TheDanold
Unimatrix
Right and you lefties have never called any rightwing members of congress "fascists"?
Socialists in Congress
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
TheDanold
Unimatrix
If you don't like corporations tying themselves with the public sector then support privatizing Amtrak, PBS and NPR like I do.
And don't eat those words with a grain of salt...
maineman
Banned
don't switch arguments.... the intertwining of corporations and government is a republican dream. period. bringing up PBS and ignoring the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare is disingenuous.... the fact is, the republican platform more closely resembles fascism than the democratic platform resembles socialism.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
As you have seen from the list many of them freely call themselves Socialists, maybe you should tell them they're not, or at least get them to pretend they're not like the rest of the Dems, so that they don't damage your great party...
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Actually you will find the biggest drive for corporate welfare is in the green lefty area for getting alternative energy corps like wind/solar power companies on the public tit, but that isn't all...
I think it's time we discussed who really helps corporations and why.
Corporate Power
I think everyone can see that corporations have gotten more powerful in the last few decades, but do Democrats ever stop and correlate that government has never stopped growing during that time?
In the last 4 decades government has taken over healthcare for the poor and the elderly, food stamps, prescription drug bill, huge amounts of education spending increases, social security, environmental regulations way up, tax code far more complex, government nationalizing things like airport security.
Government and corporations together have not stopped growing in the last 4 decades.
We all know it is the Liberal, pursued primarily through Democrats, that has pushed the growth of government.
Yet why have corporations done well under them? Democrats certainly don't like corporations, they want them to lose power, yet they have not. Why?
1. Increase in Regulations - A lot of lefties believe that corporations will get hammered more with more business regulations. This is completely untrue. Because as you put more regulations on business it will never be some giant corporation with tons of lawyers to decipher regulations that will suffer. It will be the little guy, some mom and pop business owner who can't afford a lawyer to figure out some new regulations and can't figure them out himself.
Corporations will weather the storm fine, but the little guy often won't. So as the competition is reduced the corporation gets stronger.
2. More and more taxes:
Again, a lot of Democrats think they can slam corporations with more taxes and special tax rules to limit them. Wrong again, for almost the same reason. Corporations that have and can easily afford tons of accountants to deal with increasing complex tax codes will do just fine. But the little guy who can't figure out the always more difficult taxes put on him, and if he can't afford an accountant, then he's out of luck, out of business and the corporation gets stronger with less competition.
I cannot stress enough, that I genuinely believe that Democrats mean well and though I don't hate corporations, I have a soft spot in my heart for seeing small business do well and beat corporations.
Nevertheless, we must face facts and the facts are that a more complex world with more regulations and taxes mean little to a company that can afford to deal with them, but a lot to a small business owner who has enough to deal with, without being forced to hire lawyers and accountants.
3. Other regulations.
I mean imagine if you wanted to start a new car company out of your garage. Could you ever do it? You could throw some parts together and create a vehicle, lots of companies do this with offroad and lawn tractors. But with cars, you would have to hire scientists to get fuel economy that Democrats mandate, you would have to do safety ratings and crashes, other testing. You would never be able to get your idea off the ground like Ford did 100 years ago....it's just too much money, so it benefits the big guys.
Corporate Welfare:
Pop Quiz: Who was the last party to try and cut corporate welfare?
The last politicians who opposed corporate welfare or at least actually cut it were the house Republicans in the 90's... From this article in 1997:
"15 percent has been cut since the Republicans assumed power in Congress in 1994".
http://www.cato.org/dailys/4-30-97.html
Anyway, here is something to understand about corporations and Republicans. Republicans want to cut taxes for all and cut regulations for all businesses (and people), so regular businesses have a natural reason to vote Republican - simply they all want less taxes and regulations.
Yet Corporations often donate to Democrats, but why? Why would a business want to help a party that hates them, wants to tax and regulate them more, to get in?
The answer often is special favors, not to offend my friends on the left, but that is the only reason (business case) for why they should vote for them.
So while we often talk about Enron and Bush, it quietly is guys like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli and Democrat governor Gray Davis who really got into trouble with special deals with businesses.
Even looking at Enron, here is a chart showing the top Enron cash recipients:
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_cong_house.asp
You will note the top 2 are Democrats.
Meanwhile Clinton had very close ties with Enron too:
Enron had very tight relations with Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/08/25/time/notebook.htm
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/01/11/20020111_172454_flash2.html
I do not deny that some Republicans get in the same hot water, but on the whole the Democrat politicians come out worse.
For those Democrats on here, try not to look at this as a partisan attack, this is nothing but cold logic with numbers to back it up.
I know you guys don't like corporations as much as others, I totally give you that argument. But nevertheless they are prospering very well under the big government that you push and now you know why...
maineman
Banned
none of that list, except Bernie Sanders, "freely call themselves socialists"
From that link:
"We invite you to support the campaign by adding your name to the list of signers of the Pledge for Economic Justice. In conjunction with the Campaign DSA is working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a network of more than 50 progressive members of the US House of Representatives..."
Working WITH someone does not make you the same as the person you work with. Idiot.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Uh-huh. If you're truly not a Socialist than you need to set some CONCRETE point of where you would stop growing government.
Do you stop growing it after universal healthcare? After "free" college education?
