Sure, the economy is fine. We're in a recovery, right?

[akirby]

Currently, American corporations are just sitting on vast amounts of money.

 

Citation please.

 

Would Burger King customers be ok with a 50 cent price hike on whoppers because of loyalty or would they go down the street to Wendy's where it's cheaper?

 

If you want to keep more businesses in the U.S. we should be LOWERING or ELIMINATING taxes on businesses, because businesses don't pay taxes in the first place. Their customers' do. Lowering or eliminating taxes will bring new business to the U.S. (and keep existing ones) which will create more jobs and those people will pay income taxes making up the difference.

 

Trying to force companies to stay here and pay big tax rates simply doesn't work any more in an international business and social community. It's like having one county with a 20% sales tax rate surrounded by counties with a 7% sales tax. Nobody is going to buy anything in that county unless they have to - everyone else will simply buy from surrounding counties.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Currently, American corporations are just sitting on vast amounts of money. So far, they refuse to invest in the US economy, and some, like Burger King, are considering a move to avoid paying US taxes. So much for supporting the country that made them great, but that's the way the Koch Brothers want it, so it must be good.

 

And of course, it's all Obama's fault, it's gotta be.

And so you think the government has a right to dictate to anyone, corporate or individual, to get off their holdings so the government can use the money? Or that they don't have a right to keep their profits and use them when they choose?

 

Only under this administration would that be offered as an appropriate proposition.

 

And do you not use the tax laws to minimize your obligations or do you "donate to the cause" significant amounts of tax payments you could have saved for yourself and your family? You never employ a tax advisor to limit your tax debt? There's only one answer a sane person would give.

 

 

Do you use ebay or other online sites to pay the least for services that otherwise union workers like the USPS could have done? I suspect you cut every cent out of your expenses and obligations. And I support that decision. It's your money and you have a right to spend or keep it as you wish. The worst thing you could ever do is empower the government or their elected members of government determine what percentage of what's your is your to keep!!!!!

Edited September 5, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[xr7g428]

Gotta love this stuff... unsubstantiated claims leading to an unfounded conclusion.

 

Currently, American corporations are just sitting on vast amounts of money. So far, they refuse to invest in the US economy, and some, like Burger King, are considering a move to avoid paying US taxes. So much for supporting the country that made them great, but that's the way the Koch Brothers want it, so it must be good.

 

 

Claims:

 

 

 

1. American corporations are just sitting on vast amounts of money.

 

2. they refuse to invest in the US

 

3. that's the way the Koch Brothers want it

 

Conclusion: it's all Obama's fault (sarcasm)

 

This makes as much sense:

 

Currently, Reindeer are just sitting on vast amounts of toys. So far, they refuse to deliver them in the holiday season, and some, like Dancer, are considering a move to avoid paying gift taxes. So much for supporting the holiday that made them great, but that's the way Santa Claus wants it, so it must be good.

 

And of course, it's all Bush's fault, it's gotta be.

[Imawhosure]

I find it fascinating that someone from Ontario would comment on Burger King (or any other business for that matter) leaving the US when the corporate tax rate in Canada is waaaaaaaaaaay lower than ours!

 

Debating over the question: is Obama doing well or does he stink, or if Bush did well, or did he stink..........is kinda crazy. We went from a REAL unemployment rate of around 5% to a REAL unemployment rate fluctuating between 13 and 17% over the last 7 years or so.

 

If anybody wants to defend these two (Obama and Bush) because they were nice guys who somehow got a raw deal on a job they campaigned to get; may I suggest you add Jimmy Carter to the mix, and call them the 3 Incompetent Musketeers.

 

Also-----> we should all thank our lucky stars that these less than stellar examples of Presidential timber, were not elected in succession. If they were, we would all be trying to immigrate to Canada and take Edstocks job! It may yet end up that way, if we get Hilly.

[Ron W.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hY1eagq88

[cal50]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hY1eagq88

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hY1eagq88

[cal50]

Maybe he is just not good at math....oops.

 

 

 

 

Senator Barrack Hussein Obama March 16, 2006 from the floor of the U.S. Senate:

 

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here". Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8

[RangerM]

I recall during the debates that Obama said mockingly to Romney (paraphrasing) "the '80s called, they want their foreign policy back".

 

Based on Putin's actions lately, it might do us some good.

[Edstock]

I find it fascinating that someone from Ontario would comment on Burger King (or any other business for that matter) leaving the US when the corporate tax rate in Canada is waaaaaaaaaaay lower than ours!

