OT: I want my vote back

[1bad65]

The government doesn't prevent them from building new refineries. The government does it job and enforces environmental laws and new refineries refuse to comply, so they don't build.

If they cannot (as opposed to will not) comply with restrictions placed on them by the Government, then they are indeed prevented from builing new refineries.

[MasterKiller]

If they cannot (as opposed to will not) comply with restrictions placed on them by the Government, then they are indeed prevented from builing new refineries.

It's against the law to pollute. If you can't do business within the confines of legal regulations, don't blame the government, blame your business model.

[1bad65]

It's against the law to pollute. If you can't do business within the confines of legal regulations, don't blame the government, blame your business model.

You do realize what you just posted, right?

If the government passes laws making it impossible for a business to run and make a profit, that's terrible. Do not see how horrible that scenario is? Do you truly believe that is Government's role? Do you really think The Constitution was written to allow that?

Now Obama has said he will do that to the coal industry btw.

[1bad65]

Look at it this way:

When liberals want to try and cut smoking, they raise taxes on tobacco. They repeatedly justify those tax increases by saying it does indeed reduce the number of smokers. Yet in the same breath they will swear that raising income taxes on employers will increase jobs. And they say increasing capitol gains taxes will actually increase investments. Do you guys not see the huge contradiction here?

[1bad65]

At least one of them has gotten a government bailout themselves! Quite recently too, around 2004-2005.

"The Japanese government and creditors, including the Japanese corporate parent, have stepped in to prevent a complete collapse of the Mitsubishi automotive entity."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=9&gl=us

Yup, those guys are really running circles around the US companies.

[WinterPalm]

If there were no regulations we'd be getting closer to China. We don't want to be a polluted wasteland. Ban coal outright...it's outdated and terrible for the environment.

[KC Elbows]

You do realize what you just posted, right?

If the government passes laws making it impossible for a business to run and make a profit, that's terrible. Do not see how horrible that scenario is? Do you truly believe that is Government's role? Do you really think The Constitution was written to allow that?

Dude, there was a creek near where I grew up that you could light on fire with a match due to chemicals released by nearby plants some years before. Yes, if a company wants to do that, they shouldn't be allowed to, for obvious reasons.

I can't run a profitable and legal cocaine business, and in most states can't open a brothel. Nor can I release certain chemicals into the air as part of a business model. The constitution was a framework that allowed for a legislature to make laws, those laws were, from the beginning, going to determine some conduct to be legal, and some illegal, not the constitution, which merely gives the bounds those laws must respect.

Mostly, business owners aren't philanthropists giving people jobs out of the kindness of their hearts, they are giving people jobs in order to make a profit off of their labor, and that profit should be taxed, and not the same dollar amount as some low wage earner, but a reasonable amount that any American should be proud to contribute. Hell, J.P. Morgan was a son of a *****, but at least he fronted a lot of cash to solve problems, not like most of these CEOs today, who do everything to make sure that the government pays every dime.

Honestly, big business has the most access to congress, and more ability to get their interests met than pretty much anyone else; no one, under the current system, is going to be able to enact taxes that undo them, because no one else has their influence.

Additionally, the comparison to taxes on smoking are false. Smokers don't make a profit off of smoking, businesses do make a profit off of their business, so the motivation to quit is nonexistent unless the profit margins are too small. Additionally, businesses the last ten years have been getting ridiculous write offs, house painters getting tax breaks for Hummers they don't need that exacerbate the fuel problem, if such business owners were not shrewd enough to know that taxes go up and down, if they failed to plan for the future, I feel for them. The problem with many free market supporters is that they forget that the free market exists as a competition, and some must, by definition, lose that competition, and go belly up. If people didn't reinvest all the money they got in tax breaks in order to improve their business model for the future, then they reap the rewards, unless they're doing home loans or manufacturing cars.

If a business cannot pay employees, pay a fair share of taxes based off of the benefit they gain from living in a semi-free market, and make a decent profit, it is not the constitution that should protect them, but the free market that should force them to improve or step out of that field, or there is no competition, no motivation to improve business models, and stagnation.

It is always odd to me how so-called free market supporters fail to appreciate that the free market ideally is there to kill most businesses at their inception, in their old age, and sometimes just because times changed. Times have changed, businesses will have to pay SOME more taxes, for quite some time they had to pay SOME less, if they can't exist within the margin between by planning ahead, maybe they should move overseas and let China bail them out, fine opportunity for retooling and modernizing. The ones that remain probably know that it's a two party system that goes back and forth, and planned accordingly.

IF our free market were a little better at killing the old and infirm companies, instead of protecting industries that are behind the curve, we at least wouldn't be bailing out the US auto industry.

