ok conservatives

[spentagn]

For the record, liberals favor the consumer rather than the corporation, believing that tax cuts and welfare targeted at the consumer provide a bigger boost to GDP than the supply-side economics favored by conservatives.

Classical Keynesian arguement, does supply create demand or vice versa? Neither, IMHO. I supply to a monetarian philosophy. But, generally speaking, liberals do not favor tax cuts for consumers.

 

[specter]

Classical Keynesian arguement, does supply create demand or vice versa? Neither, IMHO. I supply to a monetarian philosophy. But, generally speaking, liberals do not favor tax cuts for consumers.

Well, as a means of using fiscal policy to stimulate the economy, I'm afraid they do. You seem to be of the opinion that tax cuts are exclusive to the conservative agenda which is simply not true.

It's true that liberal economic philosophy, again in terms of stimulating the economy, also favors government spending and/or incentives in labor-intensive economies such as public works and manufacturing. But let's also bear in mind that the last stimulus bill put forth by our supposedly conservative president included hundreds of millions of dollars for many of the country's largest corporations.

 

[the nature boy]

interesting. It seems if modern policticians cannot stay on the conservative path, be it liberal or conservative.

Too bad the passing of the recent farm subsidies bill and free trade restirctions on steel are totally politically motivated.

 

[cockdezl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

Umm, how effective do you believe another government department is going to be when the existing ones, such as the CIA and FBI, can't even properly perform their jobs? Don't conservatives believe that the answer to government inefficiency is to just get rid of government? Or do you now want to replace government inefficiency with government inefficiency? Sounds relatively inconsistent to me. No?

RYAN, you need to monitor your computer. I think that someone got into your room and posted the above message, which I actually agree with

Good point, but then why do liberals scream for increased spending on Departments or programs that are miserable failures?, such as public education, welfare programs, etc.

 

[cockdezl]

Spentagn, you are worried about business profits? about the amount of taxes businesses pay? I don't know why. General Motors, Ford, Wal Mart, and GE continue to pay very low taxes in comparison to their earnings. Further, businesses continue to make substantial enough earnings to pay their C.E.O's outrageous sums, while paying many of their workers less than stellar salaries. In addition, businesses continue to fleece investors while lining the pockets of those executives at the top (Remember, Enron, a Texas favorite).

RYAN, why can't a CEO make outrageous amounts of money? If the company decides that person is worth "x" amount of dollars, why should they not be able to pay them "x"? Also, what do you believe a starting salary should be for the lower rungs in a company? Give us a salary ballpark.

I'd be interested in looking at the tax burden some of America's major corporations paid last year and comparing that with the amount of income received and salaries paid to those at the top.

But RYAN, remember that statistics show that the majority of personal income tax is payed by these same high payed CEO's, which then goes to support the hand-out programs that you so love.

Fact of the matter is that government regulation over businesses is necessary to prevent injustices to America's investors and consumers---a principle that has been proven time and time again. Businesses even complained about the 33' securities laws, arguing that they would destroy the corporate model with "its many restrictionis and regulations." Well, I don't know about you, but I'd would say that American businesses have done just fine since the enactment of those regulations. Government regulation, when done logically and sensibly, benefits everyone.

And finally, those social programs you have such disregard for, are essential, particularly when companies like Wal Mart pay their employees minimum wage. How will someone retire with that salary? The answer---Social Security will help. If not Social Security, what is your suggestion? Putting the elderly on the street?

If a person works for WalMart for 20+ years and stays at bag-boy level, the what the fuck was he/she doing? People do move up the ladder if they stay and work hard. They may not become Bill Gates or Sam Walton, but they do move up. Also, I guess your mommy never read you Aesop's Fables (every child should be required to read them). Remember "The Ant and the Grasshopper"? Great story for teaching the concept of personal responsibility.

 

[RyanH]

Specter hit most of the points very well in responding to Spentagn, with the exception of a few:

Corporations along with the wealthy DO receive very favorable tax treatment. Please do a search and you'll find that GM among other major corporations pay low taxes in relation to their earnings because of tax handouts/breaks given by the government.
Moreover, we give HUGE breaks to major corporations everyday in ways that we will ultimately pay the price for. Example: allowing GM, Ford, and Chrsyler to continue producing large, fuel-inefficient SUVs because it's profitable for them, even though the end result is a hole in the ozone and more destruction to areas such as Alaska (where the temp has risen 7 degrees in the last few decades). Who'll eventually foot the bill for corporate negligence while CEOs enjoy multi-million dollar homes and yachts? The taxpayers will, of course.

Or, surely you've read about President Bush's refusal to resign the superfund clean-up legislation enacted under the Clinton Adminstration. The legislation sensibly required big polluting corporations to contribute money to a fund annually to help pay for clean-up costs. Well, President Bush dismissed that idea by deciding that the costs should instead be carried by the taxpayers. And, you are worried about corporate profits? I'm worried about having to open my bank account to pay for environmental messes I did not create.

Moreover, the wealthy routinely find shelters for their money, which the IRS constructively allows. Instead of auditing the poor and middle-class in proportion to the wealthy, the IRS statistically audits the poor at a much higher rate in proportion to the wealthy. Thus, little sympathy is warranted for those at the upper end of the spectrum.