 

Debating over the question: is Obama doing well or does he stink, or if Bush did well, or did he stink..........is kinda crazy. We went from a REAL unemployment rate of around 5% to a REAL unemployment rate fluctuating between 13 and 17% over the last 7 years or so.

 

If anybody wants to defend these two (Obama and Bush) because they were nice guys who somehow got a raw deal on a job they campaigned to get; may I suggest you add Jimmy Carter to the mix, and call them the 3 Incompetent Musketeers.

 

Also-----> we should all thank our lucky stars that these less than stellar examples of Presidential timber, were not elected in succession. If they were, we would all be trying to immigrate to Canada and take Edstocks job! It may yet end up that way, if we get Hilly.

 

I'm not particularly happy with this low-corporate tax policy of the province. "Poaching" Burger King may be fine for some, but Ontario doesn't need to steal. With the race-to-the-bottom on corporate taxes, before you know it, the government cuts back on education using lack of money as the justification.

 

That means Ontario's work force becomes less well equipped to deal with the future as time goes on. Unemployment stays high, and a decade later, companies that might want to operate in Ontario may stay away because people just don't have the skills and education. But when the focus is on next quarter's results instead of planning for a decade, this is what we get.

 

And yes, American and Canadian corporate treasuries are full and they are just sitting on that money.

[akirby]

So it's the government's responsibility to train the work force?

 

Did you ever consider that the increasing national debt, forced healthcare, uncertain foreign policy and higher taxes were causing companies to be cautious about expanding and investing?

[Imawhosure]

And yes, American and Canadian corporate treasuries are full and they are just sitting on that money.

Mr Edstock sir; I would remind you that any corporations treasuries being full is fine, because it is their money. They earned it fair and square, and if they hoarde it, re-invest it, or burn it, it is their choice. (and their shareholders)

 

Consider the whining about corporations consistently from the left----------> truth is, Apple releases a new I-phone, and the lines go around the building. Other phone companies, virtually the same. Is anyone forced to buy McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys? How about those oil companys? People can ride public transportation since most people on the left live in cities. Walmart! Oh yes, the evil one. Think rich people are the ones shopping there? No, it is the exact people who complain about them constantly.

 

In essence, most on the left puff up their chests and talk a good game, but they are the 1st in line to buy, buy, and buy all the stuff from the people they claim are bad corporate citizens.

 

It is kinda like this one here------------> monopolies are baaaaaaaad cause if any of these corporate actors gets total control over a needed/wanted product, and they are the only game in town you can get it from......they will fleece you! BUT WAIT FOR IT -)............unless of course the product is called E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, then of course the government and democrats don't want competition, they want a monopoly for their supporting unions; and we see how that is working out in America, now don't we! The lust for power in some is soooooo great, they will not only throw Americas childrens education under the bus to keep getting elected, they will saddle them with debt they create so they can give free stuff away today, helping keep them in power.

 

And you say corporations are the problem? Personally, most of us think that is the least of our worries! At least when a corporation gets some of my money, I get a product or service back; and I am not forced to buy their, or anyone elses product. Can you say that about low grade education, buying part of GM and Chrysler, or giving money to people for healthcare? Just because YOU like what they might be doing, doesn't make it right, correct, fair, or even legal.

[Edstock]

So it's the government's responsibility to train the work force?

 

Did you ever consider that the increasing national debt, forced healthcare, uncertain foreign policy and higher taxes were causing companies to be cautious about expanding and investing?

 

It seems that you do not appreciate that society's product is its people, not its Rolexes or Aston Martins or monster houses.

 

The government "of the people, by the people" has a responsibility to educate 'the work force'. Americans realized this after the Civil War, setting up the State colleges to provide 'the work force' with the knowledge to organize the agricultural and industrial growth of the late 19th century. Now, in contrast, the government of the rich old white fascists has a responsibility to make them as rich as possible, and if your public schools suck, well that's tough. That's why you don't find Silicon Valley in the bubba states.

 

If you're happy with that, great, but you should be aware that the Koch Brothers and their hyenas consider you a "useful idiot", to borrow Lenin's phrase, supporting multi-billionaires who laugh at you all the way to the bank.

 

Of course, considering "the increasing national debt" and "forced" health care might make companies reluctant to invest in their home country, but that's the parasitic load of the Military-Industrial Complex. How many Nimitz-class carrier groups do you need to protect foreign oil owned by multinationals who don't really care about the lowly American citizen?

 

Left or right, it will all work out for somebody's benefit. Whether or not it will be to the benefit of the non-1%, is the question. Whether a disparity of wealth like that of Tsarist Russia will cause an internal collapse of American societal consensus as the bottom 1/3 of American society hits rock bottom is also worth pondering.

