Subsidizing your own destruction

[sparky]

The Warped US Tax System: Taxpayers Subsidize Their Own Destruction | The Nation

Conservatives constantly exalt the glories of the free market, except there’s nothing free about taxpayers subsidizing the anti-union behavior of companies like Boeing. This kind of corporate welfare system is rigged to force citizens to bankroll their own destruction. If every company followed the Boeing model, there would be no unions, no collective bargaining and no assurance for the majority of poor workers that they can have any protection from their corporate overlords.

Quite simply, Boeing wouldn’t be able to prosper without the state, and by default, its taxpayers. It’s time they show a little respect for the people assisting the company’s copious growth.

It's interesting to witness public gestalt move the terminology goal posts of conservative, conservatism, or otherwise known as the people wary of change to being tools of what basically is the essence of change

corporatism in America has done a fine job of convincing them to slice their neighbors throat, without the reality that they, in an indirect , yet eminently palpable way, slice their own in the process....

 

[editec]

Few elite classes ever lost money counting on the stupidity of the public, Steve.

Piqueue the conceits of the workers and they'll cut the throats of their neighbors if they believe that their masters will cover for them legally.

 

[martybegan]

The Warped US Tax System: Taxpayers Subsidize Their Own Destruction | The Nation

Conservatives constantly exalt the glories of the free market, except there’s nothing free about taxpayers subsidizing the anti-union behavior of companies like Boeing. This kind of corporate welfare system is rigged to force citizens to bankroll their own destruction. If every company followed the Boeing model, there would be no unions, no collective bargaining and no assurance for the majority of poor workers that they can have any protection from their corporate overlords.

Quite simply, Boeing wouldn’t be able to prosper without the state, and by default, its taxpayers. It’s time they show a little respect for the people assisting the company’s copious growth.

It's interesting to witness public gestalt move the terminology goal posts of conservative, conservatism, or otherwise known as the people wary of change to being tools of what basically is the essence of change

corporatism in America has done a fine job of convincing them to slice their neighbors throat, without the reality that they, in an indirect , yet eminently palpable way, slice their own in the process....

So we need to all bow down to mighty massah state, and thank them for taking 1/3 of our paycheck every year. I wonder if libs can show respect to those funding thier pet programs, but i doubt it. People who favor class war need a boogeyman to rail against, while at the same time using thier money as they see fit.

Isn't Boeing one of the biggest union employers in the country? Even if they found that plant in Carolina, whats really to stop them from forming a union there?

Boeing's job is to make planes. It will continue to make planes in the seattle area. It sees it in its best interest, however, to hedge its bets and build a factory to build planes elsewhere in case there are issues at its main facility.

 

[Wiseacre]

The unions wouldn't be able to prosper without the state and it's taxpayers either, maybe if they had been a little more reasonable in their demands and a little less willing to strike, it wouldn't have come to this. Seriously, you really think they should have a seat on the board and a guarantee that airplanes will not be built anywhere else?

 

[martybegan]

The unions wouldn't be able to prosper without the state and it's taxpayers either, maybe if they had been a little more reasonable in their demands and a little less willing to strike, it wouldn't have come to this. Seriously, you really think they should have a seat on the board and a guarantee that airplanes will not be built anywhere else?

A seat on the board I could deal with, its only 1 seat, and maybe hearing from the workers would help. But the whole no airplanes anywhere else guarantee is a stretch.

 

[Wiseacre]

Seems to me this corporate welfare thing is a bit one-sided. Sure, nobody likes paying subsidies one way or another to the big corps who are already making mega profits. If it was me I'd drop corporate taxes altogether, and go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, exemptions, breaks, or loopholes. But here's the problem: in some cases, US companies cannot compete with their foreign competitors, because our labor costs are too high. So, we either subsidize or we lose manufacturing jobs.

Why? Cuz money gravitates towards places where it can earn the most return. In todays global market, if Boeing isn't making enough profit then investors will go elsewhere, it's a simple as that. Probably we're paying for subsidies that make no sense, and somebody should be looking into all of and cutting the ones that are no longer effective. If we don't go to to a flat tax that is.

