Would ending corporate tax breaks make dent in deficit?

[Upgrade Dave]

Is this an admission the country is moving in the opposite direction of freedom?

I've been consistent with these issues. Whether it's Scott Walker using the "strong arm" of the govt to take bargaining rights from unions, Reps & Dems bailing out banks, or Pres Obama mandating health coverage, I'm an advocate of less govt! They just have a gift for complicating matters with their unintended consequences

It is. We've been heading that way for a while and it got worse after 9/11.

I think there are many places where less gov't is a good thing but, due to people not wanting to be responsible (not just working class people but CEOs of major companies as well), they make it so that more government is needed.

 

[thoughtone]

It is. We've been heading that way for a while and it got worse after 9/11.

I think there are many places where less gov't is a good thing but, due to people not wanting to be responsible (not just working class people but CEOs of major companies as well), they make it so that more government is needed.

I seems the right is very good at hijacking arguments and creating issues when their are very little. Less government is good? My 92 year old dad says that life is a whole lot better now, after government social security, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, auto safety standards, enforcement of discrimination violations, clean air and water standards, automobile safety standards, banking regulations, ect... than when he was a young man. As in private practices, too many rules can have negative effects, but that is just a common sense statement for any system. I suggest those under 35 actually READ history and then come back with more intelligent arguments on why capitalism is running rough shod over our lives these days!

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I seems the right is very good at hijacking arguments and creating issues when their are very little. Less government is good? My 92 year old dad says that life is a whole lot better now, after government social security, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, auto safety standards, enforcement of discrimination violations, clean air and water standards, automobile safety standards, banking regulations, ect... than when he was a young man. As in private practices, too many rules can have negative effects, but that is just a common sense statement for any system. I suggest those under 35 actually READ history and then come back with more intelligent arguments on why capitalism is running rough shod over our lives these days!

And all of those things were things government had to do because the private sector wasn't going to.

 

[Lamarr]

I suggest those under 35 actually READ history and then come back with more intelligent arguments on why capitalism is running rough shod over our lives these days!

The problem with your argument Thought is that we don't have capitalism as long as you have a central bank manipulating interest rates. Also, this is a business environment where the only people who benefit are the ones who can afford to comply with all the regulations imposed by the Fed govt. In other words, small business is getting wiped out, not because of the quality of their products or services but because of the cost to stay in business.

We don't have capitalism today Thought, capitalism officially died October 3, 2008 with the Banker bailout. The govt is sitting back picking the winners & losers, whether through bailouts or healthcare waivers. You're moving towards 'fascismland'. Read your history bruh

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The problem with your argument Thought is that we don't have capitalism as long as you have a central bank manipulating interest rates. Also, this is a business environment where the only people who benefit are the ones who can afford to comply with all the regulations imposed by the Fed govt. In other words, small business is getting wiped out, not because of the quality of their products or services but because of the cost to stay in business.

We don't have capitalism today Thought, capitalism officially died October 3, 2008 with the Banker bailout. The govt is sitting back picking the winners & losers, whether through bailouts or healthcare waivers. You're moving towards 'fascismland'. Read your history bruh

Don't lump healthcare waivers in with the bailouts.

One of the main ways to qualify for a waiver is to already have a good health insurance benefit package.

 

[Lamarr]

And all of those things were things government had to do because the private sector wasn't going to.

The issue is: all those things listed are anti-capitalistic. The more govt interferes with the free markets, it has a negative impact on the 'real' economy. My main question is How do you take a list of anti-capitalistic govt implementations and in the same breath, blame the problems of the economy on capitalism?

The problems we see today are not results of the 'free market'. The problems are simply due to govt interference

Side Note: Once again, the govt is sittin back pickin the winners & losers! If not, why are they not enforcing laws to keep non-citizens from working in this country? They could fine the company, even take the charter if they chose!

 

[Lamarr]

My 92 year old dad says that life is a whole lot better now, after government social security, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, auto safety standards, enforcement of discrimination violations, clean air and water standards, automobile safety standards, banking regulations, ect... than when he was a young man.

What you & others will come to grips with is the fact that these standards are simply unaffordable, therefore unsustainable. Even if you took 100 percent of everyone's earning, we still can't pay for the debt the govt has amassed. 100 percent Thought!

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The issue is: all those things listed are anti-capitalistic. The more govt interferes with the free markets, it has a negative impact on the 'real' economy. My main question is How do you take a list of anti-capitalistic govt implementations and in the same breath, blame the problems of the economy on capitalism?

The problems we see today are not results of the 'free market'. The problems are simply due to govt interference

I agree and I have no problem with that. Those things are anti-capitalistic by their nature. It's hard, if possible at all, to imagine a company making money doing those things or having to adhere to minimum wages. Pure capitalism isn't a good thing and we need the government to maintain some type of guards to keep people safe from capitalism.

Side Note: Once again, the govt is sittin back pickin the winners & losers! If not, why are they not enforcing laws to keep non-citizens from working in this country? They could fine the company, even take the charter if they chose!

True but if they did, wouldn't that be anti-capitialism. Companies/farms need cheap labor and cracking down on that would be government interference, wouldn't it?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

What you & others will come to grips with is the fact that these standards are simply unaffordable, therefore unsustainable. Even if you took 100 percent of everyone's earning, we still can't pay for the debt the govt has amassed. 100 percent Thought!

Okay. Then we need to cut spending as well. No argument.

 

[Lamarr]

I agree and I have no problem with that. Those things are anti-capitalistic by their nature. It's hard, if possible at all, to imagine a company making money doing those things or having to adhere to minimum wages. Pure capitalism isn't a good thing and we need the government to maintain some type of guards to keep people safe from capitalism.

Right, don't get me wrong though. Govt has a 'role' but sometimes "too much govt" can have a negative impact.

True but if they did, wouldn't that be anti-capitialism. Companies/farms need cheap labor and cracking down on that would be government interference, wouldn't it?

well.......yes, however, the beneficiary in this is the American worker. Plus, the law is already in the books. These politicians wanna say their Pro-Union, but their policies are completely contradictive.

Okay. Then we need to cut spending as well. No argument.

End the Wars, No more contractors, bring those kids home Now! And Repeal Bush's Dept of Homeland Security.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Right, don't get me wrong though. Govt has a 'role' but sometimes "too much govt" can have a negative impact.



well.......yes, however, the beneficiary in this is the American worker. Plus, the law is already in the books. These politicians wanna say their Pro-Union, but their policies are completely contradictive.



End the Wars, No more contractors, bring those kids home Now! And Repeal Bush's Dept of Homeland Security.

I agree with every single thing in here.

 

[QueEx]

In other words, small business is getting wiped out, not because of the quality of their products or services but because of the cost to stay in business.

Can you be more specific? The statement is just conclusory, can you provide more specific detail ??? How, in fact, (details) are they being wiped out. You're alluding to a widespread problem; can you give widespread examples ???

What you & others will come to grips with is the fact that these standards are simply unaffordable, therefore unsustainable. Even if you took 100 percent of everyone's earning, we still can't pay for the debt the govt has amassed. 100 percent Thought!

Again, what specific standards are simply unaffordable; and how, specifically, are they ruining business.

NOTE: At this point, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you because I am unsure, exactly, what standards and in what way are they negatively affecting things such to the point that their benefit is being outweighed by their detrimental effect.

 

[thoughtone]

What you & others will come to grips with is the fact that these standards are simply unaffordable, therefore unsustainable. Even if you took 100 percent of everyone's earning, we still can't pay for the debt the govt has amassed. 100 percent Thought!

However if you go back to the Clinton tax policies and cut the defense department, the debt will become manageable again in ten years. Go back to the pre Reagan tax policies and return to the pre Reagan defense budget, something that was suppose to happen after the cold war ended in the early 1990s and the budget will return to pre Reagan numbers in 10 years. Clinton handed GW a healthy economy and the libertarians/republicans destroyed it with tax cuts for millionaires and billionaire. We have more of a revenue problem than a debt problem. Tell the whole story and not the story you are getting paid to sell!

 

[thoughtone]

The issue is: all those things listed are anti-capitalistic. The more govt interferes with the free markets, it has a negative impact on the 'real' economy. My main question is How do you take a list of anti-capitalistic govt implementations and in the same breath, blame the problems of the economy on capitalism?

The problems we see today are not results of the 'free market'. The problems are simply due to govt interference

Side Note: Once again, the govt is sittin back pickin the winners & losers! If not, why are they not enforcing laws to keep non-citizens from working in this country? They could fine the company, even take the charter if they chose!

The issue is: all those things listed are anti-capitalistic

Since when is capitalism sacrosanct? Is the word capitalism in the constitution? Is capitalism in the constitution? However the world 'welfare IS in the constitution. Explain this so called lovers of the constitution and strict constructionists?

Side Note: Once again, the govt is sittin back pickin the winners & losers!

Noted, you are on record for letting the automobile industry fail and the elimination of all tax subsidies for oil and all industries and include the mortgage tax credit for home owners, because that is "pickin the winners & losers".

 

[thoughtone]

Right, don't get me wrong though. Govt has a 'role' but sometimes "too much govt" can have a negative impact.

So you are against the government only when you think it has "a role" and your definition of negative.

Explain

 

[Dmain_Event]

Corporate Taxes are paid for by you. There should be 0, ZILP, NADA corporate tax. You should be able to work (In-corporate or cooperate) with whomever you want for free. There should be know penalty for doing that. Just like hanging out with your budies smoking weed. You don't pay taxes doing that do ya? Well why should you be taxed for doing something constructive with your life?

Think about it.


Oh, before I forget...


FUCK OBAMA!

 

[Dmain_Event]

Since when is capitalism sacrosanct? Is the word capitalism in the constitution? Is capitalism in the constitution? However the world 'welfare IS in the constitution. Explain this so called lovers of the constitution and strict constructionists?



Noted, you are on record for letting the automobile industry fail and the elimination of all tax subsidies for oil and all industries and include the mortgage tax credit for home owners, because that is "pickin the winners & losers".

Capitalism the word was invented by Karl Marx (your boy) to demonize free men engaging in free commerce between themselves. The constitution was written to secure man's freedoms.

Don't give me that "the signers were all slave owners" bullshit btw. Some were slave owners, most weren't. Slavery was originally written out of the original draft of the constitution, but southerners weren't haven' it. To form a coalition for a united front against England we needed them so they made deals with the devil so to speak. And besides, the answer to slavery isn't Communism. It's liberty. Free your mind and the rest will follow nigga.



P mother fuckin S

Fuck OBama

 

[Ninja05]

I will simply say: pure capitalism will not work in this country. Sorry mayne. The day we go to pure capitalism with no government intervention - is the day this country will fall. I guarantee that.

Moreover what is your true definition of capitalism? What is government for? Roads? War? Disasters?

Yes too much government can lead to disaster as well. I agree with you on that. But the quality of life, whether the people's republic of china or what America would be as pure capitalism would be the same: the masses being fucked for the few.

Pure capitalism would crumble during the first taste of an earthquake or any other natural disaster. Building codes and ordinances? No let the market handle that. Damn ordinances are stunting growth. What about the quality of cars? Nope. Let the market handle that. A few thousand accidents and the people will clamor for seatbelts and airbags...lol.

 

[actinanass]

It would make it worst.

The less tax breaks, the less jobs.

Thus, killing the middle class.

 

[Lamarr]

Can you be more specific? The statement is just conclusory, can you provide more specific detail ??? How, in fact, (details) are they being wiped out. You're alluding to a widespread problem; can you give widespread examples ???

I'll give you 2 examples off the top of my head:
1) WalMart - just think about every small business that was sacrificed so that Walmart could exist. Walmart got tax-breaks from local govts, land grants, overseas trade arrangements and Lord knows what other competitive advantages the govt implemented to stifle the small businessman.
2) The Banks - This Too Big To Fail concept is allowing the larger banks (JP Morgan/Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank) to swallow up the smaller banks as they continue to "go under" at a record pace! There are no consequences for these larger banks but the smaller ones are shut down by the FDIC See the FDIC list of failed banks. In many instances, the larger banks acted a lot more reckless than community banks

Again, what specific standards are simply unaffordable; and how, specifically, are they ruining business.

You see examples everyday, this is one I saw a couple days ago; where 'big business' uses the govt in an attempt to stifle competitors.

Detroit — General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he’s confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker.

Needless to say QueEx, I've always said "let the market decide what cars people want to drive". As opposed to the govt extending a competitive advantage to GM & forcing people to purchase a Chevy Volt, or the like

 

[thoughtone]

It would make it worst.

The less tax breaks, the less jobs.

Thus, killing the middle class.

So with all the tax cuts under GW, were are the jobs? You wont answer this one either.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Corporate Taxes are paid for by you. There should be 0, ZILP, NADA corporate tax. You should be able to work (In-corporate or cooperate) with whomever you want for free. There should be know penalty for doing that. Just like hanging out with your budies smoking weed. You don't pay taxes doing that do ya? Well why should you be taxed for doing something constructive with your life?

Just astoundingly naive and juvenile.

It would make it worst.

The less tax breaks, the less jobs.

Thus, killing the middle class.

Way too easy. Please avoid Republican talking points that can be so easily dismissed.
You waste bandwidth.

I'll give you 2 examples off the top of my head:
1) WalMart - just think about every small business that was sacrificed so that Walmart could exist. Walmart got tax-breaks from local govts, land grants, overseas trade arrangements and Lord knows what other competitive advantages the govt implemented to stifle the small businessman.
2) The Banks - This Too Big To Fail concept is allowing the larger banks (JP Morgan/Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank) to swallow up the smaller banks as they continue to "go under" at a record pace! There are no consequences for these larger banks but the smaller ones are shut down by the FDIC

Good examples.

So with all the tax cuts under GW, were are the jobs? You wont answer this one either.

See how easy it was to counter you, AAA? Don't make it so easy. The taxes are the same, I think lower, now and we're having very slow growth. For months we had massive job losses with the tax rate the same.

 

[Dmain_Event]

Just astoundingly naive and juvenile.





Way too easy. Please avoid Republican talking points that can be so easily dismissed.
You waste bandwidth.



Good examples.



See how easy it was to counter you, AAA? Don't make it so easy. The taxes are the same, I think lower, now and we're having very slow growth. For months we had massive job losses with the tax rate the same.

Please be specific with your criticisms. For Example:
You->Just astoundingly naive and juvenile.
How so? Its based on a philosophical belief that you should be able to work with others without penalty (From the largest Corporation or Cooperative to the smallest dumbest Weed smoking get together). You right to associate should not be infringed upon in any way, including being taxed.


Way too easy. Please avoid Republican talking points that can be so easily dismissed.
You waste bandwidth.
So easily dismiss them. You aint said shit yet?

BTW... Under George Bush, before the Communists... I mean Democrats (I wonder why I keep confusing the two???) took over congress in 2006 unemployment was under 5%...
I wonder why people who have money where investing it (risking there capital to expand/create their business) when investing conditions were good? I thought business should only invest when there guaranteed to lose all there fucking money due to:
A) Inflation
B) Confiscation from Commie thugs who are never satisfied with the money they have
or
C) More volatile political environment
Because unlike you most businessmen are not fucking stupid. No matter how they vote. They want their business and families to succeed. So when the investing environment is good, more people will risk their capital, more employment. Simple huh?

I could easily say don't rely on Communist cough... I mean Democrat talking points. But I don't I argue with you on an intellectual level. Uniquely and vociferously for sure, but intellectual none-the-less.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Please be specific with your criticisms. For Example:
You->Just astoundingly naive and juvenile.
How so? Its based on a philosophical belief that you should be able to work with others without penalty (From the largest Corporation or Cooperative to the smallest dumbest Weed smoking get together). You right to associate should not be infringed upon in any way, including being taxed.

You can associate with whom you feel. Taxes don't affect that at all. Is there a case of a corporation deciding to not do business because they don't want to pay taxes?
Taxes are not penalties, they're the cost of doing business in every country.

Way too easy. Please avoid Republican talking points that can be so easily dismissed.
You waste bandwidth.
So easily dismiss them. You aint said shit yet?

By the time I saw AAA's post, thougt1 had already exposed how silly it was.

BTW... Under George Bush, before the Communists... I mean Democrats (I wonder why I keep confusing the two???) took over congress in 2006 unemployment was under 5%...
I wonder why people who have money where investing it (risking there capital to expand/create their business) when investing conditions were good? I thought business should only invest when there guaranteed to lose all there fucking money due to:
A) Inflation
B) Confiscation from Commie thugs who are never satisfied with the money they have
or
C) More volatile political environment
Because unlike you most businessmen are not fucking stupid. No matter how they vote. They want their business and families to succeed. So when the investing environment is good, more people will risk their capital, more employment. Simple huh?

Like Obama is suffering due to Bush's failures, Bush was able to ride off Clinton's successes.
Bush had the slowest job growth, with his tax policy in place, in recent history.
The idea that businesses aren't investing due to those reasons you listed are ridiculous. They're making record profits and are choosing not to invest, looking more and more like Big Business is in league with the GOP in an attempt to derail the Obama Administration, so they can get an even better deal with a Republican President. If they were hiring, they would inject more money into the system (meaning gov't wouldn't have to) and they would give themselves more customers.
I don't know how you confuse Democrats with Communists. Ignorance and/or gullibility, I guess.

I could easily say don't rely on Communist cough... I mean Democrat talking points. But I don't I argue with you on an intellectual level. Uniquely and vociferously for sure, but intellectual none-the-less.

When someone uses the word "Democrat" instead of "Democratic", I know they're far too easily influenced by right wing media.

 

[Dmain_Event]

You can associate with whom you feel. Taxes don't affect that at all. Is there a case of a corporation deciding to not do business because they don't want to pay taxes?
Taxes are not penalties, they're the cost of doing business in every country.

What you just said is one of the reasons why I think this Country is fucking doomed. Taxes are one of many reasons companies move over Seas(Including High cost's of labor, low regulation etc...). They still want to make money trading their goods and services but they want to do it easier? Its like water fallowing the path of least resistance. Wherever you can do business the easiest that's where you will do it. You only need enough government to provide impartial judges and law enforcement to make sure free people don't abuse other peoples rights...
Next!

By the time I saw AAA's post, thougt1 had already exposed how silly it was.

So you aint got shit to say, but you rely on others opinions to prop you up? No wonder your a liberal.

Like Obama is suffering due to Bush's failures, Bush was able to ride off Clinton's successes.
Bush had the slowest job growth, with his tax policy in place, in recent history.
The idea that businesses aren't investing due to those reasons you listed are ridiculous. They're making record profits and are choosing not to invest, looking more and more like Big Business is in league with the GOP in an attempt to derail the Obama Administration, so they can get an even better deal with a Republican President. If they were hiring, they would inject more money into the system (meaning gov't wouldn't have to) and they would give themselves more customers.
I don't know how you confuse Democrats with Communists. Ignorance and/or gullibility, I guess.