[goinbroke2]

I'm not even sure how to answer that...either (1), say you need a tinfoil hat or...actually, I just realised, your in Ontario..the ones who just re-elected the most corrupt government possible. (possibly even worse than the ndp gov you had) That explains a whole lot about your mindset on how everybody rich must be either (a) evil, (b) corrupt, © immoral, or (d) all of the above. No way in heck could somebody get ahead in life unless they are doing something immoral/illegal. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

Ontario is Canada's version of Illinois, corruption and scandle but, meh, what's a few Billion (with a B) between cronies, might as well re-elect them. After all the competition wanted to cut due to the bloated deficit and debt....crazy talk right? Good old unions to the rescue though, WOOHOO, LETS GO GRAVYTRAIN, FOUR MORE YEARS, YAY!!!

 

"the government of the rich old white fascists",

"Koch Brothers and their hyenas consider you a "useful idiot",

"Military-Industrial Complex"

"protect foreign oil "

"non-1%"

Occupy much? LOL!

I think you missed one of their rehashed slogans but I guess that's ok, we get the gist of your anger.

[akirby]

The government can't force people to learn, whether it's technical or professional skills or a trade. Through public schools and universities the government is already providing the OPPORTUNITY to get an education to whoever wants it. And I don't want to hear that it's not available to some because of their social or economic situation - that's BS. I went to public schools (not the best either - these were in rural farm country 40 years ago). I paid my own way through school working at minimum wage jobs with no assistance. Was it easy? No, but it was possible. Here in Georgia all you need to do is maintain a B average and your tuition is mostly or completely paid for. There really is no valid excuse for someone who WANTS to go to college. It's all about hard work and determination.

 

Could we improve public education? Sure. I don't have a problem making it cheaper and offering more vocational opportunities, but it is available now to those who want it. Continuing to claim that some people can't avail themselves of the opportunities currently available is a disservice to them and paints them as a helpless victim where this is beyond their control. And that causes them to give up and not even try and that's the problem with reinforcing the victim mentality.

 

Blaming all the additional government spending on the military is BS. Military spending must be cut, but it's not the only thing. ALL government spending needs to be scrutinized but regardless of where the cuts need to come from, we must have a balanced budget so that whatever we spend has associated revenue to pay for it. If the revenue drops then spending must drop. If you want to increase spending then you must first increase revenue somehow. That's how every state, county and city government operates because they don't have the luxury of simply raising their debt ceiling infinitely. Why shouldn't the federal government do the same thing?

 

You talk about losing manufacturing jobs due to technology and automation. But what about all the technology jobs that have been created over the last 3 decades? Amazon, google, microsoft, telecom carriers, cell phone providers, etc.? Those companies have created a lot of domestic jobs and jobs with much better pay and benefits than traditional factory work. But most of these jobs require some education and training. You can't just walk into one of these jobs with a high school diploma and no skills.

 

Instead of handouts that allow lazy people to do nothing and still make a good living, we should be looking at how to create jobs. Tie corporate tax breaks to job creation. The government will make it up in personal income tax from those who are now employed. Those evil corporations actually provide a lot of high paying jobs with good benefits including non-skilled positions. I don't need the government to force companies to pay me - I've earned that through education and past performance in an open market.

[Edstock]

we get the gist of your anger.

 

I don't know how much you get, really. You see, I'm not angry, because I don't really care, because I don't have to. We are 12 months from performing a Harperectomy, and begin the slow re-building of a kinder society north of the border.

 

So, will American poverty destabilize American society? The "Millenials" may supply the answer.

 

Either way, as a political science/historian, I look forward to seeing what happens.

 

Will the US become an equitable society, as it was when Ike ran things and the top personal tax rate was 80% and growth (with the advantage of the socialist GI Bill to provide American corporations with college graduates) was providing prosperity — or will it turn into a Koch Brothers Fourth Reich with militarized police, the NSA and Echelon?

 

Gonna be fun to watch.

[akirby]

Will the US become an equitable society, as it was when Ike ran things and the top personal tax rate was 80% and growth (with the advantage of the socialist GI Bill to provide American corporations with college graduates) was providing prosperity — or will it turn into a Koch Brothers Fourth Reich with militarized police, the NSA and Echelon?

 

 

Economically the world was a different place back then. Companies had to operate locally or nationally for the most part because everything was manual from manufacturing to advertising to bookkeeping. Stocks had to be traded in person. Communication was primitive. The workforce was also significantly smaller back then. Most women did not work. Companies and individuals had no choice but to operate within the current system whether they liked it or not and whether it was fair or not.

