SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 You're a Bernie fan? I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yeah, I'm sure the decreased tax expense will just flow right down to decreased prices- not to shareholder profits... Newsflash. Corporations are not in business to save or make you money. Unless of course you're a shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I am. So in fairness, you believe that the richest among us should pay 90% tax rate. I believe that's Bernie's magic number, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Newsflash. Corporations are not in business to save or make you money. Unless of course you're a shareholder. Yes, exactly. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder wealth, regardless of other impacts, creating the need for regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Part of it is passed on to the consumer, sure, based on the elasticity of said good or service It's part of the cost of production in a line item. It is absolutely passed on to the consumer. And because they can, which should change Money not earned in America, that never enters America, should be taxed in America because why exactly? Yeah, I'm sure the decreased tax expense will just flow right down to decreased prices- not to shareholder profits... It will flow into both, and both are good for the middle and working class. What do you think 401k dollars are invested in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 So in fairness, you believe that the richest among us should pay 90% tax rate. I believe that's Bernie's magic number, right? Bernie is far from a perfect candidate. However, I believe that getting big money out of politics is a MAJOR issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Bernie is far from a perfect candidate. However, I believe that getting big money out of politics is a MAJOR issue. So you don't believe in the importance of Free Speech? I know it's popular on the American left to chant that money isn't speech, but in reality, it represents the most important kind of speech in a free society. Political speech. No one would ever try to argue that holding a sign on the State House lawn isn't protected speech. Likewise you can't argue that an add in a news paper, or writing a book, or publishing an OpEd or magazine article, or taking our a TV add, or creating a social media post isn't protected speech. They are all mediums for speech, and should be protected. The thing is, each medium of speech has different costs associated with it; and just because one member of society may lack the means to utilize a type of speech another person can does not mean the second person should be disallowed from doing so. Both people are equally free to use whatever medium they want to speak in, but the inability of you to afford to run multi-million dollar ads during the Super Bowl doesn't somehow mitigate the rights of someone who can afford to do so. Money is speech. Now, can this be problematic? Sure. However the alternative: a system in which the government is empowered to censor, obstruct, or make illegal political speech, is a far worse situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yes, exactly. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder wealth, regardless of other impacts, creating the need for regulation. So you really think a CEO will not take into consideration the impact to the consumer before they make a financial decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 So you don't believe in the importance of Free Speech? I know it's popular on the American left to chant that money isn't speech, but in reality, it represents the most important kind of speech in a free society. Political speech. No one would ever try to argue that holding a sign on the State House lawn isn't protected speech. Likewise you can't argue that an add in a news paper, or writing a book, or publishing an OpEd or magazine article, or taking our a TV add, or creating a social media post isn't protected speech. They are all mediums for speech, and should be protected. The thing is, each medium of speech has different costs associated with it; and just because one member of society may lack the means to utilize a type of speech another person can does not mean the second person should be disallowed from doing so. Both people are equally free to use whatever medium they want to speak in, but the inability of you to afford to run multi-million dollar ads during the Super Bowl doesn't somehow mitigate the rights of someone who can afford to do so. Money is speech. Now, can this be problematic? Sure. However the alternative: a system in which the government is empowered to censor, obstruct, or make illegal political speech, is a far worse situation. There are extremes to everything. Currently, the campaign financing system is broken. So you really think a CEO will not take into consideration the impact to the consumer before they make a financial decision? Is the customer not a stakeholder closely related to shareholder wealth? Obviously, corporations and big business do not always act in the most responsible manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 There are extremes to everything. Currently, the campaign financing system is broken.. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 There are extremes to everything. Currently, the campaign financing system is broken. The system is not broken. Speech is speech. What you are attempting to do is censor political speech that you don't agree with. There is no other way of looking at it. Saying that "the system is broken" is a lie. You have the same rights as anyone else, your only objection is that you don't like what they have to say, so you're trying to shut them out of the conversation. It's no different than the garbage happening on American college campuses today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Money should not buy policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Money should not buy policy It bears pointing out that everyone else is trying to have a discussion with you, but you're doing nothing more than posting bumper sticker slogans. Within about six or eight posts, people are going to start heaping abuse on you. And it'll be well-deserved. Not because they disagree with you. Because you're a friggin' bumper sticker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 It bears pointing out that everyone else is trying to have a discussion with you, but you're doing nothing more than posting bumper sticker slogans. Within about six or eight posts, people are going to start heaping abuse on you. And it'll be well-deserved. Not because they disagree with you. Because you're a friggin' bumper sticker. Fair, enough. I'm on my phone and am heading out so I don't have the time to fully engage. Have a good evening gents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Money should not buy policy No, it shouldn't. However, the reality is that political influence is a valuable commodity, and as long as the government is empowered to conduct policy generally as it sees fit in a way that has very little restraints, that influence will always be purchased. The way to eliminate this is to drastically reduce the scope of what the government is permitted to do, which dries up the commodity. With nothing to purchase there, money will exit politics. Conversely, what "campaign finance reforms" accomplish is to shut out the ability of certain groups that liberals don't like to engage in free political speech. All they want to do is make it so opposition voices are excluded from the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 a system in which the government is empowered to censor, obstruct, or make illegal political speech Throw this on the 90% tax rate on millionaires and it's the perfect America for people like SWAT and gatorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) The Hill @thehill 2h2 hours ago JUST IN: Only black, female Republican in Congress endorses Cruz http://hill.cm/n6HOQkU pic.twitter.com/D0VYMR5lcU Edited March 22, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-gets-heavy-criticism-for-saying-law-enforcement-should-patrol-muslim-neighborhoods/ Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-gets-heavy-criticism-for-saying-law-enforcement-should-patrol-muslim-neighborhoods/ Ok What a dick. Not you him. Well you are too but this ones on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 What a dick. Not you him. Well you are too but this ones on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts