It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans against free market!

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


MrXYZ,

Just to add to your post with the Income Gains, I came across this article from Mother Jones that shows eleven different graphs demonstrating how messed up the balance has become.

motherjones.com...

Please be sure to check out the final graph labeled "Your Loss, Their Gain". Now look really carefully and remember all those working class folks who defend the status quo. Now look again at the 61-80% and 81-90% Income Groups and see how they fared. Even the very well to do are getting shafted by the highest 10%.

One of my favorite quotes from the original movie "Wall Street"...

Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) to Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) :

How much is enough, Gordon? When does it all end, huh? How many yachts can you water-ski behind? How much is enough, huh?


Peace.
edit on 14-3-2011 by Hessling because: Remove quotation mark




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Those evil hospitals are the only entities in my neck of the woods who are actually building and expanding. Thus creating jobs.

Its tricky isn't it?....


When is the last time former hospital tycoons got into government and started wars in hospital rich regions?
edit on 14-3-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I hope you see the difference between a hospital, that benefits EVERYONE and a big oil company



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 


That's always something that baffled me. I am lucky, went to an Ivy League school, got a great job, and I think I'm definitely in the top 5% of earners...yet when I talk about the subject with less fortunate people, they are hellbent on defending big business simply because "their" politicians defend them. They gain ZERO through tax breaks to those companies. Hell, in the case of Exxon, most jobs are ABROAD and not even in the US!! They drill in the Middle East, Asia, South America, and Africa for the most part and most of their jobs are there, NOT in the US. They use those tax breaks to expand ABROAD and NOT within the US!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 





I certainly won't deny that this an imbalance. However, demonizing the wealthy and calling for their heads on silver platters will not accomplish anything. The imbalance has always been there. Sadly, its been growing exponentially. I'm not going to hate a guy just because he drives a Ferrari and earns a couple of million a year.


No one's saying people don't deserve to reap the benefits of hard work! But why should they get rewarded MORE than the poor or middle class...because they obviously are? Why should a big corporation like Exxon pay less than the average waiter? In fact, why do they get a $1.1bil refund while the waiter gets nothing and has to pay? Sound fair to you?

The "create jobs" excuse obviously doesn't work...unless you show me where Exxon created $1.1bil worth of jobs


The funny thing is, I'm in the "rich" bracket with over 500k/yr of income...and even I see how ethically wrong this is, it disgusts me. Of course I think it's fair I make a ton of money now that I spent over $350k on education, but I see no reason why that would entitle me to a tax refund while the average worker pays his full share.

As for me creating jobs, most of my investments are outside the US, and I spent more money abroad than elsewhere. Vacation cost and foreign investments far (!!!) exceed what I spend at home. But gimme that tax break pls, so I can spend more money going on vacation outside the US, or invest in companies in Asia

edit on 14-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by jibeho

Those evil hospitals are the only entities in my neck of the woods who are actually building and expanding. Thus creating jobs.

Its tricky isn't it?....


When is the last time former hospital tycoons got into government and started wars in hospital rich regions?
edit on 14-3-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)


I thought this was about balance/imbalance with regards to the tax breaks that all the big bad evil corporations get. You have all been brainwashed to hate "big corporate" and "banksters" while ignoring everything else around you. The same games are played on all sides and the "anti this and that" crowd are being played like fools.

Hospitals get plenty of tax breaks. However the breaks are disproportionately larger than the charity care administered by these hospitals. Here is an example from 27 non profit hospital systems in the Chicago area.

sg.wsj.net..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

$489 million in tax benefits to these Chicago hospitals and $176 million in charity care provided. Who are the hospitals helping again?? Is that balanced? Please make sure that all of the fingers are pointed in the proper directions regarding the topic at hand. Take the Exxon and other labels off of the companies for a moment and apply the same standards across the board to ALL who are given tax breaks and then ask WHY?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by jibeho
 





I certainly won't deny that this an imbalance. However, demonizing the wealthy and calling for their heads on silver platters will not accomplish anything. The imbalance has always been there. Sadly, its been growing exponentially. I'm not going to hate a guy just because he drives a Ferrari and earns a couple of million a year.


No one's saying people don't deserve to reap the benefits of hard work! But why should they get rewarded MORE than the poor or middle class...because they obviously are? Why should a big corporation like Exxon pay less than the average waiter? In fact, why do they get a $1.1bil refund while the waiter gets nothing and has to pay? Sound fair to you?

The "create jobs" excuse obviously doesn't work...unless you show me where Exxon created $1.1bil worth of jobs


The funny thing is, I'm in the "rich" bracket with over 500k/yr of income...and even I see how ethically wrong this is, it disgusts me. Of course I think it's fair I make a ton of money now that I spent over $350k on education, but I see no reason why that would entitle me to a tax refund while the average worker pays his full share.

