Originally posted by wittywonkaThese guys go to work for multinational corporations after they stop politicking, and they are best buddies with CEOs of companies like Goldman Sachs. Their corporations aren't American, they're international. Notice how right wingers keep talking about how the rich are going to flee somewhere else?
I don't disagree with you, but I'm curious-- how would any politician score "personal profit," other than perhaps winning some skewed political clout by appearing to conform with the GOP mainstream platform, by being willing to default?
That's because they have no loyalty to the USA. They aren't Californians, or Pennsylvanians, or even Americans. They're whatever is most convenient for their bank account.
Low taxes = more money for international corporations who intend to use their wealth to hold our economy hostage.
Look up the recent situation in which Boehner was passing out checks in the House from tobacco companies in order to buy votes for tobacco subsidies.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not sure I believe what I'm about to say, but I think I agree with ya.
I'm not sure I believe what I'm about to say, but I think I agree with ya.
The heads of oil companies defended the tax breaks at a Senate hearing last week saying they just wanted the same tax advantages enjoyed by other industries. Last quarter these oil giants made $36 billion, so is $2 billion too much to ask for?
Sure, it will "hurt" these indust stop so does much of the election money these leaches need to run their venemous campaigns.
Agreement isn't a bad thing.
Sure it will "hurt" these industries to various degrees and may cost jobs etc...
I disagree. There has been an inverse relationship between profit margin and job growth within the oil industry over the past few years, so why would there be any reason to think that a pocket-change-sized loss for oil companies' "bottom lines" would have any independent, noteworthy effect on job growth? Unless the oil companies pulled some sort of political stunt as backlash against the big, mean government's decision...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOkay, I think this is all very bad, but how does that relate to the debt ceiling? Are you saying that the richest some-odd percent are effectively immune, because they'll just pack up and head to another country to do business if the U.S. does in fact default?
These guys go to work for multinational corporations after they stop politicking, and they are best buddies with CEOs of companies like Goldman Sachs. Their corporations aren't American, they're international. Notice how right wingers keep talking about how the rich are going to flee somewhere else?
That's because they have no loyalty to the USA. ...[text shortened]... out checks in the House from tobacco companies in order to buy votes for tobacco subsidies.
6 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe debt ceiling is coming from a different part of the conservative base. The business people want to raise the debt ceiling, but the fiscal conservatives won't let them.
Okay, I think this is all very bad, but how does that relate to the debt ceiling? Are you saying that the richest some-odd percent are effectively immune, because they'll just pack up and head to another country to do business if the U.S. does in fact default?
Yes, the richest are not only immune, but can profit easily from a collapsed US economy. Americans will be desperate to get hold of cash, so the real buying power of each dollar will go up. They'll sell anything if desperate enough. So the debt ceiling doesn't bother the richest as much as you'd think. They can game the system with or without a debt ceiling and they need the fiscal conservative vote.
Like Warren Buffet said about the recession "I'm like a sex addict in a whorehouse".
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0516/Tea-party-faces-unusual-opponent-in-national-debt-limit-battle
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/us/politics/12boehner.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe credit rating of the US has been threatened by making unreasonable promises to Baby Boomers in order to win their votes.
Their opponents in the Republican Party don't need help looking bad. They're a bunch of hypocrite munchkins playing the system so they don't have to get real jobs.
They are willing to sacrifice the legendary perfect credit rating of the USA for personal profit, principles be damned.
Both sides.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd what of the Dems? They had two whole years in full control of government and did nothing to curb tax breaks to oil companies. Then when they no longer have the power to curb these tax breaks with the GOP in the House, all of a sudden they are pointing the finger at those "evil" Republicans to pander to their sheeple on the left.
Their opponents in the Republican Party don't need help looking bad. They're a bunch of hypocrite munchkins playing the system so they don't have to get real jobs.
They are willing to sacrifice the legendary perfect credit rating of the USA for personal profit, principles be damned.
Originally posted by wittywonkaThese companies have a profit goal in mind, and if they don't reach it, it could mean jobs/higher prices.
[b]I'm not sure I believe what I'm about to say, but I think I agree with ya.
Agreement isn't a bad thing.
Sure it will "hurt" these industries to various degrees and may cost jobs etc...
I disagree. There has been an inverse relationship between profit margin and job growth within the oil industry over the past few years, so why woul ...[text shortened]... some sort of political stunt as backlash against the big, mean government's decision...[/b]
1 edit
It's about votes as usual.
In The USA it's all about the cost of petrol especially outside the big cities in the middle of the country. The American Dream seems to be based on how cheaply you can drive your car. No matter how poor the deficit, foreign wars, unemployment rates, economic recession or resurgence, or dead bogeymen terrorists. If the price of filling the petrol tank goes up too much the government in charge will lose the next election.
TBF. Much the same happens in the UK and they have much higher fuel costs. Government have made stiiff job cuts in the public sector, cut back on welfare benefits etc.. What else did they do in this period of savage cuts on spending and reigning in the deficit, cut tax on petrol. Votes.
Your big issue in The States is the lobbying. This is fillibustering because of the lobbies that pay into party and individual funds. Big companies that live very well on laissez faire economic policy need to understand that when their major supporter - The USA - is in difficulty, it is time to contribute a bit into the coffers.
Originally posted by wittywonkaI think it's safe to say these poor misunderstood Oil Companies with there multi billion dollar a year profit margins can chip in a few extra bucks each year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/republicans-block-oil-tax-break-repeal/
I don't think for a minute that ending said tax breaks will make gasoline any cheaper (not that increased offshore drilling will any time soon, either), but I still think it's ridiculous that in a time of record profits for oil companies, coinciding with a time of r ...[text shortened]... els compelled to fund these tax breaks. Heaven forbid Congress should appear "un-American."
America will gladly tax the tips of an $8.00/ hr waitress and think nothing of it. Ask the Oil Companies to pay a few pennies more, and half the lawmakers in America spring to there defence! Yup...I'd be real proud of that...wouldn't you??
2 edits
Originally posted by HopsterNow your getting it!! People really don't care about anything other than where their next pay check is coming from. Therefore, the game is, don't raise taxes, don't raise prices at the fuel pump and grocery, leave my benefits alone, and we will let you stay in office.
[b]It's about votes as usual.
In The USA it's all about the cost of petrol especially outside the big cities in the middle of the country. The American Dream seems to be based on how cheaply you can drive your car. No matter how poor the deficit, foreign wars, unemployment rates, economic recession or resurgence, or dead bogeymen terrorists. If the price of filling the petrol tank goes up too much the government in charge will lose the next election.
The problem now, however, is that simply printing money is beginning to raise prices across the board as the value of the money they have deteriorates. There is an end game, but the American people I don't think have gotten them message as of yet.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe thing is they all have the same exact goal.
These companies have a profit goal in mind, and if they don't reach it, it could mean jobs/higher prices.
Maximum. Profits. Possible.
They're not charging what they "need" to to make some magic number at the end of the quarter. They're charging what they can, which isn't going to change simply because they no longer recieve government subsidies.