big business
corpratocracy
democrats
obama
politics
pork spending
religion in government
republicans
unions
No incentive for businesses to pull us out of slow economy?
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
United States
August 11, 2011 9:12am CST
I'm not talking about economic incentives. Let's set that aside for a minute.
Here's the basis for my question: With a Democrat in the White House and a Democratically controlled Senate, there is heavy pressure to eliminate big tax breaks for businesses and little to no consideration of further incentives. Already this administration has flip-flopped on what could have been a big win for American business, the increasing of off-shore drilling areas. Facing the loss of tax breaks and a real threat of higher taxes, which the Republican Party is going to attack as anti-growth during the up-coming elections, why should any big company help out this administration and Congress by really trying to help bring an end to the sluggish economy?
The general concensus, by all logic right, should be to just hold steady and support Republican candidates next year. The economy is the weakness of this Administration and American business is in a perfect position to drive a change in President. A few more concentrated lay-offs next summer will push many voters over the edge, or at least get more conservative voters to go tom the polls.
With a divisive Republican Party still struggling to find an identity in the post Bush boy years, this is the best hope for a Republican Nationwide victory. Of course with that divisive problem, it may be hard for even a Republican Congress and President to get anything really done.
As a conspiracist, I fear this company driven effect on politics is as bad as if a religion got hold of this kind of political power (which almost happened in the 80's). It's not really fair for Obama and company. As a Republican, I don't care so much about that, but I must be fair enough to say I wouldn't want it to happen to a politician I supported. Especially if the tables were turned and Unions were exerting this kind of power against a President I liked. (Which some will argue has happened before and is still happening at the state level.)
But is my question really an easy yes?
Large companies are actually split on support for Democratic and Repubican candidates. It sounds strange, the common thinking would be that they all favor Republicans who tend to put less restrictions and more tax breaks in their platform. However campaign contributions show a more balanced support. The reasons for this are even more insidious than the conspiracy I was trying to explore with this question.
Why do so many big companies support Democrats? It comes down to "pork". Not the four legged and incredibly tasty kind, but the juicy deals for businesses in a particular Congressman's district. I know it is wierd to blame a politician for trying to find money in the big budget for their district, but these deals are one of the biggest problems with our National budget! For every Bill that's passed by Congress, up to hundreds of "riders" or attachments are slapped on the Bill creating unneccessary add-ons to what could have been a simple Bill. Most of these little extras are tasty chunks of pork for the voters at a particular Congressman's home district. This has been treated as a fair bonus of office for so long that it has almost become an entitlement of position. Both parties have benefitted to the point that many candidates have no real competition in their district, creating "lifers" in Congress.
I got off track there again trying to be fair, but what do you think? Am I too paranoid about conspiracies in my main question about businesses trying to control elections?
With all the proposed changes to create a better Congress, is there any way to limit outside influence from corporations, unions and religion?
Sorry I'm so verbose today!
-The Caffeinated Rat
5 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
11 Aug 11
Quickly glossing over the mainstream rhetoric these days, one would draw a conclusion that Republicans are all about big business and Democrats are all about the middle class and the common man.
Quickly glossing over the money trail in America these days, one would draw a conclusion that both Republicans and Democrats are all about big business.
So my issue is a simple one: Who's for the little guys in business?
You're absolutely right - both parties have benefited greatly in the grand (scam) scheme.
There's just no way to limit outside influence when the influence is so massive. Money and religion. What else has ever controlled the world, much less America?
But all that aside, I'm still worried about the smaller businesses, the innovators attempting to plant their feet in the market and work their way up.
I caught a quick 5 minutes of O'Reilly last night, and he had a nice little debate going on between a small businesswoman and a big-spending, tax-'em-more progressive.
I think their debate stands as a microcosm of the entire issue.
When the businesswoman began laying out all the ways that stricter regulations, healthcare and higher taxes hurt her ability to grow and hire, the progressive simply chimed in "You don't know what you're talking about."
A woman concerned with taxing business but not operating one, and she actually believes that she knows more about what businesses want and need and are capable of than the actual woman running her own business.
Absolutely amazing.
Politicians and pundits and activists all seem to have that we-know-better-than-you air about them. But it gets exponentially thicker and more polluted the farther left you go.
Long rant, but in short: It scares me to think of what happens to America if Dems/libs/progressives have their way with business. At least with Republicans, you know they're about business. With those other schmos, they'll tell you they're not about business while they're simultaneously putting the entire world in GE's hands (as an example).
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
11 Aug 11
The democrats are more about businesses that they, the government, can control. They can control many businesses through restrictions, regulations, or, as a bonus to the business, government contracts. In Miami, for example, if a private company is doing business with the county, they are forced to pay employees the wages the county tells them to. When I lived there is was a minimum of $10/hour.
I actually saw that bit you mentioned on the O'Reilly Factor. It truly is baffling when someone who THINKS they know what they are talking about tries to lecture someone actually running a real business. So many people have no clue about how hard the government, at various levels, makes it to start, much less successfully operate, a small business. Even if you win the lottery and have the capital to get the building, inventory, and supplies without a loan, there are so many roadblocks it's ridiculous. Democrats seem to think regulations are such a wonderful thing, but most are completely ignorant of what those regulations actually do to the small businesses they pretend to support.
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
15 Aug 11
Yes, we have been electing, and entrusting our country to, people who have not successfully managed businesses before, especially small businesses. Unfortunately anyone can run for office and then it becomes a popularity contest instead of a performance based evaluation. That won't change, because to do so would make us less of a democracy, but we should be holding our representatives more responsible!
Alot of what makes small business so difficult, of which I speak from experience, is lower level local government interference and regulation. Often the Federal Government has provided guidance, regulation of regulation and a safety net for small business that the State and Local governments cannot, or will not. No matter the level, we have a responsibility to change the problems and keep the good. Mindlessly shrinking the Federal Government and Federal Regulations is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water".
The surest way to tank the economy for good is to decrease government jobs. As a government, we cannot tell companies to hire whenever possible despite an economic slowdown when we are not only not hiring but laying off people. And it is more than setting an example, every person laid off by the government is another draw on unemployment and thousands less in customer spending. The spending cycle that pulls the economy out of recessions has to start somewhere and government spending is the only thing the government can truly control.
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
11 Aug 11
Big Business is always going to go with whomever is giving the most. What I want to know is why are so many companies still moving offshore if they are getting such great tax breaks and so many perks? What more do they want?
@Cue1992 (30)
• United States
14 Aug 11
that's where you're just flat out misinformed. they're not getting huge tax breaks and perks. we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, behind japan. i dont think liberals understand that while our top marginal rates may be lower than 50 years ago, our effective tax rates aren't much lower and all our state taxes are higher. we also have higher payroll taxes, part of which businesses have to pay every time they hire someone (or they have to drop the wage by that portion, making it harder to attract labor).
the point is, all the other countries around the world that these companies are fleeing to have dropped their taxes FASTER than we have, and that's why companies are going there. its all about relativity. we may be productive, but we're one of the most anti-business domestically capitalist countries in the world. there are trillions sitting on the sidelines, and trillions more overseas.we can't compete with our rates where they're at. it is possible that dropping the corporate tax rate might have a complete laffer effect where the revenue gained from a broader corporate tax rate would actually offset the revenue immediately lost. we need to be more competitive on taxes and more pro-business to encourage businesses to stay here.
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
15 Aug 11
Taking jobs overseas is about opening the market in that country as much as it is about taking advantage of lower taxes and less employment restrictions.
Every job created in China is a small fraction of the cost of creating a job in America and producing the product en situ alleviates the cost and problems of shipping INTO China: a huge relatively untapped market for sales.
Of course, you don't see many companies moving into Western Europe or other "developed" countries because their regulations are actually stiffer than ours and their tax rates (including employment functions) are not friendly. At one point I recall Sweden had required a minimum 26 weeks of paid vacation! That would mean you'd have to hire 2 people for every position. At least we are not that bad! (That may have been just government run companies, of which there are alot, but it is a kool example.)
I still am wary about your "Reaganomic" concept, Cue. Bush's tax cuts didn't lead to bigger profits and the corresponding flling of the country's coffers. It really is time for us to give up that line of thinking, even as Republicans trying to stop mindless Democratic taxation and regulation, we have to return to our roots of fiscal responsibility. The idea of giving tax breaks to spur the economy is long since proven ineffective. Without cleaning up government spending, the corporate contribution to the economy is not as important. Essentially we need to "clean up the house" before we start "seeding the yard".
Right wing insistence on tax incentive driven economics is destroying the credibility of the Republican Party. It's time to run the country like we would a good business. Handing out candy to get more customers has its place, but if we can't afford the candy in the first place we better work on the bigger budgeting problems first.
@SteveSlaton (552)
• United States
11 Aug 11
While I could debate some of your detail, you are in good company. The POTUS, George Washington had lots to say in his 30 page farewell address. On our crisis, he warned (and I am paraphrasing and not using Old English)
PEOPLE! If you value your freedom, DO NOT TRUST a two-party 'system' because it is susceptible to clever minds, domestically and internationally, where your freedom will be compromised or destroyed.
G.W. was a wise man. We are less free as our debt increases and now S&P downgraded out currency that triggered shock waves to the Security Markets and will most certainly devalue the American Dollar internationally and create inflation. It only takes two people planning to break the law to have a conspiracy. But most everything that has happened in this contrived recession is all 'legal' and was done by clever business people who have thoroughly corrupted our 'two-party system' just as G.W. warned. Do not confuse right and wrong with what is 'legal.'
