Republican debates/primaries.

• SportsAndLady

  

  ernest_t_bass;1777206 wrote:One of the ways I feel the government could intervene is to provide tax breaks to businesses who build in tUSA, and perhaps tax the shit out of products coming back into tUSA, regardless of where HQ his. The "breaks" would be the biggest benefit. The govt. would not be directly taxing all business, rather giving them the choice.

  Okay, so government intervention.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Con_Alma;1777193 wrote:??? I wasn't trying to dispute anything. I asked a question. Their sole purpose is to make money ,yes. How they do it varies...providing a product or service is one way but they exists to make money. Doing so can increase the equity value to the owner or share holder. It's why they are in business.

  Yes I agree but there's a fundamental difference between a small business with no shareholders and a publicly traded company with shareholders. They don't and can't operate the same way.
• SportsAndLady

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777204 wrote:Exactly. And would you say there are more small businesses with no share holders or businesses with shareholders in america?

  A shareholder doesn't have to mean a common stock shareholder.
  
  Not too many businesses out there that just have one guy with 100% equity in the company. there are some. But a good portion of small businesses have partners, loans, etc.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  SportsAndLady;1777210 wrote:A shareholder doesn't have to mean a common stock shareholder.
  
  Not too many businesses out there that just have one guy with 100% equity in the company. there are some. But a good portion of small businesses have partners, loans, etc.

  There are some ? You mean like 21 million of the businesses in America or just like 99%
• ernest_t_bass

  

  SportsAndLady;1777208 wrote:Okay, so government intervention.

  Government can intervene in a positive way. Are you not for "tax breaks?"
• SportsAndLady

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777211 wrote:There are some ? You mean like 21 million of the businesses in America or just like 99%

  Lol so 99% of companies are just one single person who funds and operates the company with no debt or equity given out?
• SportsAndLady

  

  ernest_t_bass;1777214 wrote:Government can intervene in a positive way. Are you not for "tax breaks?"

  I don't disagree with you I just don't know why you got your panties in a bunch over me saying government intervention when that's actually what you meant.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  The main point being, and what con alma even eluded to with one that "matters" , is publicly traded companies who employ a large numbers of people operate by maximizing shareholders investment. And having workers in America doesn't usually do that when their are options to move work forces overseas. Which is why we are in the predicament we are currently in.
• Con_Alma

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777209 wrote:Yes I agree but there's a fundamental difference between a small business with no shareholders and a publicly traded company with shareholders. They don't and can't operate the same way.

  I don't think anyone has stated otherwise regarding being a fundamental difference but ownership even if it's 100% of the stock still dictates the small business exists to increase that owner's equity by being profitable and generating revenue. Being publicly traded has nothing to do with it. Yes the decisions are made by the owner at the mom and pop business regarding how but the purpose is the same....make money.
• like_that

  

  Yes, zwick place my argument into a petty vacuum to try and make your point. Sucking up will answer all our problems sum up my entire argument/sarcasm. The government needs to get over themselves and realize they are not as smart as most business owners and regulation is not the answer. If you want to start with regulations, start with the EPA and their arbitrary guidelines/excessive regulation. They can't even properly define what a wetland is nor hold themselves to their own standards (see Colorado). Other than wasting tax payer money on a agency that hurts businesses, the same agency also hurts American's rights to private property. These are your average middle class citizens who don't have the money to overcome the EPA's arbitrary guidelines. How about offering "if you apply X clean practices, you will have x tax deduction?" Not only do you keep jobs in our country, the environment starts to clean up, because these businesses are now applying cleaner practices. Since Obama took over, there are roughly over 190 new rules/regulations that costs businesses nearly 80 billion annually. Why the hell would anyone want to stay for that?
  
  I am not saying there is an easy solution, I am more happy to agree with you there. It's a complete mess. If there was, the fix would have been made a long time ago. Unfortunately we have been getting worked in business deals with china and other countries for many years now. There isn't going to be a magical one button fix that happens over night. We are going to need leaders who slowly, but surely make deals where other countries are held accountable, where we win these deals, and where these deals encourage businesses to come back to the states. If you want to fast track our economy into Greece you implement Bernie's ideological utopia, where there will be ZERO motivation to innovate. If there is one thing that US still has going for us, it's innovation.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  SportsAndLady;1777215 wrote:Lol so 99% of companies are just one single person who funds and operates the company with no debt or equity given out?

  Not sure why this would be shocking to you? I think most people with a decent grasp of the American economy knows and acknowledges this.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  SportsAndLady;1777217 wrote:I don't disagree with you I just don't know why you got your panties in a bunch over me saying government intervention when that's actually what you meant.

  Panties aren't in a bunch at all. I just stated that you implied something that was not written at all in the text. My govt. intervention comment simply derived from that implication.
  
  /con_almad?
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;1776749 wrote: Thanks for getting this guy on the ballot in ohio, Boatshoes you are a swell guy.

  What a shame that you don't think your fellow citizens are capable of deciding to vote against him if he is so bad in their minds.
• SportsAndLady

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777221 wrote:Not sure why this would be shocking to you? I think most people with a decent grasp of the American economy knows and acknowledges this.

  Lulz
• SportsAndLady

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777221 wrote:Not sure why this would be shocking to you? I think most people with a decent grasp of the American economy knows and acknowledges this.