As far as the unions go, they're going to have to realize it's a different world from when they ruled the roost. Either they have to work with management or in a lot of cases their jobs are going out the window.

 

[Truthmatters]

Unions never ruled the roost.

The corporations have ruled for decades now.

 

[Wiseacre]

Unions never ruled the roost.

The corporations have ruled for decades now.

You don't think the union strikes have greatly influenced management and business decisions over the last century? How about you address the issue instead of nitpicking a choice or words.

 

[Truthmatters]

How about you realize that human beings need a living wage.

How about you realize that AMERICANS have rights that are greater than the rights of corporations.


That is how the founders intended it.

Why do you hate what the founders left us?

 

[Wiseacre]

How about you realize that human beings need a living wage.

They've already got a living wage, looks to me like an awful lot of people at or below the poverty line are doing okay.


How about you realize that AMERICANS have rights that are greater than the rights of corporations.


I realize that, we have many laws on the books to prevent corps from trampling human rights.


That is how the founders intended it.

Why do you hate what the founders left us?

What I hate is that progressive liberals have changed so much of what the founders left us. The America we have today is fundamentally different in terms of rights and gov't from what it was then.

 

[Truthmatters]

So you also hate the fact that the founders left the people the ability to amend the constitution?

 

[martybegan]

So you also hate the fact that the founders left the people the ability to amend the constitution?

The problem is that people of your ilk DONT use the amendment process, but prefer to use the courts to make crap up. Amending is hard, and requires mass concensus to affect any change.

Using the courts on the other hand, gives the veneer of constitutionality, through interpretation. Think of it as an end run. I would rather have things I dont like at least legistated into being, as you can see the will of the people behind it. bench decisons don't have that backing.

 

[sparky]

ok then, sans the floundering fathers and the hemp document they rode in on, how many of you are willing to accept less for big biz to come to town?

can i have a show of hands (out)?

 

[sparky]

ok then, sans the floundering fathers and the hemp document they rode in on, how many of you are willing to accept less for big biz to come to town?

can i have a show of hands (out)?

 

[Douger]

Why do you hate what the founders left us?

Because murkins allowed IsNtReal to take it all over.

 

[editec]

Seems to me this corporate welfare thing is a bit one-sided. Sure, nobody likes paying subsidies one way or another to the big corps who are already making mega profits.

You really think that NOBODY supports corporate welfare?

Obama is talking about ended the SUBSIDIES (read: corporate welfare) to the oil companies.

They have enjoyed these "subsides" since 1914.

Their industry was the FIRST industry to ever get such subsidies, and they've been enjoying this welfare ever since.

Now what do you suppose the GOP's postion on those subsidies is?

Do they hate them? ARe they calling for the end?

Not a chance, sport.

If it was me I'd drop corporate taxes altogether, and go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, exemptions, breaks, or loopholes. But here's the problem: in some cases, US companies cannot compete with their foreign competitors, because our labor costs are too high.

Is that right?

Then how did US companies become the richest on EARTH before they starting moving manufacturing off shore?

See, this is why knowing HISTORY is so important if you want to be a good citizen. It makes it much more difficult to be BAMBOOZLED BY PROPAGANDA.

So, we either subsidize or we lose manufacturing jobs.

Poppycock.

Who is going to pay for these subsides? The American working class now making as little as third world workers because of FREE TRADE?

But certainly NOT the wealthy, right?

Because if we do that they'll take their money to another nation, (Atlas Shrugging) right?

Why? Cuz money gravitates towards places where it can earn the most return.

That is true.

And it does so with complete INDIFFERENCE TO THE NATION WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE, TOO.

And the us INVESTMENT money gravitated offshore when we opened our borders with FREE TRADE.

Money (read industry and investments) STAYED in the USA economy to reap the benefits of our market when we had tariffs. That is WHY the Founding Fathers imposed so many tariffs on the nation for the first 150 years we existed.

