Posted on 04/03/2011 9:27:57 AM PDT by thefoundersrock
Bill Whittle looks at funding the government by taking away all corporate profits, money from those who make above $250k, etc.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Pretty stark illustration considering congress is currently haggling over a measly 30 billion budget “cut”.
Really nice.
Ever since those "extremists" on the far left started calling a drop in the amount of increase in spending a "draconian cut" to a lefty it can be a big cut.
To those of us who actually think, calling it a massive cut is comical.
This is NOT an ad, but simply a recommendation from an admirer.
Wish O’Reilly or Hannity or somebody on FNC would get this guy on for a weekly feature. Whittle could replace either the Culture Quiz or the Great American Panel.
Wonderful analysis, but we are screwed as a nation, big-time!
He's not a US citizen.
Tbere’s nothing new about this; Lenin, Mao, Ho, and Pol Pot all tried the same thing - with results which history records all too well.
Now the Leftist masses want to try the same old same old here in the US. Perhaps they think the end will be different. It won’t be. It starts with confiscation, and it ends with repression, firing squads, and social and economic impoverishment.
Idiocy - unfortunately, becoming all too common.
Ironic, given all we spent and sacrificed fighting communism elsewhere.
But he has made Billions off of of taxpayers and is a very powerful man. With him broke we would be in a much better position.
He’s right, and that trick would only work ONE time, ONE year.
After taking ALL the profits from all fortune 500 companies, we would quickly have no more companies, and no more jobs.
Then after killing all the rich and using the estate tax to take their wealth, there’d be no more to take the 2nd year
But neither are any of our once US multi-national corporations and banks that control much of our government and economy. Our Constitution and sovereignty gets in the way of these multi-nationals which are basically philanderers with many wives. They used to be in bed with only the USA and they were essentially US citizens with US loyalty looking out for US interests. No more.
So what does pro-business really mean in 2011 according to the OP? I'm totally pro small business. But big business has a lot more shades of gray in 2011 than in 1980.
Does it mean supporting corporations that pay no taxes, hire few if any Americans, share their US developed and subsidized intellectual property, expect welfare subsidies, or will at the drop of a hat move their headquarters to Bahrain or Abu Dhabi or the Bahamas? There was a day not long ago before Wall St bankers created the globalize everything craze when US companies were an asset to the USA.
Sorry if this offends those who worship at the altar of globalization and the ending of USA sovereignty. I no longer automatically consider such enterprises in the asset column. Many have purposely made China our competitor for oil and resources, all so that they can get in bed with the Chinese or Indians or Iran or Korea.
Let us put “international corporations” in perspective, before we trash them too much:
a. If an international corporation is a US corporation, and does 70% of its business off shore and 30% of its business in the US - it is taxed on 100% of its profit, regardless of taxes elsewhere, and regardless of where the money is earned. (That is a big incentive to move headquarters out of the US). An international business that is headquarters outside of the US is only taxed on profits made in the US.
b. A corporation headquartered in the US must fight all sorts of rules/regulations/requirements imposed by many many US governmental agencies ....and can suddenly be held liable for all sorts of silly litigation by wild legal suits - foreign owned companies have less risk - only their “footprint” in the US is considered.
c. A “crony capitalist/socialist government -such as what Obama has enacted means that corporations that are in bed with Obama get lots of support - and those that are not in bed have their competition helped while they are hurt. (Think GE and wind energy, etc. or other “green energy companies” getting lots of subsidies - while other companies are penalized for not toeing the line (and giving to Obama.)
Read Amity Shlaes “The Forgotten Man” - where she discusses how FDR’s government would undercut businesses to the point that the businesses could not figure out how to invest and build a company in a way that would not be hurt by big government.
Let us put “international corporations” in perspective, before we trash them too much:
a. If an international corporation is a US corporation, and does 70% of its business off shore and 30% of its business in the US - it is taxed on 100% of its profit, regardless of taxes elsewhere, and regardless of where the money is earned. (That is a big incentive to move headquarters out of the US). An international business that is headquarters outside of the US is only taxed on profits made in the US.
b. A corporation headquartered in the US must fight all sorts of rules/regulations/requirements imposed by many many US governmental agencies ....and can suddenly be held liable for all sorts of silly litigation by wild legal suits - foreign owned companies have less risk - only their “footprint” in the US is considered.
c. A “crony capitalist/socialist government -such as what Obama has enacted means that corporations that are in bed with Obama get lots of support - and those that are not in bed have their competition helped while they are hurt. (Think GE and wind energy, etc. or other “green energy companies” getting lots of subsidies - while other companies are penalized for not toeing the line (and giving to Obama.)