Recent history Includes Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. If I am not mistaken, Reagan and Bush II had the highest job growth rates. Clinton's were alright as well I suppose.

When someone uses the word "Democrat" instead of "Democratic", I know they're far too easily influenced by right wing media.

[/Quote]
When someone rides Obama Jock refusing to see his flaws for what they are I know they are too easily influenced by left wing media.

 

[QueEx]

`

You were talking about government regulations harming small businesses:

Also, this is a business environment where the only people who benefit are the ones who can afford to comply with all the regulations imposed by the Fed govt. In other words, small business is getting wiped out, not because of the quality of their products or services but because of the cost to stay in business.

So, I was sort of looking to hear about the government regulations that you mentioned that were wiping out small business. Your examples:

I'll give you 2 examples off the top of my head:

1) WalMart - just think about every small business that was sacrificed so that Walmart could exist. Walmart got tax-breaks from local govts, land grants, overseas trade arrangements and Lord knows what other competitive advantages the govt implemented to stifle the small businessman.

2) The Banks - This Too Big To Fail concept is allowing the larger banks (JP Morgan/Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank) to swallow up the smaller banks as they continue to "go under" at a record pace! There are no consequences for these larger banks but the smaller ones are shut down by the FDIC See the FDIC list of failed banks. In many instances, the larger banks acted a lot more reckless than community banks

dont appear to be examples of government regulation, run amok. Governmental decision making, perhaps, but not governmental regulations.

In example #1, there doesn't appear to be any government regulations at play that ruined small business. Incentives are given to both small and large businesses, all the time. Many local governments give such incentives to small businesses in an attempt to revitalize areas of cities and to push economic development, generally.

Now, if you're arguing drop the subsidies, thats one thing, but it is my experience that both large and small get subsidized. If so, doesn't that just reduce your point to getting government out of fostering local employment and economic development -- and letting larger corporations eat up, consume, stiffle, and otherwise fuck-over smaller businesses, without the hand of government involved?

That seems to be a difference without a distinction -- except without government, there's nothing to even resemblance an evening of the playing field -- which through capitalism, allows the bigger, dirtier, and possible more evil to simply kill-off and trample over the little guy?

Is that a feature you particularly enjoy about capitalism? - because thats it in its purest form. Perhaps, thats the reason pure capitalism doesn't exist, anywhere

You see examples everyday, this is one I saw a couple days ago; where 'big business' uses the govt in an attempt to stifle competitors.

You sort of switched the subject on me (or, as usual, I misunderstood the subject). I thought we were talking government regulations instead of where 'big business' uses the govt in an attempt to stifle competitors. The latter, Lemar, is precisely that justifies governmental regulation. No?

Needless to say QueEx, I've always said "let the market decide what cars people want to drive". As opposed to the govt extending a competitive advantage to GM & forcing people to purchase a Chevy Volt, or the like

In many cases, Lemarr, I might agree with you. In others, however, I think the let the market decide is assinine. The market, unchecked, allows Greed (where is he by the way?) to run amok to the detriment of everyone else from competiting small businesses, the workers who produce big bidnesses greed, to the consumers who are ripped off, injured, maimed and killed by that, greed.

 

[QueEx]

Taxes are one of many reasons companies move over Seas(Including High cost's of labor, low regulation etc...). They still want to make money trading their goods and services but they want to do it easier? Its like water fallowing the path of least resistance. Wherever you can do business the easiest that's where you will do it. You only need enough government to provide impartial judges and law enforcement to make sure free people don't abuse other peoples rights...
Next!

In other words, its okay for business to receive the benefit, but not pay its fair share of the burden?

In my opinion, those businesses are free to leave. No. They should leave. No. They should be thrown the fuck out -- AND, their products should absolutely not be allowed to enter, unless they pay the cost. Everyone knows there are no free lunches -- someone pays.

