributions (which is tax deductable TOO).
It's a wonder we have a deficit? You don't like the deficit. You've said this over and over again. Could having ZERO income from ZERO paying Corporations who used to pay 92% have to do with that?
And I'll say it again, I was a Reagan Republican. But like you sometimes have to prune a tree for more growth, you simply cannot cut it off at the roots and expect it to survive.
|
|
lparker
fully equipped rock polisher
Still doing too much for being retired!
Member since March 2008
Posts: 1,202
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 16:10:48 GMT -5
Post by lparker on Feb 13, 2013 16:10:48 GMT -5
I really hate to jump in here, but the only money the government wastes is the money they send overseas. All the money spent here gets recycled. Now if "WE" refuse to buy from overseas, more money would be recycled here and we'd be way better off.
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 17:13:38 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 13, 2013 17:13:38 GMT -5
lee... that's not entirely true. The US gov't LOANS money overseas, they don't usually 'give' money. Most of that aid money has a repayment schedule, they just don't talk about that for some reason.
|
|
lparker
fully equipped rock polisher
Still doing too much for being retired!
Member since March 2008
Posts: 1,202
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 17:33:05 GMT -5
Post by lparker on Feb 13, 2013 17:33:05 GMT -5
Because for the most part they write it off as "good will"??
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 17:49:25 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 13, 2013 17:49:25 GMT -5
Well no... while there are instances of actual no strings aid, most of the aid developed countries give undeveloped countries have massive strings attached, benefiting the 'donor' country. Here's from Wiki, which only touches on it: Aid conditionality Main article: Conditionality See also: Tied aid A major proportion of aid from donor nations is tied, mandating that a receiving nation spend on products and expertise originating only from the donor country. [15] Eritrea discovered that it would be cheaper to build its network of railways with local expertise and resources rather than be forced to spend aid money on foreign consultants, experts, architects and engineers imposed on the country as a condition of development assistance.[15] US law requires food aid be spent on buying food at home, instead of where the hungry live, and, as a result, half of what is spent is used on transport.[16] Oxfam America and American Jewish World Service report that reforming US food aid programs could extend food aid to an additional 17.1 million people around the world.[17] The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as primary holders of developing countries' debt, attach structural adjustment conditionalities to loans which generally include the elimination of state subsidies and the privatization of state services. For example, the World Bank presses poor nations to eliminate subsidies for fertilizer even while many farmers cannot afford them at market prices.[18] In the case of Malawi, almost five million of its 13 million people used to need emergency food aid. However, after the government changed policy and subsidies for fertilizer and seed were introduced, farmers produced record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007 as production leaped to 3.4 million in 2007 from 1.2 million in 2005, making Malawi a major food exporter.[18] In the former Soviet states, the reconfiguration of public financing in their transition to a market economy called for reduced spending on health and education, sharply increasing poverty.[19][20][21] Our 'aid' generally comes in the form of "we will loan you money to hire our construction companies (Haliburton), buy our equipment (Caterpillar), ship the aid to you (Boeing), and provide security while you build it (Blackwater)". An example would be the plan to profit from the Iraq war, and it worked quite well for some people, like Dick Cheney.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
S.O.S.
Feb 13, 2013 17:50:34 GMT -5
Post by Sabre52 on Feb 13, 2013 17:50:34 GMT -5
Heck, Helen, the necessities of life are, in effect, monopolies. You can't not eat, you'll starve. You have to have electricity and don't get to choose from where you get it. You have to have gas to go to work, you've got to have heat so you don't freeze. You've got to buy clothes so you don't get arrested for going nekid. Every darn thing you buy comes from a company that also has to buy energy, transport goods etc . Every service industry has to transport it's employees and materials and heat and energize it's business location. There is no competition for the big stuff like energy only the little stuff and the little stuff is made, sold and transported by folks who are stuck buying the big stuff like energy and they pass on costs to the consumer.
*LOL* Helen, they don't talk about foreign aid being paid back because Hell, it never is *L*.
Helen, having worked for agriculture for 30 years, it ain't Monsanto that's killing the family farm, it's excess government regulation. As I've said before, farming is so complex with all the government rules, that you need a huge staff to keep up with them all and family farms, that cannot afford to have lawyers. pest control advisers on staff, business managers, full time book keepers to manage all the government paperwork and permits etc, cannot compete with big agribusiness that can afford these options.