Otherwise you are just some gradual Socialist.
maineman
Banned
being a congressional progressive who works with the Democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not make those progressives "socialists"..
but for someone who uses words like a housepainter uses paint, I should not expect any better. You ARE a partisan hack, dano... and a dumb at that.
but for someone who uses words like a housepainter uses paint, I should not expect any better. You ARE a partisan hack, dano... and a dumb at that.
maineman
Banned
"gradual socialist"???? hahahahahahahahahahaha
I do not believe in government ownership and control of the means of production. I believe in free enterprise capitalism. I do, however, believe that there are certain services that are better capable of being delivered by government than by the private sector. police. snow removal. national defense. education. basic healthcare. that does not make me a socialist any more than your loving big business and hating the little guy makes you a fascist
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
This is one issue on which I feel the Republicans are perhaps marginally better.
Both the Democrats and Republicans say they oppose Corporate Welfare, but it is my observation that it depends on who is in office as to whether that ideal is upheld.
The Democrats in North Carolina are almost 100% on board with the use of targeted tax incentives and land and infrasturcture deals that support politically popular corporate relocations. Most sane Republicans I speak with, however, support the policy of lower tax rates for people in all trades and industries and special favors for no one.
This is a very important issue to me, and it has impacted the way I have voted. Clearly, few Federal Republicans have as much courage or conviction to say no to doling out to Corporations as they do on the state and local level, but if they did, they would have a better chance of getting my vote.
Both the Democrats and Republicans say they oppose Corporate Welfare, but it is my observation that it depends on who is in office as to whether that ideal is upheld.
The Democrats in North Carolina are almost 100% on board with the use of targeted tax incentives and land and infrasturcture deals that support politically popular corporate relocations. Most sane Republicans I speak with, however, support the policy of lower tax rates for people in all trades and industries and special favors for no one.
This is a very important issue to me, and it has impacted the way I have voted. Clearly, few Federal Republicans have as much courage or conviction to say no to doling out to Corporations as they do on the state and local level, but if they did, they would have a better chance of getting my vote.
maineman
Banned
if the Tax Incentive is structured to bring good paying jobs into a region, it really is not so much corporate welfare, per se, as it is job development. I am not one to punish big business just for the sake of punishing them. If legislation can be drafted that is good for the business and good for the workforce, I am all for it.
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
It is corporate welfare. It is creating an uneven tax structure to the benefit of some and withholding those benefits from equal partners in what is supposed to be the same free market. It is political favoritism.
Also, add to the fact that it never ends at one simple tax-abatement, and usually transforms into a subsidy as well as back-door eminent domain land deals and infrastructural arrangements that corporate recipients will never have to pay, while the average citizen will foot the bill.
The free market is the best way to decide which businesses should succeeed and fail, and the best friend to a free market is a government which taxes the least and equitably to all citizens and companies.
Lower tax rates for everyone, or it is plain corruption. To call it an "investment" or "job creation" is an insult to the intelligence of millions of other hard-working people who deserve relief from the largess in government.
Also, add to the fact that it never ends at one simple tax-abatement, and usually transforms into a subsidy as well as back-door eminent domain land deals and infrastructural arrangements that corporate recipients will never have to pay, while the average citizen will foot the bill.
The free market is the best way to decide which businesses should succeeed and fail, and the best friend to a free market is a government which taxes the least and equitably to all citizens and companies.
Lower tax rates for everyone, or it is plain corruption. To call it an "investment" or "job creation" is an insult to the intelligence of millions of other hard-working people who deserve relief from the largess in government.
A congressional progressive who works with the Democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not make those progressives "socialists" and then
Working WITH someone does not make you the same as the person you work with.
Joe Lieberman....enough said...
In one breath..."if the Tax Incentive is structured to bring good paying jobs into a region"...thats good?
But the Chrysler bailout is "welfare" even though 10's of thousands of high paying jobs were at risk.... thats bad?
From the convoluted reasoning of a partisan bubble head.
Working WITH someone does not make you the same as the person you work with.
Joe Lieberman....enough said...
In one breath..."if the Tax Incentive is structured to bring good paying jobs into a region"...thats good?
But the Chrysler bailout is "welfare" even though 10's of thousands of high paying jobs were at risk.... thats bad?
From the convoluted reasoning of a partisan bubble head.
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
Thank you for calling for consistency.
I would say any Corporate Bailout of that kind only complicates the problems with a company and prolongs the market from correcting itself.
Look at the difficulty the airline industry is having. Government money and bankruptcy protection is mostly what keeps airlines running. The fact is that it's not currently profitable to run a widespread airline service under our particular economic and technological restraints.
That, and the fact that there is no real transportation alternative in most parts of the U.S. other than car or Greyhound bus. Took Amtrak a month or two ago. Was comfortable, but entirely too slow and overpriced. Rail service in Europe is better, and of course, it'd be great to have a bullettrain.
I would say any Corporate Bailout of that kind only complicates the problems with a company and prolongs the market from correcting itself.
Look at the difficulty the airline industry is having. Government money and bankruptcy protection is mostly what keeps airlines running. The fact is that it's not currently profitable to run a widespread airline service under our particular economic and technological restraints.
That, and the fact that there is no real transportation alternative in most parts of the U.S. other than car or Greyhound bus. Took Amtrak a month or two ago. Was comfortable, but entirely too slow and overpriced. Rail service in Europe is better, and of course, it'd be great to have a bullettrain.
Rail service in Europe is better, and of course, it'd be great to have a bullettrain
Publically subsidized in europe and japan.