/rant

[1bad65]

KC,

But the difference between say a power plant or a gus-guzzling car and brothels or cocaine is that the first 2 examples are LEGAL. I don't think it's Congress' job to try and regulate/fine/tax LEGAL businesses into bankruptcy. I don't see anywhere where The Constitution would allow such a travesty.

Remember, The Constitution is full of the term 'shall not'. It ALWAYS refers to what the Government cannot do, but it NEVER refers to constraints on the American citizen.

[1bad65]

And my smoking comparison was right on. My point is that higher taxes ALWAYS mean less of what is being taxed, and NEVER more. Yet liberals want it both ways.

[CLFLPstudent]

And my smoking comparison was right on. My point is that higher taxes ALWAYS mean less of what is being taxed, and NEVER more. Yet liberals want it both ways.

So you agree with RD and think that $136 billion in tax cuts is not enough? How much is enough? How are tax breaks different from bailouts? How come there has been no trickle-down effects from Bush's Corporate Tax breaks of 2004?

Why the anger towards Mitsubishi, but it was OK for Ford and GM to back Hitler and the Nazis?

-David

[Drake]

I was going to post about a very interesting and smartly conducted discussion I heard about the economy, and how it really made me think about things. But then I read the preceding posts, and realized it'd be like feeding fine cuisine to a three-toed tree sloth.

[rogue]

I think trickle down effect was dismissed sometime in the 90s as utterly fraudulent and unfeasible.
There is a trickle up effect though: workers, who produce everything on the planet, are severely underpaid and thus, through this system of underpayment, buy CEOs nice jets and islands.
I'll agree that this trickle up effect works...but I don't think it's the best way to do things.

No trickle down? I just bought a nice expensive washer and dryer(got a deal) and was talking with the delivery guys about how busy they were. Turns out that the month before they were doing between 0 and 3 deliveries a day which meant their jobs were on the line and they had to take vacation time to stay employed. The salesman also said things were slow.

Then there is the sporty little two seater Mrs. Rogue was going to buy, but we've put it off much to the salesman and dealerships dismay as they are doing close to zero business. The salesman had told us of his upcoming wedding which considering the lack of sales could be effected which would effect the caterer, etc.

And how could I forget the local YMCA which had a spike in memberships being canceled, and those memberships are what helps fund their outreach programs for the poor.

Trickle down is just a fact of life.

[Mas Judt]

Greetings,

There has been much talk about Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State. I thought this incoming administration was about change.


I WANT MY VOTE BACK STAT!!!!!


mickey

So Mr, 'no more Washington insiders' is the total WAshington insider - HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!

Oh goody, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Pelosi - Clinton Insiders - The people that BROUGHT you the economic meltdown are here to 'Save us'. Bwahahahahaaa!!!

Just because Bush was too dumb to stop it, doesn't mean they can't make it worse...

Let the a$$-covering begin...

THis is so-o-o-o funny as the kool-aid drinkers discover artificial flavor ain't so good...

[mickey]

I was watching this thread meander and, at times, was going to delete it. But I saw some healthy discussion about things.

I really did not want to participate in the election process because I saw the GAME and the Democratic Party's gimmicky use of race and gender to push their way into the White House. I voted only because of a moment's doubt, or should I say hope-- that I could be wrong about what I was seeing.

I had the opportunity to see Mr Obama's speech after he won. That was when I had regret. It was fully planned and orchestrated to perfection, with close ups of whipped glassey eyed individuals. It was mind control at full throttle and I was glad I was awake enough to see it.

The Clintons (and I am not talking about Chelsea) have long been associated with murder. I did not pay it much mind until Hillary made that slip about Bobby Kennedy assasination before the primary last June. My jaw hit the floor. They don't belong in politics; they belong in cages with starving lions.

mickey

[WinterPalm]

No trickle down? I just bought a nice expensive washer and dryer(got a deal) and was talking with the delivery guys about how busy they were. Turns out that the month before they were doing between 0 and 3 deliveries a day which meant their jobs were on the line and they had to take vacation time to stay employed. The salesman also said things were slow.

Then there is the sporty little two seater Mrs. Rogue was going to buy, but we've put it off much to the salesman and dealerships dismay as they are doing close to zero business. The salesman had told us of his upcoming wedding which considering the lack of sales could be effected which would effect the caterer, etc.

And how could I forget the local YMCA which had a spike in memberships being canceled, and those memberships are what helps fund their outreach programs for the poor.

Trickle down is just a fact of life.

I don't understand. It seems like those examples just show that trickle down isn't occurring. Do you think the top CEOs are really taking pay cuts? Someone made huge money off the high price of oil. What about the giant tax cuts to the uber-wealthy?

Trickle down is kind of like the crumbs being flicked to the peasants. It's a rubbish way of running things and doesn't work.