  /Zwick'd
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1777220 wrote:Yes, zwick place my argument into a petty vacuum to try and make your point. Sucking up will answer all our problems sum up my entire argument/sarcasm. The government needs to get over themselves and realize they are not as smart as most business owners and regulation is not the answer. If you want to start with regulations, start with the EPA and their arbitrary guidelines/excessive regulation. They can't even properly define what a wetland is nor hold themselves to their own standards (see Colorado). Other than wasting tax payer money on a agency that hurts businesses, the same agency also hurts American's rights to private property. These are your average middle class citizens who don't have the money to overcome the EPA's arbitrary guidelines. How about offering "if you apply X clean practices, you will have x tax deduction?" Not only do you keep jobs in our country, the environment starts to clean up, because these businesses are now applying cleaner practices. Since Obama took over, there are roughly over 190 new rules/regulations that costs businesses nearly 80 billion annually. Why the hell would anyone want to stay for that?
  
  I am not saying there is an easy solution, I am more happy to agree with you there. It's a complete mess. If there was, the fix would have been made a long time ago. Unfortunately we have been getting worked in business deals with china and other countries for many years now. There isn't going to be a magical one button fix that happens over night. We are going to need leaders who slowly, but surely make deals where other countries are held accountable, where we win these deals, and where these deals encourage businesses to come back to the states. If you want to fast track our economy into Greece you implement Bernie's ideological utopia, where there will be ZERO motivation to innovate. If there is one thing that US still has going for us, it's innovation.

  You're absolutely right that there's no easy solution. There's no "right" solution either. Mine isn't right and neither is yours. Because there isn't a right one. That's why you shouldn't disparage others views because you don't agree with it. That's literally the problem with America. Everyone's ideas are right and everyone else's are wrong. And no I'm not condemning you personally. I'm guilty of it too. But that's pretty much why this forums is a huge shit show lol
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  SportsAndLady;1777228 wrote:Lulz

  SportsAndLady;1777229 wrote:/Zwick'd

  You're completely incapable of providing anything to any thread you comment on lol. I hope you realize this at least.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1776793 wrote:Unless you can explain what Noah's Ark has to do with politics, I would step back and reword your posts.
  
  Also, read what was actually posted, not what you read into posts 3 years old.
  
  The world has tried these type of policies a few times and they have always failed. There is a reason why I say they don't understand history if they would vote for Sanders.

  I read what you wrote. You called anybody who voted for Bernie a moron who doesn't understand economics, history or politics...not just politics. Claiming Noah's Ark was real and had dinosaurs on it is a historical claim.
  
  And sorry, you're simply wrong. Again. Canada just elected a Prime Minister who is more liberal/progressive/socialist than Bernie and it isn't failing by any stretch of the imagination and has had Bernie's healthcare plan for years and years.
  
  In fact, as Drudge linked to the other day...Canada (along with Germany and the United Kingdom - both of which have much more socialized healthcare systems than the United States) was ranked higher than the United States in the list of "Best Countries in the World"
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/20/these-are-the-worlds-best-countries-sorry-america-youre-number-4/
  
  Maybe the millions and millions of people who don't agree with you aren't morons???
• BoatShoes

  Worth pointing out that the current Republican Front Runner, Donald Trump, has a tax plan that will cost $12 trillion and he also is in favor of Single Payer like Bernie Sanders but he has not released how he will pay for that in conjunction with his very expensive tax cuts : thumbup:
  
  http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255278-donald-trumps-tax-plan-12t-price-tag
  
  Perhaps Mexico will pay for that too???
• QuakerOats

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777190 wrote:We have the highest corporate tax rate but one of the lowest effective tax rates. If you don't realize this then either you're a liar or just ignorant.

  
  Apparently you are the liar.
  
  "The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commission, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured."
  
  
  And this is why tax inversions have become commonplace these days.
  
  Anytime you want to join reality, let us know.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1777241 wrote:Worth pointing out that the current Republican Front Runner, Donald Trump, has a tax plan that will cost $12 trillion and he also is in favor of Single Payer like Bernie Sanders but he has not released how he will pay for that in conjunction with his very expensive tax cuts : thumbup:
  
  http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255278-donald-trumps-tax-plan-12t-price-tag
  
  Perhaps Mexico will pay for that too???

  
  
  Silly you; tax cuts do not "cost"; they add to the net income of wage earners. And the side benefit is, maybe D.C. has to get smaller.
  
  Tell me we are going to have to educate you again on this topic for what, the 15th time.
• BoatShoes

  sleeper;1776998 wrote:You are suggestion government run health insurance? Why just that? Why not every industry?

  Healthcare is unique for several reasons with one reason being that people think there are moral problems when individuals are unable to pay for healthcare whereas we think it is ok if people cannot afford other consumer goods and services, etc. Also, people generally like the idea of a medical professional having licensure, etc. These sorts of things pull away from a regular marketplace and we end up where we are.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1776963 wrote:15, 19.6, doesn't matter we are still talking more than a TRILLION more taxes PER YEAR!
  
  That is literal insanity to believe that won't severely hurt the middle class.

  If the United States had the healthcare costs of Canada we would be looking at perpetual budget surpluses that would allow for tax cuts in fact. The question is, could single payer in the United States allow us to cut costs the way they do in Canada and elsewhere? It is doubtful because we have such a huge obesity problem and we would probably need Medicare to pay for people to go to fat camp and have bariatric surgery en masse.
• SportsAndLady

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1777235 wrote:You're completely incapable of providing anything to any thread you comment on lol. I hope you realize this at least.

  Great post! You contribute lotz!
• BoatShoes

  like_that;1776965 wrote:Where does ACA stand now?

  The United States has the lowest uninsured rate in its history and healthcare cost increases have slowed. Some bloated companies like UHC are complaining about how it has been hard to compete in the individual market but competition brings out the best.
  
  People have been predicting the impending doom of Obummercare since it came out...none of that came true and none of it is going to.
  
  There has always been an element on the left who would have only been satisfied with eliminating all for-profit motive from healthcare.