Wal-Marnopoly is NOT known as a company that treats its employees well. Over half of its workforce is part-time. Why? They don't have to provide health insurance and benefits to its hard-working employees. Also, each Wal-Mart store will vary in its payroll expenses, while one store may offer $9 salary per hour, that is not necessarily the salary for every store.

Assuming arguendo that Wal-Marnopoly does pay 9 bucks a hour----------WOW. Maybe a part-time employ will draw 130 bucks per week. Have you tried supporting your family off that salary, Spentagn?

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

RYAN, you need to monitor your computer. I think that someone got into your room and posted the above message, which I actually agree with

Good point, but then why do liberals scream for increased spending on Departments or programs that are miserable failures?, such as public education, welfare programs, etc.

What do you think is the alternative to public education? private education? privating the entire educational system? Well, that's already been proven to be a failure. A few weeks ago in the TIMES, there were statistics showing that test scores from school systems that had been privatized were no higher than the test scores from public schools. Perhaps, one solution to cleaning-up public schools is attracting bright minds which, in turn, requires higher pay.

As for welfare---didn't President Clinton enact welfare reform legislation that has drastically reduced the number of Americans receiving welfare benefits?

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

RYAN, you need to monitor your computer. I think that someone got into your room and posted the above message, which I actually agree with

You see, I told you I'm no partisan.

 

[cockdezl]

Specter hit most of the points very well in responding to Spentagn, with the exception of a few:

Corporations along with the wealthy DO receive very favorable tax treatment. Please do a search and you'll find that GM among other major corporations pay low taxes in relation to their earnings because of tax handouts/breaks given by the government.

I personally favor an abolishment of the income tax, since it penalizes productivity and favors dependancy. We as a country did fine without it for 100 years, but the powers-that-be craved an unlimited source of revenue to increase federal powers and we have this piece of shit tax that working people just love.

Moreover, we give HUGE breaks to major corporations everyday in ways that we will ultimately pay the price for. Example: allowing GM, Ford, and Chrsyler to continue producing large, fuel-inefficient SUVs because it's profitable for them, even though the end result is a hole in the ozone and more destruction to areas such as Alaska (where the temp has risen 7 degrees in the last few decades). Who'll eventually foot the bill for corporate negligence while CEOs enjoy multi-million dollar homes and yachts? The taxpayers will, of course.

I do not favor corporate bail-outs or tax breaks, not because of the ridiculous idea you postulate, but because it is favoritism. I don't believe that GM or Enron or whoever should get special treatment, when smaller companies get the finger routinely.

But your assertion that GM and Ford are causing global warming with Tahoes and Expeditions is ridiculous. The science of environmental change is not reliable, we have such sketchy, shody information that changes with every passing day. Your assertion that these companies should be held accountable for things that we do not understand is even more laughable.

Or, surely you've read about President Bush's refusal to resign the superfund clean-up legislation enacted under the Clinton Adminstration. The legislation sensibly required big polluting corporations to contribute money to a fund annually to help pay for clean-up costs. Well, President Bush dismissed that idea by deciding that the costs should instead be carried by the taxpayers. And, you are worried about corporate profits? I'm worried about having to open my bank account to pay for environmental messes I did not create.

I don't believe that companies should be forced to fund something that they do not believe in, just as I do not believe that individuals should be forced to pay for altruistic programs.

Moreover, the wealthy routinely find shelters for their money, which the IRS constructively allows. Instead of auditing the poor and middle-class in proportion to the wealthy, the IRS statistically audits the poor at a much higher rate in proportion to the wealthy. Thus, little sympathy is warranted for those at the upper end of the spectrum.

Since you support the existance of the IRS, through your support of progressive taxation, then you are the cause of this problem, not me. But I don't see a problem in placing one's money in shelters or offshore accounts to protect one's earnings from the jack-booted thugs you so love to support.

Wal-Marnopoly is NOT known as a company that treats its employees well. Over half of its workforce is part-time. Why? They don't have to provide health insurance and benefits to its hard-working employees. Also, each Wal-Mart store will vary in its payroll expenses, while one store may offer $9 salary per hour, that is not necessarily the salary for every store.

Assuming arguendo that Wal-Marnopoly does pay 9 bucks a hour----------WOW. Maybe a part-time employ will draw 130 bucks per week. Have you tried supporting your family off that salary, Spentagn?

It is not the responsibility of a company to provide a leisurely lifestyle for anyone who so wishes. They have business needs that vary: "x" number of managers, "x" number of loading/unloading crew, "x" number of cashiers, etc. Not all of these are high-paid or full-time, but there is no responsibility for them to offer this.

If you have a part-time job at Wal-Mart that pays little AND you have a family, then I suggest a second job and maybe a third. It is not the responsibility of the world to hold your damn hand, because you CHOSE to have a family, yet not have any means to support them. I don't buy into this collectivist shit.

 

[Sushi X]

in alabama, if you are caught littering the highways, you can be fined up to 500 bucks. that's just for dumping trash onto a major highway. now, imagine how many corporations would be a little more enviromentally conscience if they had to pay for the clean up or clean it up themselves. it's about taking responsibility for your actions. you mess it up you either clean it or pay to have it done. it's fair. why should tax payers not only have to pay for their services but for their clean up as well?