Read Amity Shlaes “The Forgotten Man” - where she discusses how FDR’s government would undercut businesses to the point that the businesses could not figure out how to invest and build a company in a way that would not be hurt by big government.
...........................................
Thanks for the reply.
Times and loyalties have certainly changed as have my views. I’m no longer as positive or enamored with our former corporate America as I once was. The biggest threat to our country comes from the loss of sovereignty. Without sovereignty and a Constitution and we lose our nation. Sovereignty is now seen as a nuisance to international business.
a. A corporation that now does 70% of its business elsewhere and moves its headquarters off shore should become a foreign corporation, and lose any right to be involved in US politics just as would a citizen who renounces his citizenship. Instead they’ll still be in the pocket of Congress, bribing our politicians looking for special handouts and influencing elections and trying to create amnesty for illegal immigrants.
b. As I suggested if a corporation moves off shore it is effectively renouncing citizenship and they should lose influence, access and all govt contracts.
c. I agree we certainly have a crony capitalist environment where the taxpayers are hoodwinked to cover and socialize the risks and losses of those that heretofore had privatized their gains. There should be no corporate subsidies. We bailed out the banks and finance companies such as BoA, Citigroup, GE Capital (??) etc who for all intents and purposes were insolvent/bankrupt, thus losing the ability to have and use any carry forward tax losses for tax purposes, but instead they received an exemption that allows them to still carry forward the losses and pay no taxes for years all on our dime. Our deficits are about loss of millions of good jobs to China, crony capitalist policies such as this and irresponsible levels of spending.
There was a time when government decisions that made “corporate America” more profitable was inevitably good for the US people. Those days are long gone. As one major example we have unfair trade and US corporate and Wall St policies that have made China #2, and soon to be #1 in the world, and now our competitor for oil, economic activity, and. Our pols and corporations made China number 1, not China.
While we probably still have the biggest market in the world, we failed to use that buying power (as Wal-Mart does) to the benefit of America, and instead it was used to benefit China and others. I blame it on Congress and a series of Presidents that did not put US interests first.
The book and comments sound interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0066211700
Sorry for wordiness.
Cavuto is not a lib. I agree with everything else, though. I’m actually kinda glad I don’t know what Bret Baier’s politics are. It means he’s doing his job, since his show is more straight news.
As Ronald Reagan said ....”Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
When the government starts controlling businesses - it creates bigger problems. NOTE - liberals would say that Conservatives want ZERO / NADA / ZIP regulations - which is BS. The primary purpose of government is to ensure that businesses deal honestly and fairly with customers, and meet contractual requirements.
BUT - let us consider the Banking Industry. Banks with integrity would not want to loan to someone who had a bad credit record, and they would not give a loan where the Mortgage Payment was greater than the 25% to 33% of a purchaser’s salary ...and the purchaser would need “skin in the game” - perhaps 20% down payment (maybe relaxed to 15% under special circumstances.)
So - what did the government do - under Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and other similar laws, it encouraged banks to throw away what had worked for YEARS and it actually encouraged the “sub prime loans” that helped create the housing bubble that, when it collapsed, hurt the entire US economy. Banks that resisted lowering standards would not be able to compete with banks that lowered their standards....and the government would be quick to investigate the ethical banks (charges of racism, red-lining areas, etc.). Banks were coerced into complying with the new “standards”.
Also - because people with poor credit could get easy loans - they could bid up housing prices and compete against those who had scrimped and saved - and the housing prices went up a ridiculous amount - hurting many more people. Local and state governments turned the eye away from these corrupt practices because the rising housing prices (which were truly unsustainable) meant higher property taxes and more revenues to swell an already bloated government.
What happened in the banking & housing industry - because of government “meddling” should serve as a great proof that Ronald Reagan was correct!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.