Comment Rescue: A Classic Example of Zombie Republicanism
Duffy asks…
Please explain how you will tax corporations and not have them pass that cost on to consumers.
Easy. They might not make $11 billion dollars in profit one quarter.
I can’t get over what a bunch of empty headed zombies these Republicans have been turned into. There was a time in this country when we felt we were “all in this together.” Now, the Republicans who comment here, feel the need to protect Sam Walton’s billionaire off-spring from any bumps and bruises the free market might occasionally apply.
Instead of giving a single thought to the country, it is all about making sure Paris Hilton keeps her trustfund intact for these deep thinkers and patriots.
And how can you be sure that such cost offsetting won’t occur? The goal of any business is to cut costs while maximising profits.
Also, since when was it the government’s job to tell anyone how much they’re “allowed” to make? It’s an insanely unamerican concept (fit for communists & socialists) and yet you liberals enthusiastically support it.
The view you express is a “Classic example of zombie contemporary Liberalism”
You clearly don’t undertstand capitalism, democracy, or America.
That’s all. There is nothing left to say after your comment Mike. Anyhting more would be like trying to teach a monkey to play badminton.
The thing is that for most of the large box retailers granted some generous tax subsidy for locating in your nearest shopping mall is that you pay the sales taxes and the big box store gets to keep whatever portion of those taxes you pay as fulfillment of their subsidy. They basically do the paperwork to tell the state of local government what they are collecting so everyone can keep track of the books. But those taxes you pay in a subsidized Walmart go right to Walmart’s pockets.
Anyhting more would be like trying to teach a monkey to play badminton.
LOL. Shuttlecocks.
Nice valid argument Jason.
“The goal of any business is to cut costs while maximising profits.”
This sentence is a truism and is the essence of capitalism. By the way, it seems I once again have to remind you folks that America isn’t a Democracy.
And Obama is an elitist? So much for the defense of capitalism.
OH MY GOD HE GOT ONE RIGHT!!!!
yes Mikey the United States is a constitution-based republic with strong democratic traditions. Its the corporations and the sheeple they buffalo that prevent a true working democracy.
http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=2260
where do you think corporate profit goes?
The goal of any business is to cut costs while maximising profits
that would be Milton Friedmans goal. Some business go in business to serve a need to a specific population. Some, gasp, even do it to help people and don’t have the goal of cutting costs as the utmost
Actually, having things cost a bit more might be a good thing — then maybe people would stop buying cheap crap until it fills up their garages and they have to part their cars in the driveway.
DBT wrote: that would be Milton Friedmans goal. Some business go in business to serve a need to a specific population. Some, gasp, even do it to help people and don’t have the goal of cutting costs as the utmost
COMMUNIST!
where do you think corporate profit goes?
It goes onto the loss statements for last year…
Profit is an accident. Corporations do not want profit because they don’t want to pay tax on it..
They do everything in their power to spend down their revenue before it turns into corporate profit. Executive bonuses, dividends, stock buybacks – just about anything except wage increases will do.
An executive bonus or divident is far preferable to building a new factory. Because if you build a new factory, you might fail and lose money! And to succeed, you would actually have to work, and the money wouldn’t even come in right away.
Whereas with a bonus or dividend, you have cash in hand right away! And your stock price goes up – everybody wins!
Thank you anon, but I fear your lesson is falling on empty-headed zombie ears.
The goal of a corporation should be to maximize stakeholder value – not shareholder value at the expense of every other stakeholder.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the little bit of knowledge that these zompbies have about capitalism makes them think that taxes are an unvarnished evil and that anything that prevents an owner (shareholder) from making more money is the work of the devil.
“Its the corporations and the sheeple they buffalo that prevent a true working democracy.”
Keep your “true working democracy” I sure as hell don’t want it.
“fit for communists & socialists”
Repub motto:
When you can’t debate.
Red bait.
Not red bait. It’s historically true and factual within the context of my comment.
And Dana – The lack of Substantive debate has been pretty one-sided here. You folks really need to learn how not to run away from arguments and how to debate without throwing ad hominems and unqualified accusations at commenters. Instead several folks here (jason, DTB, Pandora, Von & TT) jump right into obfuscation and ad homimens to mask intellectual deficiencies in their arguments.
cry me a river murderboy
Ironically he proves my point yet again. How brilliant of you DBB….. Straightarrow was right over at Robb’s. Insanity.
“Easy. They might not make $11 billion dollars in profit one quarter”
How is that, in any way, a substantive response to my question? Are you suggesting that you’d put a maximum number on the profit a company may make? Is that a raw number? Is it based on some sort of sales equation? Will it be applied to other industries or just oil companies? You call me an empty headed republican (I am neither) and then offer nothing in return.
Dummy,
You asked I answered. Get over yourself. Maybe you should try getting away from the tube and crack a book someday
Jason – and he’s not allowed to call out your response as unintelligent and lacking substance?
And Duffy – Of course, these folks consider “excessive profit” bad, unless of course it’s the .Gov raking in the money from increased taxation.
Look. There is no argument here. There is no debate. You nuts think that corporations have some kind of God given right to make as much money as they want no matter what.
That is an opinion. It is a stupid opinion that I don’t happen to agree with.
“You asked I answered. Get over yourself. Maybe you should try getting away from the tube and crack a book someday”
You did no such thing. You simply said they wouldn’t be “allowed” to make that much money with nothing further. I ask how you plan to do this and you resort to ad hominem attacks.
YHBT.
YHL.
HAND.
Duffy – Folks here have a bad habit of making unqualified statements.
When the guys with the offshore accounts make (not Earned) over 400 times what the men on the factory floor earn, there is a tremendous problem. The CEOs can just close up shop without worry having already met all their financial needs. The workers are simply out of luck and forced to beg for government programs his former bosses lobbied so successfully against.
You’re. Wasting. Your. Time. Duffy.
“Look. There is no argument here. There is no debate. You nuts think that corporations have some kind of God given right to make as much money as they want no matter what.
That is an opinion. It is a stupid opinion that I don’t happen to agree with.”
And we don’t believe they should be FORCED to pay what liberals deem “fair.” There’s a difference of opinion, some of us are attempting to debate it. That is an argument.
Duffy,
This is the last I’ll say about your stupid ill-informed opinion.
Not long ago companies were constrained from making as much money as they wanted to. It was thought that it served the public good if they shared the burden of paying for schools, roads, bridges, etc.
Now they don’t it is my opinion that we are worse off for it. It is your opinion that we are not.
Not long ago companies were constrained from making as much money as they wanted to.
Other than by higher levels of taxation, I’m unaware of any legislation in American history that capped anybody’s profits.
Care to enlighten us with a specific example?
Serious question, as dv would say….
I was taking about taxation. Do I have to break everything down into 4th grade vocab for you now too?
Sheesh.
One more thing, just for the fake liberatarian.
My opinion on this matter is easily validated by looking at countries with exceedignly low corporate tax burdens. Do you want a society that looks more like Bangladesh or Belgium?
Okay then.
Other than by higher levels of taxation,
so then you just answered yourself didn’t you Steve?
You’re saying Bangladesh is poor because of it’s low corporate tax rates? That’s just laughable Jason.
No dv, I didn’t. Higher levels of taxation don’t cap profits–they merely cut the government in for a share.
jason–I know I’ll hate myself for this in the morning–but how does asking you a question about your clarity-impoverished writing make me a fake libertarian?
Damn you are dumb Mike. Listen up, I’ll put this on the bottom shelf for you, then I am moving on.
Good corporate tax policy encourages companies to invest in growing their business while it provides money for things that we all (Duffy and Steve excluded – they think everyone should be an island) agree a society needs like schools roads, bridges, and the like while it discourages capital from being unproductively hoarded.
You happen to be of the stupid and ill-informed opinion that companies should be allowed to hoard their capital.
It’s their capital, why the hell should they not be able to “hoard” it?
And I’m probably pretty close to Steve & Duffy when it comes to taxes. Oh, and if I’m dumb simply for not agreeing with your opinion then I’m damn proud of it! As usual, the lashing out and name-calling just reflects poorly upon you.
Move to Hati then. You’ll love it.
Can’t even spell the name of the country correctly…. It’s HAITI.
Hati? That’s just next to jasonia, right?
Way to go sport! You win the proof reading prize but lose the economics debate.
Since I haven’t actually debated anybody here, Bob (go back and check, sportscaster), that’s an idiotic comment.
I asked one question for clarification.
You obviously do reside in a third-world nation where reading comprehension isn’t required for participation in public dialogue.
jason (whose reading comprehension apparently equals yours) attributed positions to me that are figments of his imagination and which are contradicted explicitly by comments I made in the other thread well prior to jason shooting off his mouth without any ammunition.
