Questions for our Conservative ATS Members...

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


1) Well there is a problem with this and I will address it with a couple points.
Point 1: We have screwed up in making corporations equal to people with no one real person being liable to the whole of their wealth.
Point 2: Their is a problem with the way that we have created regulations, the essentially allow for the violator whe created the circumstances that created the need for the reg to come into existence to pay a small fine and take the corective action. While also putting a new cost for a start up to have to come up with to comply with the reg which makes the needed capital cost prohibitive. This also forces in some instances a standard approach which must be taking by law and therefore stops the posibility of a new meathod which may avoid the problem to come into being because it must first work its way around the beracucy that is usually tied strongly to the industry giants to get approval that won't come before you expend al your capital.
Point 3: If you take the previous points and take it to mean that esesentially you have big companies ran by a combination of people that have no real accountability financially and personally for the companies mistakes, and have a hand in how there competators must compete against them then there becomes a certain amount of uncertainty inhearnt in a smaller corporations operations that doesn't have as strong of a say.
Point 4: To extend on 3 when you have a new adminastration and a congress who are all competing for public opinion and reaching their hand into things they know nothing about and trying to dictate business operations but can't come to a definenite solution that can survive the sway of public opinion the uncertainty can allow for higher quick profits but it becomes somewhat impossible to make longer term decisions.

**basically I think of it as this: I could get a lot of apples during a strong earthquake, but I won't be able to survey for a new orchard.**

Its the uncertainty outside the normal market forces.

2) There should be no tax breaks for any company.
3) I support the individual with an Idea and the willingness to take that Idea and run with it.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
A couple of answers from a libertarian conservative.

First, oil company "subsidies" are simply tax rules that allow oil companies to accelerate the expensing of legitimate production related costs instead of spreading the expenses over a number of years as may be required when expensing infrastructure costs in other industries. These "subsidies" also include a miscellaneous cost deduction that allows domestic manufacturers to shelter about 6% of net profits from taxes. Also a benefit enjoyed by other domestic manufacturers.

So while there are some tax benefits to being a domestic oil producer the benefits are hardly the radical corporate welfare portrayed by the left.

So while we're on the subject there is a certain disconnect between oil prices and gasoline right now, and much of this disconnect has to do with refining capability and EPA formulation requirements which greatly increase operational refining costs. Both of these issues could be solved politically, and let's not forget that a considerable component of gas prices at the pump are due to taxes.

And quickly addressing the profits vs unemployment question, I'm afraid that much of the structural unemployment our nation is being subjected to right now has to do with skilled vs unskilled labor issues. In today's global economy unskilled labor jobs are easy to outsource to foreign labor markets. Those unskilled jobs that are available here do not pay enough to motivate potential workers to forsake their unemployment benefits. The primary way to fix this problem is to eliminate benefits, thereby removing this lack of incentive.

Another structural problem is that many skilled and unskilled labor jobs were involved with the housing industry which remains a mess. Unfortunately after the distortion caused by the housing bubble (which was certainly the result of policies promoted by both political parties) it's going to take a while longer for the housing industry to fix itself, so unless another industry rises to pick up the slack in the labor market (such as domestic energy production) it appears we may have to deal with higher than average unemployment for a while longer. While it will be difficult for government policy to address this issue, anyone being intellectually honest will have to admit that the left, with its disdain for fossil fuel development and endless manipulation of the housing market, is probably less
likely to encourage a viable solution to these issues. So while it might seem attractive to ask why profits aren't leading to jobs issue is certainly more complex and of course well beyond the scope of any political solution.

So now that I answered the questions I get to make a point. YOU are on your own. The government can not solve these problems or any others very effectively. When you accept this truth then the only logical conclusion is that because government is not good at very much then we should work together to greatly limit it's size and the expense of it's existence. I sincerely believe that if the Federal government was not sucking up about 24% of our nations wealth to be doled out politically then that money when left in local communities could solve many of the problems the federal government is so piss poor at addressing. That's my primary point and if that makes me radical....then so be it. Thanks for asking.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


These are questions for neo-liberals not conservatives.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I believe what both Bush and Obama have done or allowed to happen that is DIFFERENT and changed things is the regulations passed over the last 10-12 years combining to make Profit very very good (as always) but expansion and building very very bad. THAT is new. No expansion means no new jobs..or what we've watched happen. They go to nations that LIKE businesses building new things and huge new bases for employment and don't torture them through years of permits, red tape and court law suits just to open the doors on a new plant or whatever a business does.


I think you hit part of the nail on the head there.

In the past if a company wanted to make more money they had to expand, or invest in another company growing in their field.
Things have changed though, it is now easier for companies to earn subsidies for not working or to only work in a specific aspect of their field.
Lets face it in order to make money through expansion you have risks.
Risk of failure, risk of law suit, risk of workman's comp, risk of government fines, the list goes on.
It is easier and cheaper for corporations to collect government checks for doing nothing.
If they do need to expand they expand in other countries and than due to tax laws keep their profits over seas.
Their stock still goes up domestically though, which earns them more capital.

I know some regulations such as overtime reform are required, but when a union can sue an airplane manufacturer for expanding in another state and stop the expansion there is just too many regulations.

We need to examine the regulations, throw out the outdated or harmful ones and start fresh.
Vote out every current regulation, and vote in new ones that help business grow and help the economy.

While we are at it make all laws and regulations expire after 10 years that way we don't just keep adding more on top which causes confusion and loop holes.
If a law or reg is good/helpful it can be renewed, if 10 years after it started it turns out it does harm it automatically expires no muss no fuss.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


interesting question - wish you had more takers

Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?
Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.

Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.
www.guardian.co.uk...

interesting article - seems relevant



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Ok.. First you are somewhat correct that this is at first glance a little hard to understand but think of it on a smaller scale. Lets say you have some money in your personal bank account and your thinking about buying a new car or moving to a nicer house but the economy sucks and you dont really have a lot of faith in the direction it is heading. Do you pull the trigger on that house now and maybe lose your ass on it or do you stick it out and wait till things turn around or at least till you have some faith that it will turn around? I worked in an industry that the bottom fell out of when the economy took a dump and it wasnt because companies didnt have any money. It was because they stopped spending that money. They set on it and they have no problem waiting it out. And those companies not spending their money caused other companies that relied on them spending to lay off workers and that generally rolls down hill. As soon as those large corporations have some faith in our direction again they will start spending money again. They have already started in some areas. And as far as gas prices. Remember, we dont buy our own for the most part and we are very reliant on foreign oil where foriegn oil speculators have jacked up the prices. If the tree huggers would let us drill in Anwar or if Obama would have allowed the pipeline to come down from Canada we would be in a little better shape there. Had we started drilling our own oil years ago we would right now be reaping the benefits of it. So yes, on the surface if you just look at a few numbers in one area it looks funny but when you look at the whole picture you can see the problem boils down to confidence in our leadership and our economies direction.





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join