Proof that the Democrats are Socialists

[RiverOfIce]

Their US operations had losses in which tax law states they can indeed get their tax "benefit" from their net operating loss.

You are going to completely ignore the whole 3.5 billion part arent you?

I will admit it does sound terrible, but it's business. Someone has to lose in order for someone to win. If we keep jobs here, the costs to the company will be higher and their prices will in result be higher and we'll be compaining then too. Can't have everything.

That is a complete and udder lie. If good business, everyone can win. Everyone. In corrupt business 1 person wins when someone loses.

It is just that the few are asking for bigger and bigger wins to make sure someone loses

 

[redrider67]

Everyone knows that the US has forms of socialism, we have also learned that total socialism doesn't work. Examples look at the rioting that went on in Egypt and other countries.

Our society was based on capitalism, and it should stay that way!

But guess we could try socialism have all the rich give up their money, and spread the wealth around to all the entitlement programs.

Nice video that explains how we can take all the rich evil companies money and pay off our current debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

 

[EarlyMon]

I will admit it does sound terrible, but it's business. Someone has to lose in order for someone to win. If we keep jobs here, the costs to the company will be higher and their prices will in result be higher and we'll be compaining then too. Can't have everything.

Foreign build-up of production capability did not happen in a vacuum.

It happened because some were willing to sacrifice, others were willing to feel entitled, and still others were ready to exploit.

It's easy to call it business - it's another thing to have been working worldwide and watching it happen.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Our society was based on capitalism, and it should stay that way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

Ok this is where I jump off, I am starting to get a headache reading all of this. Could we please go back to the definitions again.

Capitalism- Also called: private enterprise/free enterprise, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

Let us look at each part of that.

Production- Name one company that produces anything with out huge government hand outs? You can't because in order to be competitive in this market, you need socialism or what ever we produce we could not afford to by, see china for example.

Distribution- Everything from the roads, rails, and airports are government built and ran. In fact if you look at it in whole, even the gas, the trucks, trains, and cars are their because of socialism.

Exchange- Well nothing gets exchanged with out socialism. The market we trade in, the currency we use, the laws that protect, and the rates at which they are set, are not set by private industry, but a socialistic system of government, that redistributes the wealth.

In fact if you took all the parts of the government that takes in and redistributes the money, capitalism would never work. About 90% of the population would not care because they where not educated that it would be any different.

 

[noah way]

Banks are a business. They're in it to make money. They do so by making loans. The thousands of people that irresponsibly took their loans and ended up defaulting are just as responsible for the bank crashes as the banks themselves. Just because someone offers you a loan doesn't mean you'll be able to pay it back and certainly doesn't mean you have to take it.

Many banks and mortgage brokers made loans to people they knew couldn't repay them. Credit verification was unnecessary because the sole intent was to generate a closing fee (profit) and then to sell the loan, pocketing a chunk of change in exchange for a release from all liability. Many of these loans were made to less-than-well-educated people with legalese fine print detailing balloon payments, interest rate changes, etc., that pretty much guaranteed implosion of the loan.

To blame the mortgage crisis on unscrupulous borrowers when it is clearly documented that these loans were camouflaged, rated AAA, and sold in bulk to less-than-well-educated "investors" is not just disingenuous, it flies in the face of fact.

Their profits were overseas. That profit also stayed overseas, and if it does enter their US operations somehow it will be taxed. That non-taxed profit never touches US soil or anything to do with the US, so why hsould it be taxed in the US?

Over $5 billion of the profit was generated in the US. Tax liability: ZERO. As to not taxing the profit generated overseas, it is a legal loophole written by the very corporations it benefits, enacted by their stooges in congress, who they fund with campaign donations, etc.

Sounds like they understand the situation and laws that apply, and are definately candidates for the adivising job. I don't see how they wouldn't be qualified for the job just because they saved their company money.

They don't just understand them, they created them. And it is this kind of practice that has killed this country. Anything you do to to maximize your profit is OK. Buy political influence. Avoid taxes. Outsource jobs. Destroy the environment. Invest worker's pension funds and rake off the profits for the corporation. When the pension fund investment tanks, the workers lose their retirement. All perfectly legal.

I can't think of anyone who could possibly be a better economic advisor to the president for the specific purpose of "fixing the economy" than one of the guys who is responsible for creating the conditions that led to its collapse.

 

[ParishL31]

You are going to completely ignore the whole 3.5 billion part arent you?

It was ~$400 worth of losses in 2010 alone. Their "benefits" roll over year to year. Your choice of when to allocate that loss benefit is yours, often companies will decide to dump it all on one year in order to completely eliminate taxes in a single year.

I'm guessing a large portion of that $3.5 billion was from doing this practice for many years and let it accumulate to that. If there is an article stating where the $3.5 comes from and why was it given to GE then I would be quite interested in reading it (not sarcastic).

Actually, GE is paying taxes for 2010 Hot Air

The truth about GE's tax bill - FORTUNE Features - Fortune on CNNMoney.com

Did GE Really Pay No U.S. Taxes in 2010? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

There are also numerous statements that the Times' report is false to begin with.

That is a complete and udder lie. If good business, everyone can win. Everyone. In corrupt business 1 person wins when someone loses.

It is just that the few are asking for bigger and bigger wins to make sure someone loses

Greed is a part of human nature. It will never go away. In theory if everyone was not greedy and all that, yes every business can benefit everyone. But real life this is sadly not the truth. Everyone is greedy. Some more than others.

As an analogy to bring it on a personal level, let's use this as an example. Say you're in negotiations for a new job and talking about salary. Say they just offered you much more than you expected and you would've accepted much lower to work there. Do you take that higher pay? Of course. You're not going to say, "oh I think my work is only worth this much and you guys should only pay me this much". Now that company has higher expenses to cover, and in a bad year they may even have to lay off someone else or raise prices.

Say you're hiring a baby sitter or someone to mow your lawn. Say that kid is the one next door offers to do the job, but wants $50. You feel somewhat obligated because they're the neighbors and you know them somewhat. But then there's that kid down the street offering to do it for $5 (he's our outsource in this example). Which do you take?

In the lowest sense of the "everyone can benefit" idea, then companies would make zero profits. Companies would just make enough to cover all the costs, and call it quits. That will never happen.

Business is business. Every job has sketchy, not so moral situations. It's not just businessmen. The sad state of the world is, money runs it, not morals. I'm not arguing it sucks and that "bad" people often do win and make the money, but it's how the world works.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Everyone knows that the US has forms of socialism, we have also learned that total socialism doesn't work. Examples look at the rioting that went on in Egypt and other countries.

Our society was based on capitalism, and it should stay that way!

But guess we could try socialism have all the rich give up their money, and spread the wealth around to all the entitlement programs.

Nice video that explains how we can take all the rich evil companies money and pay off our current debt.

YouTube - EAT THE RICH!

Yes, let's put hordes of people who work for those companies out of a job and have their jobs shipped to China and India in order to pay off our debt, thus requiring us to give all those unemployed people unemployment checks. Fantastic idea!

 

[ParishL31]

Yes, let's put hordes of people who work for those companies out of a job and have the shipped to China and India in order to pay off our debt, thus requiring us to give all those unemployed people unemployment checks. Fantastic idea!

Again, I said it's not moral. But if you were a huge business owner, you'd look for the cheapest alternative. Outsourcing is that. From the business perspective, why would you pay someone ten times as much for the same job if it can be outsourced? Yes I'd be all for keeping the jobs at home, but it simply is the cheapest way.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Greed is a part of human nature. It will never go away. In theory if everyone was not greedy and all that, yes every business can benefit everyone. But real life this is sadly not the truth. Everyone is greedy. Some more than others.

In the lowest sense of the "everyone can benefit" idea, then companies would make zero profits. Companies would just make enough to cover all the costs, and call it quits. That will never happen.

WOW.

Ok explain this. During the last 3 years, my everyone in my team has choose to give up both your 1st of the year bonus and stop pay raises. It was put to a vote and everyone said they would do it. In return they did not have to lay anyone else off, not on my team but in the company. Pretty greedy huh.


You are ignoring a simple fact of business, regulation. Rules, laws, and regulations is created so everyone can win, or at least have a far playing field. When regulations and the law is broken, then you have massive winners and losers. But if the rules are forced and the business is well regulated, abuse and greed are kept to very small level.

Nothing in this world is as black and white or as pure as you say.

 

[ParishL31]

I really do give you props for being a good person in that situation when you gave up a bonus. Not many people could say they would've done the same.