 

Electronics and globalization has changed that. We no longer need as much manual labor. The worforce itself is much larger. Companies are no longer restricted to a city or region. You can run a business from anywhere globally.

 

You just can't force a business to pay high taxes (or individuals) because they have choices. They'll always go where it's easier and cheaper. Look at the UAW. When they had a monopoly on automobile manufacturing it didn't really matter what they were paid because it ended up being a tax across the board on all mfrs equally. That only works with a monopoly. Once those companies had to start competing with other mfrs who were not part of the monopoly it falls apart because you can't compete in an open market without market based wages and benefits.

 

Here is a simpler example. Let's say one county decides to impose a 50% sin tax on alcohol. Do you expect the residents of that county to just pay the tax? Or do you think they'll simply drive a few miles to the other county and buy the same product without the 50% tax? So now all of the liquor stores in that county go out of business because they have no customers. That is exactly what is happening here. You don't have a monopoly on these companies so you can't force them to pay more. They're taking their business to where it's cheaper. And if you were running your own business competing with other companies doing the same then you'd do the same thing or you'd go out of business.

 

What you want is a monopoly situation where the government can manipulate the outcome and force businesses to operate a certain way, but it will not and cannot work. The U.S. and states must compete for business on a global scale. You might call that a "race to the bottom" but it's really just a race back to reality from a monopoly dreamworld. Super high UAW wages and benefits across the board was never sustainable. Now they have $15/hour workers. That's where it should have been all along without a monopoly to keep it artificially high.

 

The areas that provided growth in the 50s and 60s and 70s are no longer there. They've been replaced by new growth areas in technology. Just like steel mills replaced local blacksmiths and tractors replaced mules. Blacksmiths and field hands found new jobs and learned new skills. Those who don't try get left behind.

 

 

I think I've figured out why liberals want socialism. They feel guilty that they've succeeded but other people have not so they want to make the less successful more successful so they don't feel as guilty about it. I used to feel that way too until I realized that everyone has the same opportunity to be successful and there are many people who are simply too lazy to do anything about it. My wife's great aunt is a perfect example. Her husband died 30 years ago suddenly and since he was military she got a widow's pension. It wasn't much - a few hundred bucks per month. She was in her 30s and perfectly capable of working. She even had a few part time off the books cash jobs along the way. We would help her out a lot. But instead of working and earning $1200/month she chose to sit on her ass and get $600/month. For 30 years. She was also childish and ungrateful for anything we did for her including taking 2 days off work and cosigning to help her buy a used car. Finally we had enough and just cut off assistance. If she wants to live like that then that's her choice but we were not going to subsidize it. And she is surviving just fine. She's not starving. She buys her own cars and everything else. I do not feel guilty in the least about her living condition because SHE CHOSE to live that way and so do the vast majority of people in poverty.

 

I know a lot of people both in my rural hometown and in Atlanta including kids entering the workforce and people laid off from corporate jobs. I don't know anyone who was unable to find a job to support themselves for more than a few months. I have 4 nephews who grew up in rural towns. All 4 have always been gainfully employed and supporting themselves and their families and not one went to college. One works for the power company. One has his own electrical business. One does construction and the other is a fireman.

 

The liberals need to wake up and realize that all you're doing with handouts is encouraging people not to work and not to be productive. If my wife's aunt did not receive a pension she would have been working the last 30 years to support herself. The goal should be equal OPPORTUNITY not equal outcomes. If you want more people to succeed then create more jobs and the way to do that is with less taxes and less regulation (less not none). Raising the minimum wage and raising corporate taxes won't work any more than the example I gave with the liquor tax.

 

Wake up people.

[RangerM]

For a society to thrive, the opportunity to succeed must also include the opportunity to fail.

 

There is no way a government can prevent failure, in the same way it can't prevent hunger, ignorance or death.

[Imawhosure]

I would like everyone to read the "lesson in irony" that I believe says it all--------->

 

Todays Lesson in Irony!

 

The food stamp program is administered by the US department of agriculture. They proudly report that they distribute free meals and foodstamps to over 46 million people on an annual basis.

 

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, run by the US department of the interior, asks us, "please do NOT feed the animals." Their stated reason for this policy being that..........

 

"The animals WILL become dependent on the handouts, and then they will NEVER learn to take care of themselves."

 

This concludes todays lesson in irony with an example that even the farthest leftist can understand. Any questions?

[the_spaniard]

I would like everyone to read the "lesson in irony" that I believe says it all--------->

 

Todays Lesson in Irony!