The sooner you folks learn big government is the problem, not the cure, you'll be on your way to having your head screwed on straight. *L*.....Mel
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 1:59:21 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 14, 2013 1:59:21 GMT -5
Absolutely Mel. That's why we had food subsidies originally, so farmers could count on stable income during times of plenty and times of famine or drought. It's why the commodities market was formed to begin with, as means to protect both farmers and buyers from price fluctuations. The system worked great for about 100 years.... until Bush allowed banks and corporations to enter the market and 'play' with the prices of food and gas.
Now we see the result, and instead of blaming the people who caused it, you blame the guy who's trying to put the controls and regulations BACK. Unbelievable.
Good points about Electricity... that and water ARE regulated. That's what the gov't does for us, stops market fluctuations from affecting our base electric and water costs. The commodities market once protected us too, again, til Bush took the funding from the regulators and released the regulations so his buddies could PLAY with the pricing.
You enjoying our fluctuating gas and food prices? Thank the Republicans you voted for. Yes, letting them PLAY with our gas costs has an impact on transportation. I ask you again, you planning to vote Democrat to fix that? Because you help cause it with your Republican votes. Guess we need some regulations if you don't like the gas prices that yes, absolutely affect the price of EVERYTHING.
You are probably right about the paybacks on the foreign aid to the gov't. However, the gov't doesn't need payback, that aid $$ went as subsidies for our economy and to corporate campaign donors.
As for farms and regulations, not being a farmer, I'll take your word for it that it's the government causing small family farms to sell out, and not Monsanto, who prevents them from getting their products processed if they won't buy their seeds. No such thing as 100% good policy. For any 1 person a given policy will benefit, there will be at least 1 that will suffer.
That's the difference, given a choice, I think the few suffering so the many benefit is better. You think the many suffering so the few benefit is better. Frankly, 1% of the US population making 80% of the wealth in this country is sickening. That's not how it was even 30 years ago, and certainly not how it was 50 years ago.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 10:50:20 GMT -5
Post by Sabre52 on Feb 14, 2013 10:50:20 GMT -5
Helen: The problem I have with your comment about the few suffering so the many can benefit is it's lowest common denominator type thinking and discourages incentive. I prefer a society where the sky is the limit and success is based on hard work and meritorious behavior. I came from pretty much nothing, worked hard and now I'm much better off. When you penalize success for the good of the many ( Commie type thinking I might add) you encourage the population work less hard and to attempt to achieve less, as basically you can sit on your ass and still get your meager share of the common wealth and you are penalized if you are successful anyway. No encouragement to go up, as if you do, the government simply takes your extra away to spread around " for the common good". It's just like those baseball games where nobody is the star, everyone wins and mediocrity is encouraged. And by the way the only result of this behavior is simply a smaller number of rich and powerful. But they will still be there because, encouraging government power and spreading the wealth, simply gives rulers more power and the attendant wealth. The more the government gives you, the more you are subservient to government. You become government slaves.
In the Soviet Union, this is how things worked and the result was a class of uber rich haves and everyone else have nots. Shortages everywhere and standing in lines, no one bothering to show up for work etc. Why work if there is no way to go up and everything you earn is shared with non workers anyway? Except of course, for the wealth skimmed off by the rulers. The glass ceiling under socialism or communism not for the rich and powerful but it is there for the middle class which simply transitions into a broader lower class.
You see any poor politicians in this country? Who do they go to work for when voted out? Their big money friends of course. The game is fixed and the rich and powerful will continue to be so. I think the stupidest thing in the world is to punish success and have the successful working class's wealth spread around thereby destroying the opportunity for folks or their kids to excel, gain wealth and achieve a higher status in life. Why the Hell do you libs think all the foreigners come to America.l Their goal is not to achieve some kind of lowest common denominator survival level of income like they had at home. They want to come here and work hard to allow them and their kids the chance to become rich and successful. I would venture to say that your Commie approach to redistribution of wealth is a foolish plan that broadens the lower class and concentrates even more of the wealth in the hands of even fewer people as it did in the Soviet Union.