As for me creating jobs, most of my investments are outside the US, and I spent more money abroad than elsewhere. Vacation cost and foreign investments far (!!!) exceed what I spend at home. But gimme that tax break pls, so I can spend more money going on vacation outside the US, or invest in companies in Asia

edit on 14-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Congrats on your 500k/yr. You are justifying your earnings because you spent over $350k on education. If you were not making the 500g's would you think you were entitled to it because of how much you spent on your education? Sorry you spent so much on your education. Our nations university system is worse than big corporate. I only spent $30k on 4 years of college and earn a comfortable wage in return. Not sure who got the better bargain?

Time to place the blame where it actually belongs. Blame D.C. and blame your legislators. Hate the enablers. Corporations are amoral institutions with the sole purpose of generating a profit for their investors. They will take every carrot that is dangled in front of them. Politicians dangle the carrots because the system allows for it. The same carrots are dangled for Unions, Non Profits, Corporations, etc etc.

Why not invest domestically? Support your local union workers? Sure hope you aren't investing in the Bangladesh textile industry.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by jibeho
 


I hope you see the difference between a hospital, that benefits EVERYONE and a big oil company




Do you operate any vehicles or devices that require gasoline? Do you utilize transportation that utilizes gasoline on those trips to Asia?

Are you benefiting from a big oil company??

The hospitals and the big oil companies are taking every carrot that is made available TO THEM.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 





If you were not making the 500g's would you think you were entitled to it because of how much you spent on your education?


Nope, but I'd be a complete idiot for paying that much for my education if I didn't get a proper return


And the reason I'm not investing in the US at the moment is the same reason a lot of other investors invest abroad. Look at the growth rate of investments in foreign countries and regions like Africa/Asia...it's pretty crazy, but justified given the increased profit potential. To give you an example, last spring I invested in a new office development in Senegal, with a growth rate that would have been unobtainable in the US (or Europe). Money goes where money's to be made, and it's not in the US anymore, at least if you care about growth rates and profit potential. I'm not a patriotic investor, and either are most other investors.

And sure, the airplanes and ships trading benefit me...but how on earth does that entitle the oil companies to subsidies??? They already get paid for their oil by the shipping and trade companies. So according to your logic it's all good if the tax payer pays more to them on top of that??

I have one main question: Do you truly believe those subsidies are justified? Really???

PS: I don't think hospitals should get subsidies either, they should be profitable as it is. Of course if they aren't for whatever reason, I rather have the government support them and ensure the health of the nation, than oil companies that give back NOTHING.


edit on 14-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Subsidies for oil are already on thier way out.

The GOP will defend everything business while putting the screws to the nation.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
By now ya'll should know my positions on the free market.

While a few jackasses defend subsidies for oil, or NPR, or whatever, they fail to realize that all subsidies of ANY KIND do is take the incentive to produce and innovate out of the market.

No subsides for ANYONE.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


The budget deficit problem would be solved...and not on the backs of education and healthcare for the nation.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Lets see here... Early last year the Dems controlled the House, the Senate AND the White House. And you make the bizarre claim that the Republicans prevented them from passing a piece of legislation? You need to stop and think about that claim.

As for the main crux of your Original post, yeah subsidies are bad, I agree. But you can't demonize one industry that gets subsidies without going after them all. How about the cash for clunkers program? Ethanol? How about the one where Home buyers got up to $8,000 to buy a home? Subsidy for people to buy new energy efficient appliances, windows and/or doors for their houses? Tons more...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by croweboy
 





Lets see here... Early last year the Dems controlled the House, the Senate AND the White House. And you make the bizarre claim that the Republicans prevented them from passing a piece of legislation? You need to stop and think about that claim.



Well, the title was chosen because of the video that serves as a good example. But like I've said multiple times in this thread, ALL politicians, republican or democrat, seem to be working for corporations now. And I mentioned the oil industry as an example because they get more refunds than any other industry. The cash for clunkers was a retarded idea because it was clear people would buy cars that are better than US cars (aka Asian cars), so it didn't help the car industry in the US that much.

Subsidies are not only bad because they cost the tax payer dearly while offering almost no returns that reflect the refunds/subsidies...but also because they hinder adaption. In business, you either adapt or die to the environment...and because of subsidies, industries get VERY lazy and lose their edge. Which is one of the reasons the US is losing ground fast to India/China. They claim it's to support the industry at home, but in today's global economy, those companies they are helping are just shipping that money abroad...which clearly shows how incredibly stupid subsidies are.

If you wanna support education, and there can be made a great argument for that given that India has more honor students than the US has students, that's fine imo. It will foster innovation and development of new stuff. Sadly, prices for education have skyrocketed in recent years, and most citizens will have to go into debt to afford it. And not just a few thousand dollars, try getting into one of the Ivy League schools without a scholarship and paying for it in full unless you're fairly wealthy already.

