The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Hmmm.. I don't think I recall Chile being part of the U.S. so our constitution doesn't apply there.

no sh that was an example (doesn't stop the neocons from wanting to emulate them does it)

As far as corporations, the government doesn't have the authority to regulate what a company says or allows its employees to say on its behalf any more than it has the right to regulate what an individual says.

That's what limiting free speech is about.

fixed (nice try surreptitiously adding the part in bold)

nb. and the other part: "on its behalf". moving the goalposts again? or does anything an employee say even to their colleagues, count as the company's behalf?

As far as discrimination in the job market goes, the govt. has the right to ban this activity, as well as employment discrimination based upon race, age, sex, orientation or other factors.

no sh² I know the law. question is shouldn't the law be different & govt stay out of this if we apply your logic?

But employment discrimination isn't really a free speech issue, is it?

no sh³ but the question's about government interference in private business in other words where should the line be drawn?

[jelgate]

Oh, I get your point. But are you saying the Democrats wouldn't do the same thing if presented with the opportunity? If you recall, they set the standard of using "the nuclear option"; changing the rules from a 60 vote threshold to a simple majority back in 2013 to get their judiciary appointments confirmed by a Republican senate.

So now we are using schoolyard logic? Excellent. Im going to go push Soul in the mud

[SoulReaver]

So now we are using schoolyard logic? Excellent. Im going to go push Soul in the mud

u ask for it







gonna pull FH into the mud with me

[jelgate]

I would have been surprised if you didn't

[Annoyed]

So now we are using schoolyard logic? Excellent. Im going to go push Soul in the mud

How can you push him into what he is already wallowing in?

[Annoyed]

To be honest, I do think that companies that are recipients of corporate welfare should have to abide by the limitations of the constitution. If they don't want to do that, they can simply refuse government assistance.

I guess that would depend upon how you define corporate welfare. If the govt. is giving a corporation money it didn't have to begin with, maybe you have an argument. But if you define corporate welfare as the govt. taking less of that company earned to begin with, no.

[Annoyed]

Oh, I get your point. But are you saying the Democrats wouldn't do the same thing if presented with the opportunity? If you recall, they set the standard of using "the nuclear option"; changing the rules from a 60 vote threshold to a simple majority back in 2013 to get their judiciary appointments confirmed by a Republican senate.

So now we are using schoolyard logic? Excellent. Im going to go push Soul in the mud

Ok, now a more serious reply. Did you object when the Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to get Obama's judicial appointees confirmed? Or is "by any means necessary" only objectionable when the Republicans do it?

I've said this before, but it still holds true. The Democratic/left leaning voters have no one besides their own party leadership to blame for what will be a 6-3 SCOTUS,(or more, if the Senate stays in Republican hands this fall) which is admittedly going to be a disaster for people of that mindset.

The DNC insisted upon anointing Hillary as their candidate in 2016, despite the wishes of their own voters, and they're going to pay for it, dearly. If they had run Sanders, we very likely wouldn't have a Trump presidency.

In short, from the perspective of the left, the DNC screwed up, big time. You can't blame the Republicans for pressing whatever advantages that screw up gives them. But as is common with Democrats in general, accepting responsibility for their poor decisions isn't a concept that they understand.

And yes, you will make the argument that the Republicans are saying "Screw the country, we're doing what we want to do", but in my and many other people's eyes, the Republicans are doing what is good for the country. I consider a 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS to be a good thing for the country. If we get 7-2 at some point in the future, even better.

[aretood2]

I guess that would depend upon how you define corporate welfare. If the govt. is giving a corporation money it didn't have to begin with, maybe you have an argument. But if you define corporate welfare as the govt. taking less of that company earned to begin with, no.

Do you honestly consider giving oil companies and archaic coal mining concerns tax breaks where mom and pop shops get none as not corporate welfare?

[Annoyed]

Do you honestly consider giving oil companies and archaic coal mining concerns tax breaks where mom and pop shops get none as not corporate welfare?

As I said, if the govt. is giving a corporation money it didn't have to begin with, I would consider it corp. welfare. But if it's the govt. taking less of what that company earned to begin with, it's not.
[EDIT]
The idea is simple. Considering tax breaks as corporate welfare makes the assumption that the wealth created by that company originally belongs to the state, to be doled out to the company as the state sees fit, or not taken away, as the case may be.

That wealth actually belongs to the company, because it created it. Not taking it away is not giving the company anything.[/EDIT]

[aretood2]

As I said, if the govt. is giving a corporation money it didn't have to begin with, I would consider it corp. welfare. But if it's the govt. taking less of what that company earned to begin with, it's not.
[EDIT]
The idea is simple. Considering tax breaks as corporate welfare makes the assumption that the wealth created by that company originally belongs to the state, to be doled out to the company as the state sees fit, or not taken away, as the case may be.