You theory seems to say: its okay to run roughshod over workers; expose workers to various and sundry conditions, without protection; poision the fuck out of everyone, without recourse those responsible; send workers miles into mountains to mine coal - and get blown the fuck up because it cost too damn much and it government regulations require the installation of reasonable safety precautions; etc., etc., etc. I'm involved in the Chinese drywall cases and everything points to lax regulations in China has caused a massive problem in the U.S., that the Chinese companies are ducking their asses off.

I'm certainly not saying gouge anyone, but there is ALWAYS a cost to do business.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

So with all the tax cuts under GW, were are the jobs? You wont answer this one either.

Still no actinanass. Limbaugh and Hannity have no answer for this one.

 

[Lamarr]

`

You sort of switched the subject on me (or, as usual, I misunderstood the subject). I thought we were talking government regulations instead of where 'big business' uses the govt in an attempt to stifle competitors. The latter, Lemar, is precisely that justifies governmental regulation. No?

let me take another stab at this: I will highlight the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” Pres. Obama signed in 2009

Philip Morris stands to benefit from this regulation in many ways. First, all regulation adds to overhead, and thus falls more heavily on smaller firms. Second, restrictions on advertising help Philip Morris’ Marlboro, a brand everyone already knows, by keeping lesser-known brands in the shadows.

Finally, the FDA gets added control over the industry. Philip Morris, more than any of its competitors, will have access to those bureaucrats and agency heads making the decisions.


Obama Teams With Philip Morris To Beat ‘Tobacco Industry’

As Obama signed the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,” giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco, he proclaimed in the Rose Garden: “Today, despite decades of lobbying and advertising by the tobacco industry, we’ve passed a law to help protect the next generation of Americans from growing up with a deadly habit. …”

But on Tuesday morning, the home page of Philip Morris, which controls a majority of the U.S. cigarette market, blared “Philip Morris Supports Federal Regulation of Tobacco.”

Was Obama ignorant of the $40,000-a-day pro-regulation lobbying effort by the country’s biggest cigarette maker?

In many cases, Lemarr, I might agree with you. In others, however, I think the let the market decide is assinine. The market, unchecked, allows Greed (where is he by the way?) to run amok to the detriment of everyone else from competiting small businesses, the workers who produce big bidnesses greed, to the consumers who are ripped off, injured, maimed and killed by that, greed.

The lust for Greed is always counter-balanced by the risk of loss, except when the govt interferes.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

What you just said is one of the reasons why I think this Country is fucking doomed. Taxes are one of many reasons companies move over Seas(Including High cost's of labor, low regulation etc...). They still want to make money trading their goods and services but they want to do it easier? Its like water fallowing the path of least resistance. Wherever you can do business the easiest that's where you will do it. You only need enough government to provide impartial judges and law enforcement to make sure free people don't abuse other peoples rights...
Next!

It's much more low regulation and cheaper cost of labor than high taxes since they actually pay very low corporate taxes with some of the largest getting rebates.
And labor is going to be cheaper since the government covers health care costs in most first world countries so I guess our's should too, right?

So you aint got shit to say, but you rely on others opinions to prop you up? No wonder your a liberal.

I'm not a parrot so if it's already said capably, why repeat it?

Recent history Includes Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. If I am not mistaken, Reagan and Bush II had the highest job growth rates. Clinton's were alright as well I suppose.

All of them had major tax increases. The one with the slowest job growth had a major tax cut.

When someone rides Obama Jock refusing to see his flaws for what they are I know they are too easily influenced by left wing media.

Not about Obama, that's where you Rush/Hannity followers don't understand. It's not about personalities, it's about truth, history and simple math. All of those work against your philosophy.

 

[QueEx]

let me take another stab at this: I will highlight the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” Pres. Obama signed in 2009

Philip Morris stands to benefit from this regulation in many ways. First, all regulation adds to overhead, and thus falls more heavily on smaller firms. Second, restrictions on advertising help Philip Morris’ Marlboro, a brand everyone already knows, by keeping lesser-known brands in the shadows.