As for subsidies for renewable energies, they are ridiculously small compared to oil subsidies...even though they are representing innovation and new technologies that would assure energy independence. Of course the oil industry paying the politicians ensures that those new technologies get only a tiny fraction compared to the oil industry.
edit on 14-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I agree with some of what you say. However, if you hand out a subsidy of any sort no matter how small, there will always be someone else with a "need" for a subsidy with a bigger hand. I agree, the system is corrupt and for the most part subsidy is synonymous with political payback. End all subsidies and let the Free Market sort things out.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by croweboy
 


Well, we can let the free market 'sort it out', because that has been spectacular success for Chile, Russia, Haiti, Indonesia, and just about every other testing ground for this backwards economic theory. What exactly is this 'sorting out' supposed to accomplish? If a rich minority that hoards wealth above its bloated, poverty ridden lower classes is the end goal, then yeah, it should get an A+!

Now, I'm not arguing for subsidies. Nor am I arguing against markets. I think subsidies are a terrible thing. I think the same about corporations. Now, before you accuse me of being a leftist (well, I admit, I am. Just of the more anarchist variety), I would like to point out that the only reason corporations exist is because of the government. Government provide institutions with the corporate charter that allows them to become incorporated in the first place! No government approval, then you're just a non-incorporated business like all the rest. Hell, you could even take the argument further when you consider that since it is the entity that protects property rights, the government is the bastion of all business and market. But the fact remains the government is the creator of the corporation, which is nothing less than a sanctioned monopoly. I read a study somewhere a while back in an economic journal (I'll dig it up) that showed that not a single Fortune 500 company has not received subsidies, and the majority of them required government bail-outs when they came close to failing.

The solution? No incorporating of business. The only way a proper market can compete properly is if it is decentralized, small, and better yet, localized. We need a democratic government that isn't afraid to enforce the strictest of anti-trust laws! This way, the market can compete properly to drive prices down, wealth distribution occurs on a far more even keel, and good luck to the bosses outsourcing when they're that small!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 





The only way a proper market can compete properly is if it is decentralized, small, and better yet, localized.


That's impossible given globalization...and globalization isn't something that can be stopped, nor should it imo.

The one thing that has to happen is to stop corporations from interfering in government. The system with corporate lobbyists being more important than the average citizen is BROKEN. It's corporations who influence who the US go to war with (weapons industry), corporations that ask for deregulation so they can screw over citizens (pharma/banking industry), corporations asking for subsidies claiming they create jobs while shipping jobs offshore or not creating as many jobs as they get subsidies (oil industry), and the list goes on.

This has to stop, and until it does, nothing will change for the better...that is, unless you're one of the big corporations



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



That's impossible given globalization...and globalization isn't something that can be stopped, nor should it imo.


I disagree with you completely here. What has globalization given us? Globalized economics require a global reserve currency, and that would require a country to allow their currency to be used as such. This is what the US has done, and its gotten us a trade deficit which is stagnating our economy. Rack up that trade deficit enough and investors will be scared off, leading to a flight of capital. Furthermore, as long as we have lowered or no tariffs on goods from another country, such as China, it allows that country to keep wages as low as possible as the majority of revenue is generated by foreign sales.

Globalization also leads corporations to also seek new markets to expand into, which in this case is the third world of developing countries. In order to 'catch them up' to the global economy, institutions such as the IMF and World Bank offers loans and adjustment programs that end up doing nothing more than creating rich minorities and impoverished majorities that have no domestic manufacturing base at all, just low paying sweatshops producing goods for first world countries. As these programs often include low taxes for corporations as incentive to bring jobs in, coupled with the promise of cheap, quasi-slave labor, jobs flee from majority countries to developing nations. As a result, first world economy stagnates further and debt multiplies as it has to continue borrowing just to keep itself afloat.

And of course, the very idea of national sovereignty is at stake.

The only pragmatic solution to the issues of globalization while maintain a world of trade is to reform the IMF and World Bank into institutions that allow for developing nations to protect their domestic industry, while first and second world nations also enact protectionist trade policies to bring themselves out of the mess globalization has put them in. The US cease to be a reserve currency, and an international organization must be established to oversee an international reserve currency to do nation-to-nation business in and fix exchange rates. Perhaps it would be best if the world were divided up into specific blocks where localized regional trade is encouraged.


The one thing that has to happen is to stop corporations from interfering in government. The system with corporate lobbyists being more important than the average citizen is BROKEN. It's corporations who influence who the US go to war with (weapons industry), corporations that ask for deregulation so they can screw over citizens (pharma/banking industry), corporations asking for subsidies claiming they create jobs while shipping jobs offshore or not creating as many jobs as they get subsidies (oil industry), and the list goes on.


