GE pays no taxes, receives tax bonuses, ships jobs overseas, and its CEO is into job creation

[Yugl]

Because in Japan they all understand that in order to prosper and be better they actually have to give a shit about their fellow countrymen. Here in America, it's all about self-gain and these companies know it. They donate money for tax write-offs, not because they care.

Historically, that's inaccurate. In fact, zaibatsu (The precursor to Keiretsu and what you would today refer to as corporations) were the source of misery until the US went over there and shut them down. Leading up till today, the motivation and effect is unclear because the close relationship between "corporations" (owned by Keiretsu) and government is hierarchical and government falls short of corporations. In other words, they only help because it affords them control of public office. This is obviously an interpretation of their interactions, but it's not a far stretch given the "second career" of politicians and the welfare design in Japan.

You're obfuscating. The relationship between the Japanese government and the private sector has a different dynamic than policy in the US. When people say the US gov is close to coporations, they're implying that the government does things to benefit corporations over the rest of society. Meanwhile, when someone says the private sector and the japanese gov are close, they are probably talking about control economy.

"Control economy" is vague, so given one reading of it I'll agree, but if you mean something to the effect of excluding the topic of welfare for instance, I'll disagree.

Edit: When you (they?) say "benefit corporations over the rest of society", do you mean that they simply gain an advantage or that the advantage comes at the cost of noncorporation society.

[kuronosan]

And one thing I'm sure most educated people are sick of are these little "landmarks" that the media and politicians tout as being huge changes in spending or policy.

Cutting menial, meaningful programs like social security, Planned Parenthood, or health care does nobody any good.

Cutting shit like $500 billion to bomb a country in the middle of a revolution? Sounds like a good idea. It's not like we needed to get involved.

Cutting stupid shit like $20 billion to fund a country terrorizing a poorly-armed group of people trying to protect their land? Yea. Sounds better.

How about cutting shit like allowing companies to avoid paying over $10 billion in tax money because of loopholes or in the name of allowing businesses to grow? Nah. Why?

It's circular logic. Companies outsource because they get to keep more money. More American jobs get lost. People have less money to spend. Companies complain that nobody is spending money and they have to let people go. More American jobs get lost. Companies beg for bailout because they want to keep 'running' to prevent laying off people. They use the money to fulfill 'contractual obligations' while still laying people off and outsourcing. More Americans lose jobs. More people have less money to spend. More companies whine about reduced flow of money. Rinse and repeat.

There's no such thing as "reduced income" if you're still turning billions of dollars in net profit.

In case you're fiscally stupid, which I tend to be at times, net profit means "after expenditures".

[archibaldcrane]

And one thing I'm sure most educated people are sick of are these little "landmarks" that the media and politicians tout as being huge changes in spending or policy.

Cutting menial, meaningful programs like social security, Planned Parenthood, or health care does nobody any good.

There's nothing menial about Social Security or Healthcare. Those two things plus defense spending are 3/4 of the federal budget.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Yugl]

Also, the bigger issue I've heard (Not looked into, so I'm just taking the source's word) is that the real issue with spending on this larger programs like social security is that it is ineffectively handled, so much of the money goes to waste. Again, only what I've heard reported (You know how television research is).

[Kuya]

Historically, that's inaccurate. In fact, zaibatsu (The precursor to Keiretsu and what you would today refer to as corporations) were the source of misery until the US went over there and shut them down. Leading up till today, the motivation and effect is unclear because the close relationship between "corporations" (owned by Keiretsu) and government is hierarchical and government falls short of corporations. In other words, they only help because it affords them control of public office. This is obviously an interpretation of their interactions, but it's not a far stretch given the "second career" of politicians and the welfare design in Japan.



"Control economy" is vague, so given one reading of it I'll agree, but if you mean something to the effect of excluding the topic of welfare for instance, I'll disagree.

Edit: When you (they?) say "benefit corporations over the rest of society", do you mean that they simply gain an advantage or that the advantage comes at the cost of noncorporation society.

I assume the latter, but i'm just generalizing a sentiment. I don't think there is necessarily a connection between the US gov granting tax breaks to a company, and certain people trying to bust unions, but it does imply that there is a preference and a priority.

[Melchiah]

You guys have it all wrong. They'll reinvest that money in the American economy.

