2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
Only by using your definition that starts with the premise that every corporation is already on welfare.
How's That Obama Recovery Feeling?
- Thread starter 84Deac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I have never said that. I said there is corporate welfare.
There is welfare for families. That doesn't mean EVERY family is on welfare.
Why would think that if one industry is on welfare that ALL must be? Your premise is inherently and fatally flawed.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
Your definition says that.
I will post it again: You stated that corporate welfare is giving one business something that other businesses don't get. I'm asking you to name two businesses that pay the exact same amounts and get the benefit of the exact same things. You can't, because there are none, so under your definition, every corporation receives corporate welfare.
I will post it again: You stated that corporate welfare is giving one business something that other businesses don't get. I'm asking you to name two businesses that pay the exact same amounts and get the benefit of the exact same things. You can't, because there are none, so under your definition, every corporation receives corporate welfare.
WRONG!!!!
Once again. If ONE company gets something that another DOESN'T get THAT's welfare.
Your premise is totally FOS.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
Fair enough, but don't subsidies/tax breaks/incentives, etc. result in a retention of their income? It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Caturday
Well-known member
So you're blaming Bush for all of that? lol. If only one man was so powerful. It's absurdity.
Let me get tjhis straighjt, Bush doesn't get the blame but Obama is responisble for making it good enough for you.
talk about a double standard.
The reality the combination of W's tax cuts, wars and unpaid for RX plan are his fault.
It's also his fault that he didn't oversee the illegal actyions by the banks and mortgage companies. the DOJ works for him and he didn't want to know. When asked abotu it, his stock response was,"the market will fix it."
The negiligence of oversight of the market was a major factor in the implosion.
talk about a double standard.
The reality the combination of W's tax cuts, wars and unpaid for RX plan are his fault.
It's also his fault that he didn't oversee the illegal actyions by the banks and mortgage companies. the DOJ works for him and he didn't want to know. When asked abotu it, his stock response was,"the market will fix it."
The negiligence of oversight of the market was a major factor in the implosion.
Caturday
Well-known member
Careful there, I was a trader and my firm didn't blow up. We did good.
Clinton's policies spurred the housing bubble. Bush made mistakes and boom disaster. Obama is making mistakes and we're going to face disaster in the future.
The reality is the war in Iraq cost over $1T. W's tax cuts costs over $3T. Then you you add what he allowed to happen in the housing market.
Clinton's policies had nothing to do with not enforcing the laws that could have prevented bust.
Ther should have been thousands of brokers and bankers doing perp walks as well as some home buyers.
Of course after putting a few CEOs and senior managers in jail, we wouldn't have had the problem. But W wanted no part of enforcing the law.
Clinton's policies had nothing to do with not enforcing the laws that could have prevented bust.
Ther should have been thousands of brokers and bankers doing perp walks as well as some home buyers.
Of course after putting a few CEOs and senior managers in jail, we wouldn't have had the problem. But W wanted no part of enforcing the law.
Caturday
Well-known member
LOL @ Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the housing bubble.
The policies of the housing market led to the problem becuase of the illegal actions.
Noiw if you want to talk about glass-Steagall. that's another story. That should never have been overturned.
We tried something like that in the 80s and it led to disaster. This was a mistake.
Noiw if you want to talk about glass-Steagall. that's another story. That should never have been overturned.
We tried something like that in the 80s and it led to disaster. This was a mistake.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
At the height of the housing/lending market, 23 of the top 25 lenders did not fall under the CRA.
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
Obama himself has tried to take actions that he said would boost the economy. He has basically promised to deliver on stuff that he has very little control over, and he has spent a shit-ton of money trying to deliver on that. I think most sensible people would realize that his policies would have minimal effect on the economy and would just be a waste of money, but politics causes people to promise things. So no, he isn't responsible for the economic collapse (and Bush really isn't either), but don't promise to fix something you have little control over. Here we are, now 3 years into the economic doldrums (2 1/2 under Obama), and we're waiting for the double dip and not the recovery. Any President would get the blame for that politically.
It also has been argued (by smarter folk than me) that he has slowed the recovery with tax/regulation plans that produce uncertainty for the business climate as well as with a continued fiscal policy that is unsustainable.
Whatever the case, the prez gets credit when things are good and gets crap when they are bad...whether or not he has control over it.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
No, I don't believe that at all, I don't fault anyone who legally reduces their tax burden. I believe that a lot of people who don't work are lazy, but that isn't directly related to paying taxes. Any person who legally reduces his tax obligations is savvy and just acting in his best economic interests, whether he would otherwise be paying $50 or $50,000. However, it is evidence of a broken system when some people are legally allowed to reduce their tax liability to zero (or get credits back). But that isn't the individual's fault. In the popular jargon, don't hate the player, hate the game.
However, there is a notable difference between individuals and corporations that I think you are really asking about. Corporations are just collections of individuals and, by nature, pass 100% of their tax burden onto individuals. So, from a systematic perspective, I don't think it ultimately matters if corporations pay taxes or not and a lot of international macro competitive advantages could be gained by eliminating corporate taxes. I do think that all individuals should pay taxes at some level, if only because it gives them a perceived stake in government.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
No, that is pretty disjointed, work does not equal taxes under the current system. If you have a lot of money and legally don't pay taxes, you are savvy. If you don't have a lot of money and legally don't pay taxes, you are savvy. If you have a lot of money and don't work (assuming not retired), you are lazy. If you don't have a lot of money and don't work, you are lazy.
DeacWatcher
Ricky Peral
I like 84 am self employed and thats where the similarities end. I do not think Obama's policies have helped/hurt our business in the last year. Sure the last 9 months of 2009 and first 3 of 2010 were terrible as they were for everyone, but since then our business is up 40% and we are going to do some hiring this summer. My business is industrial sales in Upstate SC and WNC and all the auto plants(and suppliers) in the south right now are running full speed ahead. In case you didn't notice BMW's profit quadrupled over its last quarter. They all are also hiring like crazy. I don't know where all you cats live that are spreading the doom and gloom, but if you want a job in our are neck of the woods, there is one to be had. It may not be as good as the one you had when you were laid off, but its better than being unemployed.