Agree with you here!

edit on 14-3-2011 by Someone336 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Interesting piece the op has chosen, yet here are a few facts that was not covered or mentioned:
1) While the oil companies may seem to not pay a fee for drilling in the waters or on land, there are costs that they have to pay to actually drill in the US, however the costs to operate a drill is very expensive. The cost in 2010 is estimated to be around 420 thousand dollars a day, in deep water, with high performance of being around 150 thousand a day. While onshore and shallow depths may cost less, it is still up to 15 million, and that is just the operating costs, not to mention the insurance, the funds and various permits, or the equipment and personnel to operate such. Nor does that include the costs associated with the risks that are involved in operating and running a well. Then there is the transportation costs, and other costs for them to do business. All cause of the need for energy, and everyone in the country wants, and needs. Face it the country is addicted to oil. Nor does that include the costs of a refinery, or the land it sits on, along with all of the regulations that go along with operating said site.
2) While Big oil companies make huge profits, they also have huge risks and costs, along with overhead costs. No other business has to spend that kind of time and money to actually get any sort of profit from it. It is not a matter of drilling a well and pumping out oil, and it is not that simple. The oil company, first has to survey, then get the permits to drill. Then a test drill has to be sunk in, to find out if there is anything there, then if there is, get more permits to extract, then set up a permanent pump, and all the while, one law suit or change in regulation can put a stop to it, only for it to go through and have to redo the procedure again. Not everyone can run a well, and it takes time, effort and skill, along with different states have different regulations for pumping, drilling and permits required.
3) Yes the US government has giant deficits, however, it is rather unfair to put the blame all on the republicans, as the democrats are just as much to blame. They have had the majority in the halls of power for the past 40 years, they have had more than ample opportunity to set policy, change policy, repeal and do things for the better, when they had the numbers and the majority, yet chose not too. That is not the fault of the republicans. At any time during the majority of the democrats that they had, they could have very easily passed repeals for any number of bills, laws and actually done something like pay off the national debt, yet none of them did, nor for that matter, did they show any inclination to. Government waste and fraud are equal on both sides as well as the high amount of pork.
4) Yes big oil companies get subsidies every year, yet seems like when the democrats were in the majority the last 8 years, they seemed to have no problems about giving money away to every pet project they could think of, that did not have a direct benefit on the American public, or business. After all what company in United States, that would hire American workers, would benefit from the spending of money to teach Africans about hygiene?
5) What about all of the charities, grants, and endowments that big corporations give to, and keep giving. All of that is written in the tax code, and who writes the tax code? The US Congress. Here again, why is it that while the Democrats were in power, the tax code gets more complicated and no one gets a break?
6) Teachers are just as guilty as any for the misconceptions, as they are told what to teach, the standards coming out of the Department of Education as to what those standards are. Combined with the ulterior motive of that teachers are in a union, so that makes matters worse, when some of the unions are shown to be corrupt and just political tools. The TV issue, has been around since the 1950’s when Edward R. Murrow even stated that it was a dangerous tool for the masses, and that it could either be used to enlighten the population or dumb it down. There is nothing that states a child has to be allowed to watch TV, yet it seems that every house has one.
7) Subsidies may seem wrong, but the tax codes, permits and operating costs are just as wrong, not to mention about other countries putting and keeping subsidies on companies operating there, that are used to protect and limit trade against other companies in other nations. People seem to think that business have an obligation to give back to the country, yet fail to realize that you can not force a charity, and to do such, would be more disastrous for the economy than what it is already. Trying to set up a company or expand on one is mired in red tape, yet no one wants to go into that, and it is far worse in every state in the country, with different rules in all 50 states.
What many tend to see, but not admit, is that 99% of all politicians, both republican and democrat all lie and when they get into office the only thing on their mind is remaining in that position or getting into the next higher one. The only real change is to vote the incumbent out every election. That is how the country gets real change, not by promises or one party or the other, but by putting some one new in power every time there is an election.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


You're advocating Socialism. Socialism doesn't work.

Your argument about corporations being monopolies has a few holes too. Nothing is preventing competition. The government might give unfair advantages (in the form of subsidies and bail-outs) to some companies, but nothing is stopping you from opening up a competing company, offering up a better product at a better price and taking the other companies market share. It might be your Anarchist views preventing you from creating that viable, organized competition. Possibly its your Socialist side telling you that there would be not enough reward for taking the risk and putting in the effort of making a successful corporation, as you would have to equally distribute your profits to your employees who didn't put any effort into the initial creation of your corporation.

I stand by my initial statement about letting the free market decide. Give customers a product they want at a reasonable price, and they will decide if you succeed or fail. Government must stop interfering by handing out subsidies, grants, loans and bailouts and must quit regulating what the free market will self-regulate.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join