Finally, the FDA gets added control over the industry. Philip Morris, more than any of its competitors, will have access to those bureaucrats and agency heads making the decisions.

I don't know that this supports your position as much as its an example of imperfect legislation (regulation). In this instance, the smaller businesses do not appear to be at a disadvantage in the regulatory picture, but may not have the cash to advance their cause and skirt the effects of the law as their larger competitors might. The regulatory legislation itself is designed to affect those trafficing in tobacco the same (big tobacco is no more exempt from the law than small businesses):

• A signature element of the law imposes new warnings and labels on tobacco packaging and their advertisements, with the goal of discouraging minors and young adults from smoking.

• the law was supported by the American Cancer Society, whose CEO noted in a press release that "[t]his bill forces Big Tobacco to disclose the poisons in its products and has the power to finally break the dangerous chain of addiction for generations to come.

So, the intent of the law is to discourage minors and young adults from smoking and force the industry to disclose the harmful contents of a very harmful product. But more importantly, the law is neutral on its face and, it appears, in its application. I am no more interesting in helping small tobacco kill my kids as I am in helping big tobacco kill my kids.

The regulation doesn't affect Big Tobacco any differently than it does Little Tobacco. Big Tobacco, because of its resources, might be better able to evade the law, but thats not much different than criminal laws on the books which prohibit and punish the unlawful killing of another ("Murder"). Unfortunately, people with money are better able to hire pursuasive lawyers than those of lesser means. But, if we follow your logic, we should repeal the statutes regulating murder -- and just allow people to kill without consequences -- because people with money have a better chance of getting off than people of lesser means.

My point: the law has equal application to and places the same burden on Big Tobacco as it does Small Tobacco, though one might be better able to skirt its affects, than the other. Hence, this may not be a situation where regulation treats small tobacco differently.

Surely, if the law treated Big Tobacco differently, I am certain we would have an 'Equal Protection' challenge by Small Tobakky. Have you heard of one ???.

 

[actinanass]

Still no actinanass. Limbaugh and Hannity have no answer for this one.

How many times have I showed charts to back my facts about how the jobs were there under GW?

To this point, we are going in circles.

When I state facts with evidence, you ignore it. When I just state my opinion, you ask where's the facts. When I ask you, what would you do? You go off on Lamarr. Wash, repeat.

That's why I just say "typical" when I see your posts. Your party suppose to be tolerant, yet, you seem like the most narrow-minded person on this board. It's really sad...

 

[thoughtone]

How many times have I showed charts to back my facts about how the jobs were there under GW?

None!



What are trying to pull, the Jedi Mind Trick?

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[Dmain_Event]

It's much more low regulation and cheaper cost of labor than high taxes since they actually pay very low corporate taxes with some of the largest getting rebates.
And labor is going to be cheaper since the government covers health care costs in most first world countries so I guess our's should too, right?

Wrong... Remember no competition means poor goods and services for you. Imagine if the U.S postal service was all we had... we would be fucked.

You want health services to compete for your dollar. The system we have right now is the opposite, we compete for there services so they can raise prices unnecessary. This was caused by Democrat machine politics between the states and infamous liberals on both sides of the aisles include FDR, JFK, LBJ, RMN in addition to the congresses that passed the appropriate legislation and the courts that OK'ed it of course.

When people compete for your money YOU are more likely to get higher quality service... Everybody wins...
If there is only ONE service provider they don't give a rip whether you are satisfied with their service or not... They already have your money and will continue to get it no matter what, until the country fails, which will occur rapidly cause the commi-in-chief can't stop spending money.

Not about Obama, that's where you Rush/Hannity followers don't understand. It's not about personalities, it's about truth, history and simple math. All of those work against your philosophy.

You probably listen to them more than me... You leftist love to keep an eye on your enemy... I agree with them already, what else do they have to tell me