That wealth actually belongs to the company, because it created it. Not taking it away is not giving the company anything.[/EDIT]

This sounds like semantics to me.

The problem is that that is not how tax credits work. Businesses get taxed at maximum rates. That taxed money then belongs to the state, as per law. A tax credit by definition is returning money already claimed by the government that a company owes the government. It's a loss for the government. It's not different than the government collecting the taxes in full and then paying the business money. To claim it is any different is basing an argument purely on semantics.

It's like if you owe me 10% of any proceeds for a shared venture each week. This week you make $100. By our agreement, $10 of the $100 belong to me, not you. But I give you a credit for whatever reason and only take $2. Those $2 still belong to me, I am just giving them up to you. That's how tax credits work. All $10 still belong to me, they always will each week even if I decide out of generosity to give some of that back to you. And just to make things simple, I'd simply only collect $8 and save us some time.

[Annoyed]

In a way, it is semantics. But in a more important way, it's a very important principle. In a capitalist society, the proceeds of that capitalist economic activity belong to the entity that created them. I think that is a very important distinction to maintain.

[SoulReaver]

In a capitalist society, the proceeds of that capitalist economic activity belong to the entity that created them. I think that is a very important distinction to maintain.

why should this only apply to the elites? GOP says taxes are a burden to big corporates but a duty for the average joe?

trumpets certainly took King Don's crumbs temporary tax cuts as a gift

[Annoyed]

why should this only apply to the elites? GOP says taxes are a burden to big corporates but a duty for the average joe?

trumpets certainly took King Don's crumbs temporary tax cuts as a gift

What are you babbling about? Taxes are levied upon workers and corporations. Those taxes take a portion of the wealth that person or corporation earned. In both cases, the state takes money from the entity in question.

In fact, very few corporations are outright handed checks from the govt. Remember, not taking something is not the same thing as giving something.

But a great many "peons" do get checks from the state; welfare, foodstamps, housing programs and all the rest of the social services system.

[Annoyed]

Wow. Just Wow.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/to.../29/id/869261/

Left-wing billionaire Tom Steyer just went comedian Bill Maher one better. While the HBO host wanted an economic crash to blame on President Donald Trump, Steyer suggested a thermonuclear war to give the country a "real course correction."

The hedge fund billionaire, who's bankrolling an effort to impeach the 45th president, made his remarks during an interview in Rolling Stone published Friday.

Interviewer Tim Dickinson observed that the strategy of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to return the House to Democratic control during the George W. Bush administration, was to remove the impeachment issue from the table.

"She pointed to how she dealt with George W. Bush – whom many wanted to impeach," Dickinson said. "She believes the decision to take impeachment off the table helped Democrats take the House in 2006, and paved a path to [Barack] Obama and a deeper correction."

Both the House and the Senate returned to Democratic control afterwards.

"I remember 2006," Steyer said. "What happened is that George W. Bush, he put us in two disastrous wars and we were headed toward the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. So if the answer is that we need those three things to happen for a course correction, I'd prefer to move a little quicker. How about that? But I take your point. Maybe we can have, like, a nuclear war and then we get a real course correction."

So this yutz wants a nuclear war to get a "course correction" after Trump's presidency.

Oh, well, no shortage of idiots in the world.

What I want to know is how long before the liberal elites and their allies in the media excoriate this guy, make him persona non grata, not fit to be associated with, as they would have done with anyone on the right who made a similar suggestion to get a "course correction" after 8 years of the prior sorry excuse for a president.

[aretood2]

In a way, it is semantics. But in a more important way, it's a very important principle. In a capitalist society, the proceeds of that capitalist economic activity belong to the entity that created them. I think that is a very important distinction to maintain.

I think Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, said it best so I'll quote him.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Companies receive that same protection and benefits from the state, and thus they ought to be taxed accordingly. Any return of that taxation is a gift of the state. Smith recognized that taxes are a prerogative of the state, and as long as they are properly administered and levied the wealth the state extracts through taxes are its property.

Tax credits is not the same thing as lowering taxes. Lowering taxes means reducing the maximum tax rate. Tax credit means a return of tax income. The credit is the government giving it's money that it collected back to the entity that gave it.

Capitalism is not anti-taxation. If anything it plays a central role in capitalism becuase the state is the mechanism that allows companies and private ventures to operate with security and it regulates laws defining and protecting private property.

Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, private labor, open and free markets, and self regulation via the invisible hand. It does allow for state intervention. For example, Walmart can't just hire a small army to occupy Target's property and dispose of their competition because the state would intervene. But for that to hold true, Target owes the state as much as Walmart.