And that money started migrating offshore as soon as the industrialists could sell into the markets while exploiting third world workers wage differential.

You really need to expand your reading to include economic history, amigo.

Until you have a fundamental grasp of the last fifty years of the USA economic history, you cannot understand what is REALLY going on.

 

[Wiseacre]

Seems to me this corporate welfare thing is a bit one-sided. Sure, nobody likes paying subsidies one way or another to the big corps who are already making mega profits.

You really think that NOBODY supports corporate welfare?

Obama is talking about ended the SUBSIDIES (read: corporate welfare) to the oil companies.

They have enjoyed these "subsides" since 1914.

Their industry was the FIRST industry to ever get such subsidies, and they've been enjoying this welfare ever since.

Now what do you suppose the GOP's postion on those subsidies is?

Do they hate them? ARe they calling for the end?

Not a chance, sport.


From ABCNews:

Boehner had stunned Washington on Monday when he told ABC News that cutting the subsidies to oil companies is "certainly something we should be looking at."

"We are in a time when the federal government's short on revenues. We need to control spending, but we need to have revenues to get the government moving," Boehner said. "They ought to be paying their fair share."


Not a chance, sport?

If it was me I'd drop corporate taxes altogether, and go to a flat tax rate with no deductions, exemptions, breaks, or loopholes. But here's the problem: in some cases, US companies cannot compete with their foreign competitors, because our labor costs are too high.

Is that right?

Then how did US companies become the richest on EARTH before they starting moving manufacturing off shore?

See, this is why knowing HISTORY is so important if you want to be a good citizen. It makes it much more difficult to be BAMBOOZLED BY PROPAGANDA.


The US became the richest country on earth because we had a super abundance of natural resources, a large supply of labor, and a free market system. The rest of the world didn't begin to catch up with us until the 70s and 80s, which is when the outsourcing began. Labor costs are one of the largest costs of doing business, if not the largest. Why make a product that costs you $50 here in the US when you can make the same product somewhere else for $10?

I guess if anyone would know about being bamboozled by propaganda it would be you.

So, we either subsidize or we lose manufacturing jobs.

Poppycock.

Who is going to pay for these subsides? The American working class now making as little as third world workers because of FREE TRADE?

But certainly NOT the wealthy, right?

Because if we do that they'll take their money to another nation, (Atlas Shrugging) right?


Your response is total incoherent nonsense. Why do you think the US Gov't complains about foreign gov'ts subsidizing their products so they are cheaper on our market? People will buy the cheapest products if the quality is not too inferior, and sometimes even if it is. That is why we do the same thing, we either subsidize certain industries or we lose global marketshare, it's as simple as that. Some subsidies should be eliminated, as Speaker Boehner suggests. Most of 'em seem to go to big biz rather than the small guys, but let's not pretend that the GOP is solely responsible for that.

Why? Cuz money gravitates towards places where it can earn the most return.

That is true.

And it does so with complete INDIFFERENCE TO THE NATION WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE, TOO.

And the us INVESTMENT money gravitated offshore when we opened our borders with FREE TRADE.

Money (read industry and investments) STAYED in the USA economy to reap the benefits of our market when we had tariffs. That is WHY the Founding Fathers imposed so many tariffs on the nation for the first 150 years we existed.

And that money started migrating offshore as soon as the industrialists could sell into the markets while exploiting third world workers wage differential.

(I think you made my pont for me here.)

You really need to expand your reading to include economic history, amigo.

Until you have a fundamental grasp of the last fifty years of the USA economic history, you cannot understand what is REALLY going on.

Money started migrating offshore as soon as it become more profiable to do so. How's that for understanding? If you want to argue that free trade agreements are primarily responsible for that, have at it. But I think money was moving offshore anyway, partly to be closer to the growing foreign markets and partly to take advantage of cheaper labor, a lower tax rate, and a business climate that is more conducive to starting and growing a business. Until you understand that THIS is what is REALLY going on, you will continue to be bamboozled by the liberal propaganda.