But as you said, it's rules and regulations of business. There is no law that says you can't outsource and make profits or save money in unethical ways. Are these companies in the wrong for making disgusting amounts of profits while others fail? Morally, yes. Legally, most of the time no.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Examples look at the rioting that went on in Egypt and other countries.

not first world dude
dictatorship


I genuinely want to cry

 

[FreakyLocz14]

WOW.

Ok explain this. During the last 3 years, my everyone in my team has choose to give up both your 1st of the year bonus and stop pay raises. It was put to a vote and everyone said they would do it. In return they did not have to lay anyone else off, not on my team but in the company. Pretty greedy huh.


You are ignoring a simple fact of business, regulation. Rules, laws, and regulations is created so everyone can win, or at least have a far playing field. When regulations and the law is broken, then you have massive winners and losers. But if the rules are forced and the business is well regulated, abuse and greed are kept to very small level.

Nothing in this world is as black and white or as pure as you say.

What happens when businesses don't want to play by the rules? They outsource to a place with less rules.

 

[lordofthereef]

What happens when businesses don't want to play by the rules? They outsource to a place with less rules.

Easy. Tax the hell out of any business that outsources. Make a simple equation that basically equates to "the more you outsource, the more we tax your ass". Problem solved. I made this example in another thread. So we don't end up buying shiny new cars every other year and new phones every 6-12 months. (hell, maybe we wouldn't even WANT to because product quality would be what it USED to be). Yes, we would TRULY be suffering...

 

[noah way]

Again, I said it's not moral. But if you were a huge business owner, you'd look for the cheapest alternative. Outsourcing is that. From the business perspective, why would you pay someone ten times as much for the same job if it can be outsourced? Yes I'd be all for keeping the jobs at home, but it simply is the cheapest way.

So immoral behavior is OK?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Its a business's job to make a profit

However they also have to contribute back to society for all the benifits it gets from it

While we can never have a completely fair system, we should aim for one, and if businesss, especially large ones, are not struggling yet are paying nowhere near 25-35% tax something is very wrong

I appreciate many tax breaks were put in place to create jobs etc, and protectionism should be avoided

Whatever about outsoucing labour, moving a tiny part of your operation to a low tax state then moving 30% of your tax liability there should not be commonplace

I have no great ideas how to fix this

 

[Slug]

So immoral behavior is OK? Nice set of standards you have there.

There's no need to personalise the debate. Remember, "attack issues not people".

And nice job cherry picking your replies to avoid dealing with the posts that destroy your position.

There could be any number of reasons why a specific post didn't receive a reply, and there's certainly no requirement for members to respond to every single one.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Its a business's job to make a profit

Well yes a business's job is to make money. But it is how they make money that makes the difference.

For example, I drive a honda. Great little car. I don't drive a honda because of the good gas mileage, the great reliability, or even the the features and comfort of the car, because all those good reasons to buy a car.

I own a honda because of the customer service. Took my 3 year old 36,000 mile honda in for maintenance last month. Got my car back. The response was this. "We did not like the way the tires where wearing, so we gave you a complete set of new ones, free." Looked online, no recall, no major problems, just thought they wore to quickly and there for exchanged them under warranty, before the warranty ran out, bumper to bumper.


Total price of the new set of tires for honda about 350 bucks. The total money made from me, about 4,000 dollars when I buy a new car only from them. (Yes I owned a ford before that, worst car ever)

Even though making money is what they do. Making sure you have happy and repeat customer base, is the best way to make money. When you have a consumer base that is not happy, ie telecom/cable companies, then you need to step up regulations, rules, and maybe even split them up.

 

[lordofthereef]

I think the issue here is simple. We can ALL agree that a business must make profit (otherwise what is the point).

The problem is how they go about making profit. I think it was said already here that there was a time (not that long ago) when nothing was outsourced, and companies still made profit. The difference is, they figured out they can make EVEN MORE profit by outsourcing. Forget what happens to their workforce, the CEO is padding his/her wallet more and more each year.

As consumers, we have also fed into this "buy new things and get rid of your old (12 month old or younger) things because you can. What happened to buying a decent product that was built with some remnant of quality on American soil? We (and I include myself in this statement VERY much) have been tainted with NEEDING shiny new things that can be provided to us with largely crappy craftsmanship (yes there are exceptions, but I am speaking overall) that we just throw away when the year is over.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Yeah, people in the Developed English Speaking world generally over consume, often on borrowed money

An economy can't be based on rampant consumerism

 

[EarlyMon]

LOTR's comment: This.

