03 Apr 14
6 edits
Paul Ryan has a new budget, not suprisingly it includes deep cuts in healthcare, and social safety net programs. It's interesting that the GOP never seems to propose "deep cuts" in subsidies to wealthy oil companies, or the billions in grants given away to fortune 500 giants such as IBM, GE, Honeywell, or Dow Chemical, or (god forbid) placing limits on executive pay for those companies who accept these billions in tax dollar handouts, nope the exec's get to keep their over inflated pay, enjoy their posh corporate retreats in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, and fly in style in the company's private jet's, all while joyfully sucking corporate welfare tax dollars from the public. Interesting side note to all this is the tea party says the cuts in basic healthcare and safety net programs for the unemployed and the working class don't go deep enough! 🙄
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-ryan-budget-pass-house-despite-tea-party-204342438--business.html
03 Apr 14
Originally posted by bill718Ryan's budget may be a good idea or a bad idea (or some sort of combination) but you're missing the point on his motivations.
Paul Ryan has a new budget, not suprisingly it includes deep cuts in healthcare, and social safety net programs. It's interesting that the GOP never seems to propose "deep cuts" in subsidies to wealthy oil companies, or the billions in grants given away to fortune 500 giants such as IBM, GE, Honeywell, or Dow Chemical, or (god forbid) placing limits on execu ...[text shortened]... p://news.yahoo.com/republicans-ryan-budget-pass-house-despite-tea-party-204342438--business.html
Subsidies and tax breaks for big companies are not given so that the poor companies can have more money. They're given on the theory that they stimulate the economy and this increase the fortunes of all of the people working for the company and help improve the economy in general.
As for caps for corporate executives pay, that's not something that comes from the government one way or the other, so it would be irrelevant in a budget bill. The government doesn't save or spend money by capping executive pay. Capping executive pay, at best, would leave more money for the shareholders (who are also generally wealthy people) and at worst, would prevent the company from bidding enough to attract the executive who could improve the fortunes of the company, thereby benefiting the company as a whole.
I get your frustration, Bill, but I think you're being too simplistic about it.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
Originally posted by sh76Republican discussion WE NEED TO RAISE BILLIONS.... BUT WE CANT DO IT BY TAXING OR CAPPING BIG COMAPNIES BECAUSE WE OWN THEM ....SO LETS SCREW THE POOR SUCKERS AGAIN..... WE OWN THEM ALSO.Parasites
Ryan's budget may be a good idea or a bad idea (or some sort of combination) but you're missing the point on his motivations.
Subsidies and tax breaks for big companies are not given so that the poor companies can have more money. They're given on the theory that they stimulate the economy and this increase the fortunes of all of the people working for the c ...[text shortened]... y as a whole.
I get your frustration, Bill, but I think you're being too simplistic about it.
03 Apr 14
Originally posted by bill718Blah, blah, blah.
Paul Ryan has a new budget, not suprisingly it includes deep cuts in healthcare, and social safety net programs. It's interesting that the GOP never seems to propose "deep cuts" in subsidies to wealthy oil companies, or the billions in grants given away to fortune 500 giants such as IBM, GE, Honeywell, or Dow Chemical, or (god forbid) placing limits on execu ...[text shortened]... p://news.yahoo.com/republicans-ryan-budget-pass-house-despite-tea-party-204342438--business.html
The GOP always claims they want to cut entitlements.
The Democrats always claim they want to cut subsidies to corporations.
In the end, when in power they both do neither.
Now get out their and vote for your particular empty promise bill. You obviously have not had enough of this poo yet.
03 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76sh76-With all due respect, I think I know Mr. Ryans motivations, and they may be honorable, but in the real world things frequently happen exactly as I described. Capping executive pay would not automatically "leave more money for the shareholders" it would mean less corporate welfare as a whole, since I doubt few executives want to take a pay cut, and it can come from the government if the laws are written as such.
Ryan's budget may be a good idea or a bad idea (or some sort of combination) but you're missing the point on his motivations.
Subsidies and tax breaks for big companies are not given so that the poor companies can have more money. They're given on the theory that they stimulate the economy and this increase the fortunes of all of the people working for the c ...[text shortened]... y as a whole.
I get your frustration, Bill, but I think you're being too simplistic about it.
The point of my post was to point out the one sided attitude the GOP frequently takes when making cuts to the budget, so let's not get so caught up in the details that we can't see the forest through the trees.😉
03 Apr 14
Originally posted by bill718The forest is made of trees. If your trees are inaccurate then your forest is inaccurate.
sh76-With all due respect, I think I know Mr. Ryans motivations, and they may be honorable, but in the real world things frequently happen exactly as I described. Capping executive pay would not automatically "leave more money for the shareholders" it would mean less corporate welfare as a whole, since I doubt few executives want to take a pay cut, and it ca ...[text shortened]... , so let's not get so caught up in the details that we can't see the forest through the trees.😉
Details are important, even if sometimes ignored or overlooked.
04 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76The reality is that Paul Ryan's budget doesn't cut anywhere near deeply enough. Bill is partly right in saying that it is just as important to cut corporate welfare as social programs, and as well to cut military spending by insisting that the spending actually be in the defense of the nation.
Your analysis makes Bill sound like John Maynard Keynes.
What is missing entirely, and I haven't read the budget, is the elimination of needless and wasteful federal bureaucracies which are not only expensive but violate constitutional limitations.
I do agree that limiting compensation is a step too far. It isn't the government's business to set either minimum or maximum wages. That's up to the people paying the money.
04 Apr 14
Originally posted by EladarCorrection, looking to the federal government for change is like telling an alcoholic to treat himself. What is needed is an outside intervention. COS (Convention of the states) is what is needed.
Ryan is an establishment guy. Looking to him for change is like looking to a guy who would hire Joe Biden for change.