I would also say that what we see now, where more wealth is in the hands of fewer folks, is not the result of capitalism gone wild, as you've inferred, but rather the result of increased socialism which has knocked down the middle class workers and small business owners by piling the burden of the cost of government giveaways on their backs while not doing a dang thing to the rich and powerful who buy all our politicians, who also seek riches and power as their ultimate goal. Capitalism encourages folks to try to move up. Socialism encourages folks to blissfully drink the government coolaid and calmly sink into a pit of low income mediocrity while the rich sit and watch the show, and to each other, give a wink and a nod. Because, that's just where they want folks..Mel
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 11:19:56 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 14, 2013 11:19:56 GMT -5
Mel, you grew up when the Democrats regulated the piss out of everything AND required pensions from all gov't organizations. And yes, you are doing better.
Yet what you want now is to deny our kids the same opportunities you had growing up and moving away from the protections we have had in this country for almost 100 years.
The US is not a communist nation, and never will be. The greatest reason is because communism DOES NOT WORK, and anyone with a brain can see that. The flip side of communism is anarchy, and we already know that doesn't work either. It's survival of the fittest, and the current system in place in Afghanistan and the newly revolted middle east states like Libya and some African nations.
Survival of the fittest means if a strong man wants your daughter or wife, he will kill you to rape her. He sees you eating well and he will take your food. Not enough police or enough corruption to prevent you from seeking help. There is no help. You are weaker, you die. Gangs and 'militia' aka warlords rule. Is that what you want? We can no longer see examples of Communism, we see plenty of examples of anarchy and weak government control worldwide, in every continent, today. You need only open your eyes, we read about it daily.
You said: "Helen: The problem I have with your comment about the few suffering so the many can benefit is it's lowest common denominator type thinking and discourages incentive. I prefer a society where the sky is the limit and success is based on hard work and meritorious behavior."
First sentence is absurd. If I'm motivated and dedicated, I'm going to stop trying to succeed because others might benefit? WRONG. I'm going to say... wow... look at the HUGE market! These people can afford my product, I have to figure out how to tap that income!!! ANY smart businessman sees opportunity when the populace has money. When the populace is all poor, they aren't going to buy squat from you UNLESS you are producing the necessities of life. And producing those necessities are backbreaking labor in themselves. The more prosperous the nation, the better chance you have of becoming properous, because your market is greater. That's plain logic anyone can see.
Therefore, your 2nd sentence is POSSIBLE. Ie., say I own a restaurant. Will I make money if everyone in my area is on food stamps? Say I own a movie theatre, will I make more or less when my area is properous enough to have disposable income? Say I own a clothing store? What about an insurance company? If people CANNOT AFFORD my services, my business is not going to be prosperous. I cannot expand, I cannot hire because I don't need more workers.
The idea that floating a handful of people's boats is better than CREATING wealth by allowing the masses to have a bit of disposable income is the BASIS of capitalism. People with NO money cannot afford YOUR products. End of discussion. There's no 'business' possible until people can buy what you sell.
So what happens if the 1% squirrel that money into banks, pay their employees a wage so low that they need supplemental income to survive? How do those people buy anything to stimulate the economy further? Businesses go under (we saw that), people get laid off (we saw that) because no one's buying what they don't need, and the cycle is a downward spiral.
That's GOOD? That's Republican thinking. Hardworking scrooges need to keep accruing money, who cares what happens to others... and you find that the others stop buying your products, THEY can't afford it and your greed has contributed to your OWN bankruptcy.
The absolute wealthiest in this nation can mostly see that. That's why you have billionaires like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and many many other billionaires trying to give their own money away hand over fist. TRYING to stimulate the economy, but it's not enough. You cannot give every man a fish.
But because most corporations today are multi-national and their stockholders are international, they don't give a crap about the US economy, they want those stock dividends to improve THEIR economy. Why are we agreeable to that? And that's where the regulations and government needs to step in. NOT for new regulations!!! To put the regulations that WORKED before, like Commodity controls, back in place that Bush took away... that LED to this recession in the first place.
Yet you want Bush BACK, when that's the cause of what happened to us.
There is no giveaway, unless you count prison as a giveaway. And more and more people will be going to prison because they have no jobs, no medical care, and no hope. Who's going to pay for THAT?
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 13:46:41 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 14, 2013 13:46:41 GMT -5
I agree with you here: "In the Soviet Union, this is how things worked and the result was a class of uber rich haves and everyone else have nots. Shortages everywhere and standing in lines, no one bothering to show up for work etc. Why work if there is no way to go up and everything you earn is shared with non workers anyway? Except of course, for the wealth skimmed off by the rulers. The glass ceiling under socialism or communism not for the rich and powerful but it is there for the middle class which simply transitions into a broader lower class."
And that's why the Soviet Union, USSR, no longer exists as a nation. Excess in that direction.
However, lets not forget what LED to the USSR in the first place.
That 1% controlled all the wealth, and people were starving.
Lets not forget what LED to the French Revolution.
That 1% controlled all the wealth, and thought the starving should eat cake.
Lets not forget what LED to the rise of Hitler, when a barrel of Marks bought 1 loaf of bread.
Logic tells you that to PREVENT the above from happening, decades of MISERY, an event that happened over and over and over in history... Chinese dynastic change every 400 years, the Fall of Rome, all from the EXACT SAME CONDITIONS... we don't set up the SAME CONDITIONS...conditions the Republicans are furiously pushing us towards. When the wealthy control it ALL, a revolution occurs.
When you have NO hope, your thoughts turn to killing. This is NOT a good idea.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 17:36:55 GMT -5
Post by Sabre52 on Feb 14, 2013 17:36:55 GMT -5
Helen, the French and Russian revolutions happened for the reason you've stated all right, and what was the result, a total SNAFU and guess what? The rich and powerful still wound up running things *L*.
I think we can agree on your last statement. When you have no hope, your thoughts turn to killing. That's exactly what I fear for our future and it ain't because of capitalism but rather due to lefty induced socialism which will destroy the American dream for everyone by penalizing success and piling the weight of government over taxation, over spending, debt and entitlements on the backs of the working class.
What happens when the government goes bust and you run out of folks to tax? The rich are a global entity and can go anywhere and they control the politicians, so who do you think gets taxed into poverty? The working middle class that's who, because that's where the really big pool of money to tax is and they are unprotected victims. The politicians simply accuse those who are successful, including the middle class workers and small business owners, of not sharing the wealth and take their money for redistribution so they can buy votes from their entitlement slaves ** And of course, them and their rich buddies, oops, they're overlooked and still rich....Mel
** See Obama presidential campaign for a good example *L*.
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 18:02:25 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 14, 2013 18:02:25 GMT -5
How's the Gov't ever going to run out of people to tax, when the Corporations are paying between 0%-14% right now, where 30 years ago they were paying 75%, and 50 years ago they were paying 92%?
The Gov't isn't going to EVER run out of tax. Matter of fact, our economy is strong enough that if they took every single loophole away and made EVERY SINGLE US corporation that is ONLY Public and on the Stock market (not small corporations, the BIG ones), pay 30%, we'd have 0 deficit within a couple of year if not the FIRST year.
This is how much brainwashing they've done to YOU. Think about how much money corporations make, and if you can't guess, take a quick look at the Income Statements for JUST the companies in the S&P 500. It's all public info, available on every single stock site. Punch in the symbol for the stock, look for the Income Statement.
See for yourself.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 20:50:30 GMT -5
Post by Sabre52 on Feb 14, 2013 20:50:30 GMT -5
*L* Just give them a little more time. Just a little more *L*.....Mel
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 14, 2013 20:54:41 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 14, 2013 20:54:41 GMT -5
LOL! Mel, how about we tax the Corporations 1/3 of what they are used to paying for decades, RIGHT NOW, and just see how it helps the country?
Oh yah.. we can't, the Republicans in the House won't let it happen.
|
|
|
S.O.S.
Feb 15, 2013 14:10:52 GMT -5
Post by helens on Feb 15, 2013 14:10:52 GMT -5
And while you are defending taxing the poor and middle class... you should know that 'personal income tax' only happened in 1812 for the FIRST time. Before that, ONLY products and businesses were taxed, the idea being that you should be taxed on your PROFITS, not what it takes for you to survive: www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtmlToday, the Republicans have brainwashed you into believing that business entity PROFITS should not be taxed, but INDIVIDUALS earning barely enough to live should bear all the burdens of taxation. To the point that Corporate PROFITS in many cases not only pay 0 tax, they are given subsidies and REFUNDS out of PERSONAL tax income to increase those PROFITS. That is not only wrong, against the intent of the original Constitution, but incredibly unreasonable and unfair because it shifts the tax burden onto people who are scrapping by to survive, while the fat cats get fatter. Most of those fat cats not even American. Yet this is what Republicans support today. If something costs too much, you have the option not to buy it. To tax even people who buy no products but are scraping by growing their own food, recycling the things they use, to give that money to Corporations who profit from every item sold is ass backwards.
|
|