I'm all for products from all countries going to all countries - the more of that we have, the fewer people starve and the fewer wars we might have.

But in the present climate, we're consuming resources and burying ourselves in waste.

 

[ParishL31]

So immoral behavior is OK?

Here's an everyday one 99.9% of us are guilty of that's "immoral". Wal-Mart is widely criticized for running local family owned stores out of business. They blame Wal-Mart for offering such low prices no one shops at their stores and they go under. Wal-Mart itself is just sitting there, if no one shops there they'll close down. It's us as the consumer that shares the responsibility of running those local businesses out. We shop at Wal-Mart and other super markets because it's cheaper to us. Kind of immoral to run a small business out, but we wanted to save 50 cents on our milk so we shopped at Wal-Mart instead.

Here's another everyone can relate to. In school if a friend before you has taken a test in a period before yours, people always ask what to expect and what major criteria are on it. Or if someone has taken the class already, they ask what to expect. That's not only immoral but totally academic dishonesty, but it's a common practice that I'm pretty sure we're all guilty of.

While my experiences with immoral behavior are quite different and quite negative. Under my experiences, if I'm the nice guy someone else is the "immoral" person and takes advantage of that and profits while I lose for being nice. It's happened in school, work, and real life a number of times. Do I admit to being immoral at times to prevent myself from losing? Yes. Is immoral choices cheating, not always and most often times not. Being immoral is far from illegal and far from breaking the law. My experiences in life have proved the saying "nice guys finish last". Maybe because I'm a business student and it seems the most immoral choices happen in the corporate world, so I'm just used to it already.

And I've been called out for the immoral aspect in which I just countered, and also the GE deal which I explained fairly well (IMO at least). Based on the quotes before your edit, you didn't refute anything I said, just simply called me out.

*edit* Wow, haha the immoral paragaph sounds like I'm some evil person. I'm not that bad, honestly. I just do what it takes for me to succeed. I'm not robbing banks or anything. But if I'm in a job situation where it's me or someone else to be hired, will I point out their weaknesses and exploit it to make sure I get the job? Yes. I wouldn't straight lie and slander them and straight up cheat, just emphasize their weaknesses and use it against them for my benefit.

 

[EarlyMon]

Slug gave a warning about posts in this thread turning personal in any way.

Any propagation of that will face a penalty of failure to heed a mod warning.

 

[lordofthereef]

On Wal Mart - I don't shop there, but you are right. People are this way. This ties into my example of us Americans needing brand new shiny toys yearly so that we can just toss the old ones aside.

On exams - who is really being hurt here? I mean I suppose it is immoral by definition, but nobody is losing anything by you being privy to a little more information that will be on the exam. All that said, if the instructor has half a brain, he/she becomes aware of a trend of the classes that are held later in the day/week having overall higher scores and adjusts the curve accordingly. With or without adjustments, nobody is actually being hurt here.

 

[EarlyMon]

On exams - who is really being hurt here?

The students.

The purpose of exams is to give a student feedback on their mastery of the material and the purpose of grading statistics is to give the instructor feedback on their transmittal of that mastery.

Better teachers structure exams that so that they can't be gamed - multiple versions are but one single way to help accomplish that.

Ultimately - when the students are cheated, or encouraged to cheat themselves, society as a whole suffers.

Students don't stay students forever, but the way they learn to problem-solve will follow them all of their lives.

Look at the fuzzy thinking in politicians and decision-makers today to see the effect of poor students and teachers.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Easy. Tax the hell out of any business that outsources. Make a simple equation that basically equates to "the more you outsource, the more we tax your ass". Problem solved. I made this example in another thread. So we don't end up buying shiny new cars every other year and new phones every 6-12 months. (hell, maybe we wouldn't even WANT to because product quality would be what it USED to be). Yes, we would TRULY be suffering...

Taxing those businesses won't stop them from outsourcing. It's still so much cheaper in China, and it will be more so if we raise taxes on the wealthy in order to spread the wealth around, that they'll easily pay your taxes and outsource even more. More tax revenue and a lot less jobs available? Great!