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
15 Aug 11
"George Washington was first and he was perfect" as the song goes.
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
11 Aug 11
This is typical leftist conspiracyism. The idea that some company out there is purposely doing something to some how destroy the leftist Utopia that undoubtedly would be created by left leaning policy.
And the theory is that the left is against greed, and companies are all greedy, therefore they will purposely oppose the coming Utopia of Leftism.
Bull. The political left is even more in bed with big companies, than the right.
And no, there isn't a limit to influences of corporations or unions, or religion, and nor should there be. A man without influence, is a nightmare. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. Government without the restricting influence of world around it, is a tyrant.
This is yet another leftist idiocy. The foolish belief that somehow if we could just remove all influence, why... those perfect little angelic politicians would do everything perfectly. Ugh... it's like I'm back in kindergarten with a bunch of children running around thinking we can regulate our way to perfection.
I would urge everyone to read the book "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten". It could rightly be called the hand book for leftists.
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
15 Aug 11
One good conspiracy deserves another, is what you're saying? Those rascally Leftists! Determined to rule over us by owning everything, they hope to acheive this by allying with the very businesses they hope to destroy? Insidious!
And you want everyone to read their handbook? Good Golly, you're in bed with them too!
This response reminds me of the guy with schizopohrenia who didn't think everyone was out to get him, but thought everyone was out to get everyone else.
I'm am determined to prove that there is a nationwide conspiracy to create conspiracies!
Let's just throw the witches in the pond and if they make it out we'll know they are evil and need to be burned at the stake.
As to limiting the influence on government? There has been and always should be constraints on how much financial infuence any one entity can exert on elections and therefore the government.
Do you really think their should be no limit to influence? Who is left to watch over powerful people if those people control the government? The list of leaders you name are not just examples of rulers who ignored influence upon their decisions, they could have been stopped from rising to power if better controls had existed.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot all were brought to power by unchecked powerful influences. Religious wise we need look no farther than Iran, but the biggest historical example is The Inquisition.
We are not talking about removing all influence, just restoring an appropriate balance. Then those obviously not angelic politicians can be held accountable for their actions.
In fearing some Leftist agenda, you have convoluted the argument to the opposite extreme.
Ugh... it's like I'm back in High School with a bunch of kids who think they are SOO grown-up now and want absolute freedom over resposibility.
CONSTANT VIGIL! (Not abolutism from either side.)
-The "Ticked Off At Being Called Leftist" Rat
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
15 Aug 11
No, it isn't a conspiracy, it is fact. You can go down the line and look at every left leaning person, and they are all in with companies. They only oppose companies who don't pay them.
In fact all leftist policies benefit the wealthy, by preventing others from becoming wealthy. What do you think tax hikes do? They don't prevent the wealthy from being wealthy, the prevent the poor from becoming wealthy.
Do you really think their should be no limit to influence? Who is left to watch over powerful people if those people control the government? The list of leaders you name are not just examples of rulers who ignored influence upon their decisions, they could have been stopped from rising to power if better controls had existed.
Yes there should be no limits on influence because limits will only prevent us from having a say. Do you really think that limits on influence stop the rich? Bull! Look at Bill Clinton! Limits on influence didn't stop the Chinese from having him arrange missile technology transfers. It didn't stop him from helping out Enron get a deal with Indonesia.
The rich and special interest groups like Unions and Eco-nuts, will always have influence no matter how many stupid 'limits' you put in place. Those limits will only effect us, the average citizen from having a voice.
Then those obviously not angelic politicians can be held accountable for their actions.
This is what I'm talking about right here. The only way we can hold them accountable is if we have unlimited influence. If you limit influence, the only ones that can hold people accountable (us) will not be able to.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot all were brought to power by unchecked powerful influences. Religious wise we need look no farther than Iran, but the biggest historical example is The Inquisition.
Bull! All of these were led into power by completely squelched influence of companies and the public. Your limits on influence, are exactly what brought all of those people into power.
In fearing some Leftist agenda, you have convoluted the argument to the opposite extreme.
Yes and every tyrant uses that exact same excuse for justification of their destruction of freedom.
Ugh.. it's like I'm arguing with a high schooler that thinks he knows everything. Time to grow up to at least a college level argument.
@francesca5 (1344)
•
11 Aug 11
a question, but an interesting one. maybe caffeine is good for you.
sorry i don't mean that you must take your doctors advice...........depending on how much he benefits financially from your repeated visits.
anway, i think you have explained something that andy77e was arguing with me about recently. and that is why regulation of banks in the US is so complicated. it would seem that all legislation in the US is complicated because of this thing you refer to as "pork".
i do agree with you that a democracy only really works if the relationship between the person elected and those who elect them is uncorrupted by the influence of others more powerful. and that it is wrong for corporations to have so much power. though how you solve this problem is such a difficult question, though restrictions on party funding are really the only solution.