[Plow]

Yet, spending keeps going up. So again, you delay the inevitable for a couple years, and after that, what have you accomplished? Nothing.

Tax breaks for the rich are just another form of spending.

It's the republicans that took a massive surplus and turned it into a huge deficit and fucked everything all up, it's just that idiots like you allow them to convince you that it's not spending when they hand out money to the top 1%, but it is when we try to strengthen our infrastructure and pull people out of poverty that never should have been there in the first place.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Tax breaks for the rich are just another form of spending.

That's one of the most perverted examples of liberal word vomit. Completely antithetical to American values.

If tax cuts are government spending cuts, then the government owned the money in the first place. Guess what, your money is not yours, and you have no right to it.

[Yuri-G]

you don't speak for all Americans. I'm American through and through and that statement goes right in line with my values.

also, lower taxes = bigger deficit
more spending = bigger deficit

he's got a point.

[Demosthenes11]

That's one of the most perverted examples of liberal word vomit. Completely antithetical to American values.

If tax cuts are government spending cuts, then the government owned the money in the first place. Guess what, your money is not yours, and you have no right to it.

ahhhh, good old greed - america's first and only real value

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Greed has nothing to do with it. If tax cuts are considering spending cuts that means it was the government's money to begin with. That means you don't own your money. The government can seize it whenever it wants b/c it's the government's money.

[Demosthenes11]

Greed has nothing to do with it. If tax cuts are considering spending cuts that means it was the government's money to begin with. That means you don't own your money. The government can seize it whenever it wants b/c it's the government's money.

calm down slippery slope man

[Melchiah]

So Swampy, your clever defense of supply-side economics, in the face of irrefutable proof that it does not work?

[Headspace]

Slip slop slippery slope.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Kuya]

You guys don't seem to understand that he doesn't think this because he's ignorant, he thinks these things because he believes in them the same way someone believes in a religion. To him this is ideological, but its function is ultimately a justification for the fact that tax cuts benefit the richest people the most, and they tend to negatively affect everyone else when it means cuts in services. Tax cuts also function as a stimulus. But stimulus is situational, and some rich people want tax cuts to be a permanent thing. So the argument gets constructed that taxes are an ilegitimate robbing of other people's money. In this way, they can get the idiots who have less money than them to support policy that does not benefit them.

Tax cuts aren't per se spending, but they have essentially the same effect as spending. Which is to say, it creates deficits that the conservatives then can claim were created by things that aren't tax cuts.

[Kurokikaze]

I cant possibly understand how you would think tax cuts aren't government spending. The government is essentially taking the taxes that YOU would pay and paying them for you by writing itself an IOU. The IOU is being written because the government doesn't have the money to cover these taxes so it ends up borrowing it from other countries. This then gets larded on the deficit... it is spending and it's about 70b/yr just for the top 2%. Use that "reason lobe" on your sig to comprehend that. lol

It's spending and theres absolutely no way you can spin that. That shits not voodoo economics its fucking math.

^ What Kuya said. It's mostly about shifting blame to other programs so that they can keep their tax cuts that help no one but the upper income earners.

[aurik]

You'll never be able to convince swampy that since D = S - T, decreasing T is equivalent to increasing S.

Not even remotely possible.

[Olo401]

There's nothing menial about Social Security or Healthcare. Those two things plus defense spending are 3/4 of the federal budget.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT SPENDING AT ALL - IT IS SELF-FUNDED INSURANCE!!!

The whole "Social Security is draining the budget" myth has been perpetuated by Republicans since the law was passed. Every cent of Social Security comes from a fund that is EXCLUSIVELY paid into by citizens and their employers. Likewise, the myth that the fund is going bankrupt is BS - it is paying out more than it is bringing in only because the population is currently balanced heavily towards citizens who have been paying into the system for 40-50 years and are now reaching retirement.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Greed has nothing to do with it. If tax cuts are considering spending cuts that means it was the government's money to begin with. That means you don't own your money. The government can seize it whenever it wants b/c it's the government's money.

Do you have any idea what money actually is?

[notorious bum]

I have a feeling he could benefit from my new favorite monetary history lesson docu titled "The Secret of Oz"


Swampy seems so handicapped when it comes to grasping this whole fiscal responsibility thing.