 

The food stamp program is administered by the US department of agriculture. They proudly report that they distribute free meals and foodstamps to over 46 million people on an annual basis.

 

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, run by the US department of the interior, asks us, "please do NOT feed the animals." Their stated reason for this policy being that..........

 

"The animals WILL become dependent on the handouts, and then they will NEVER learn to take care of themselves."

 

This concludes todays lesson in irony with an example that even the farthest leftist can understand. Any questions?

 

While I get what you are saying, it is illuminating that you equate the poor with animals.

Edited September 14, 2014 by the_spaniard

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

While I get what you are saying, it is illuminating that you equate the poor with animals.

How do you trap wild boar?

 

First day, you lay out free food and the boars will come to eat it.

Next day, you set a few fence posts and some free food and the boars will come and eat it. Since the fence was there when they found the food, they will not be alarmed.

Third day, you again add fence posts and free food. Again, the boars will eat the food.

On the fourth day, you build the fencing around the free food. The boars will again come to eat.

On the fifth day, you set the trap with free food. When the boars come to eat, as have done so often without consequence, you slam the gate shut.

 

You can't cook a frog by throwing him into a pot of hot water, he'll jump right out.

But, place him in a pot of warm water, raise the temperature slowly, and you'll have frog stew that night.

 

Are the poor the same as animals? Maybe at SOME level.

[RangerM]

Conditioning works the same for animals as it does people.

 

You use either positive or negative reinforcement to obtain the desired behavior.

 

Just because a program SAYS its intent is positive, doesn't mean its effect is.

[goinbroke2]

How do you trap wild boar?

 

First day, you lay out free food and the boars will come to eat it.

Next day, you set a few fence posts and some free food and the boars will come and eat it. Since the fence was there when they found the food, they will not be alarmed.

Third day, you again add fence posts and free food. Again, the boars will eat the food.

On the fourth day, you build the fencing around the free food. The boars will again come to eat.

On the fifth day, you set the trap with free food. When the boars come to eat, as have done so often without consequence, you slam the gate shut.

 

You can't cook a frog by throwing him into a pot of hot water, he'll jump right out.

But, place him in a pot of warm water, raise the temperature slowly, and you'll have frog stew that night.

 

Are the poor the same as animals? Maybe at SOME level.

Yes, but you can't SAY that because it means your "mean" or "uncaring" or....No, it's much better to ignore the gorilla in the room and blame the dog for eating all the food. That way, the the gorilla doesn't feel bad about itself and the dog, well everybody blames everything on the dog so one more thing won't matter. Yeah I know it stopped those burglers, and it alerted everyone when there was that fire...but the gorilla, I mean, gee you gotta feel bad because it's a gorrilla right?

 

Oh wait, now I'm comparing the poor to a gorilla...ooh, bad me.

[Trimdingman]

How about this? Say the government was the sole provider of food like they are the nearly sole provider of education and health care. Suppose it has been this way for over a hundred years, and people know nothing else. Suppose someone came up with the idea that people should be able to go out and buy their own food. How many arguments would the left come up with saying that this would never work? People would starve. People would be sick from eating unhealthy food. Regions where there is no agriculture would suffer famine when crops were poor. These are similar to arguments when anyone suggests doing away with any government programs. I don't think that we need government at all. New technology eliminates the need for government. The left argues that new technology requires more government, as it makes it harder to control freedom. Freedom should be looked on as a good thing.

[cal50]

 

While I get what you are saying, it is illuminating that you equate the poor with animals.

 

 

Like it or not we are all mammals / animals and some smarter than others.

Some animals are actually a lot smarter & compassionate than some people.

 

Being poor is not something most people desire but some do game the system and are comfortable being "poor" and try to maximize free aid & benefits.

[akirby]

Being poor is not something most people desire but some do game the system and are comfortable being "poor" and try to maximize free aid & benefits.

 

This is what many liberals either don't understand or don't like. I have first hand experience with this growing up in a rural town with a large welfare supported population and with my wife's great aunt. A lot of people are perfectly happy getting by with the bare minimum without any effort. If you gave them the option of having a productive job making $2K/month or getting a disability payment of $1K/month, a lot will choose the $1K for no work.

 

The "don't feed the bears" analogy is right on. That's why I'm advocating instead of giving people handouts we give them jobs where they have to at least show up every day and if there is some work that the government needs done they do it (pick up trash, paint, clean, etc.). If no work needs to be done they can take online classes or do something else productive for minimum wage. That would give them a lot more incentive to get a better job on their own.