A final comment before leaving the children to play among themselves until they learn how to count. Go back to the thread that dv so confidently opened a couple days ago about McCain lying about Obama’s tax plan. When you visit the non-partisan source that DBB recommends highly as an unbiased source, you will find that the analysts there suggest that Obama’s tax plan will result in a 3.3 TRILLION dollar DROP in Federal tax revenues over the next ten years.
That estimate, by the way, assumes that ALL of the Obama team’s rosy Reagan-like projections come through
And IGNORES all the new spending he’s promised on defense, energy, education, and health care.
(And yes, McCain’s tax plan loses another Trillion; I’m certainly not defending that.)
The analysis also says the Obama plan, while more progressive than current taxation, will be weighted against married couples at all income levels, and panders to retiring Boomers by giving them a tax break on the first $50,000 of income that us working people won’t get.
But the point for you guys is that you’re supporting a candidate whose economic plan has already been shown NOT to support his grandiose spending plans.
Gee, does that sound familiar after the last eight years?
Funny how, over on that thread, the discussion closed down pretty quickly when we started discussing actual quotes from the analysis you guys were touting so highly.
Economic debate my butt.
I quite frankly don’t understand voting for a guy who’s idea of “change” involves all manner of policies that have been failures in the past and will fail again.
Trying failed policies again because “now the right people (obama) will be in charge is the very definition of Insanity. I only wish the Republicans could offer someone better than McCain…
Boo hoo…run away you Republitarian Bush-loving loser!
Mike –
I’d have to call you every name inthe book for my name calling to reflect as poorly on me as your stupid ill-informed opinions reflect on you.
Ok Jason, even though I’ve made it clear I’ll be more than happy to see Bush go.
I believe in taking the highroad and being respectful even during heated debate. That’s just a personal belief, it’s how I was raised, and it’s a reflection of my values. The manner in which someone conducts himself speaks volumes. The manner in which I present my argument is at least as important (if not more important) than the argument itself. People tend to dismiss arguments made by the childish and immature, even if those arguments are valid.
“Mike –
I’d have to call you every name inthe book for my name calling to reflect as poorly on me as your stupid ill-informed opinions reflect on you.”
Jason,
If my arguments were as “stupid & ill-informed” as you claim they are wouldn’t you be able to easily pick them apart with your outstanding logic?
If your opinions & logic are so superior why can you not elucidate them calmly, rationally & succinctly without resorting to the chidlish crap I keep seeing?
Trying failed policies again because “now the right people (obama) will be in charge is the very definition of Insanity. I only wish the Republicans could offer someone better than McCain…
now that is funny
If my arguments were as “stupid & ill-informed” as you claim they are wouldn’t you be able to easily pick them apart with your outstanding logic?
I have. In my spare time….without even working very hard.
Honestly, this is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in the scores of years of years I’ve been bloggining.
Are you ready for it….?
.
.
.
.
Are you wondering which of your stupid comments was the stupidest?
.
.
.
.
.
It was this one:
It’s their capital, why the hell should they not be able to “hoard” it?
“Jason,
If my arguments were as “stupid & ill-informed” as you claim they are wouldn’t you be able to easily pick them apart with your outstanding logic?
If your opinions & logic are so superior why can you not elucidate them calmly, rationally & succinctly without resorting to the chidlish crap I keep seeing?”
You have yet to do what I discussed above Jason (or DTB, TT etc.) as usual you can do no more than call my comment “stupid.” You can pick out a sentence of mine and call it stupid! What a mature, rational & logical way to refute what I say…….
Case in point – DTB responds with “now that was funny” Awesome debate skills guys.
How much should corporations have to pay? When is enough enough?
And what is wrong with companies selling goods people want to buy at prices they want to pay?
30%
Mike W., say what you want, but when you call the people on DE Lib “socialist,” you are red-baiting. No one here believes that the state should own the means of production. So screw off, you filthy red baiter. It’s disgusting to do it and you should apologize for doing it.
The highest tax rate is higher than 30%, jason.
Dana G.,
While I agree with you, it would be nice if some of the folks here at DE Lib would reciprocate that sentiment by reasonably debating a lot of Mike W., Duffy, etcs points rather than dismiss them as idiotic.
Hey Repukes why do you think we have DEDO (Delaware Economic Devolopment office)
to giveyour Coprorate buddies their breaks they hand around for a few years and then poof they are gone to the next state that they can extort tax money from for supposadly good jobs