• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

G.E. Profit Up Despite ‘Volatile’ Economy

See, I think your statement, whether or not you intended it to do so, highlights the belief that government creates jobs. That in my personal view is Bull. Government can pave the way by creating stability through policy, and legislation that paves the way toward long term stability, then you would get companies creating the jobs.

I think your attempt to dismiss my question rather than give me what you think is also telling. So, I give it another go. Would you like to answer it now?

j-mac

I don't believe government creates jobs, and I agree they need to set the stage for economic growth, for personal liberties to be explored, and to allow for people to better themselves and their situation as a result of their own efforts.

As to your question there's no answer, I can't say "X is who creates jobs" and "Y is why they aren't doing so." Its not that simple, the economy can't be summed up in two questions. I suppose the most specific answer I can give to that very vague and broad question is that businesses create most jobs, aside from public service. And why they aren't may be because they view an expansion of business wouldn't be profitable for that company, for example a manufacturer wouldn't manufacture more if didn't believe its additional product could be sold, and therefore won't hire more workers because they don't need to build anything more. Additionally they may want to expand in the US however a government policy makes the cost of business too high, or impractical. Or maybe they want to expand and there aren't enough potential employees with the skill set they require. Or maybe there are those with the skill sets the company needs, however due to the Cost of Living and Standard of Living in the US they may demand/require wages higher than those in other places, like China, may demand/require to survive.

This is what I mean by complex, I can't answer the question to "why" because there is no single answer that applies to everyone or the whole economy.
 
No jobs created here ???? That's funny, they just took applications here for 500 new jobs at Appliance Park for a new line of energy efficient washers and dryers.

libs seem to think the only purpose of a corporation is to be a cash cow that the government milks to buy the votes of the taker class. That there are jobs, income taxes, dividend taxes, and other businesses supported by a company like GE matters not to the taker class
 
I'd suggest that representation without sufficient taxation is a problem
I would disagree. I'm of the opinion that voting in America is a right, not a privilage.

so is a biased media

I agree to an extent. I'm of the opinion that biased media is just providing what their viewers want.

1) billionaire candidates have an advantage over mere millionaire or well off candidates

You would have to limit campaign funding to whatever the government would provide as well as "X" amount of air time allocated to each canidate.

2) candidates who cause major media figures to have warm tingling feelings will have a huge advantage in getting their message (or lack thereof ) out

Of course, that is an issue. I would ask this, are the adds ran by PAC money more or less biased than any news source? Are the million or so people that watch only one news program or channel regiliously really trying to get the news or just validate their preconcieved notions?
 
how is a company making a profit destroying the economy. Do you know who owns GE stock?

I said destroying the country not the economy...they and others are sucking the life out of the US
 
I would disagree. I'm of the opinion that voting in America is a right, not a privilage.



I agree to an extent. I'm of the opinion that biased media is just providing what their viewers want.



You would have to limit campaign funding to whatever the government would provide as well as "X" amount of air time allocated to each canidate.



Of course, that is an issue. I would ask this, are the adds ran by PAC money more or less biased than any news source? Are the million or so people that watch only one news program or channel regiliously really trying to get the news or just validate their preconcieved notions?

Rights can be problems too

I think its wrong that 10 people who are receiving welfare can vote up their welfare payments as much as they want from 3 guys who are paying net taxes.

I want a tax system that prevents anyone from being able to increase the taxes on others without also paying a proportionately equal tax hike themselves
 
all the same, as far as GE is concerned, you gotta thank them for giving Republicans a poster-child for our tax-code-simplification platform.

No actually they are the poster child for raising taxs on the rich and getting rid of loopholes out of THIS tax code and raising regulations and imposing tariffs on chinese crap and ending ALL tax payer subisidies that assure corporations pay no taxs and the rich pay less
 
I love how all the cheerleaders are stuttering in this thread...
 
I said destroying the country not the economy...they and others are sucking the life out of the US

I disagree and I honestly don't believe you can prove that

what is sucking the life out of this country are several factors

1) economic reality-a guy doing manual factory labor in Ohio cannot expect to make wages ten times higher than some guy in Brazil or India who does the same job at the same level of skill

2) A government that constantly expands because our tax system encourages the many to vote for more and more government paid for by a small voting bloc

3) 75 years of encouraging people to look to the government for all the answers in order to create a permanent class of dependent voters beholden to the party of handouts

4) a REpublican party that is afraid of cutting back all this crap because they would never win another election

5) Judges-starting with FDR-who didn't have the backbone to stand up to the FDR administration than followed by judges who rubber stamped idiotic precedent

6) the fact that other countries are catching up to us or have caught up to us-50 years ago we had no real competition

7) the least able in our country are breeding at far higher rates than the most talented and gifted
 
No actually they are the poster child for raising taxs on the rich and getting rid of loopholes out of THIS tax code and raising regulations and imposing tariffs on chinese crap and ending ALL tax payer subisidies that assure corporations pay no taxs and the rich pay less

under any objective standard the rich pay too much and everyone else pays too little

as I noted in a recent other post-in Euro socialist societies, the rich pay a bit more but they pay the same share of the tax burden as their share of the income. In the USA the richest few percent pay far more of the tax burden than their share of the income and EVERYONE ELSE PAYS FAR LESS.
 
And this in my view is the problem....Can you tell me wiseone, who is it that creates the jobs, and why they are not doing so right now?

j-mac
Jobs are created by demand for goods and services, if there is no demand the companies don't hire. Pretty simple.
 
under any objective standard the rich pay too much and everyone else pays too little

as I noted in a recent other post-in Euro socialist societies, the rich pay a bit more but they pay the same share of the tax burden as their share of the income. In the USA the richest few percent pay far more of the tax burden than their share of the income and EVERYONE ELSE PAYS FAR LESS.

Nope the rich dont pay enough, they pay far less than half of what they did and some pay NOTHING...they need to pay far more and to stop their whining...no one believes them or listens to it anymore...its the little boy crying wolf in real life
 
Jobs are created by demand for goods and services, if there is no demand the companies don't hire. Pretty simple.

Thats right and cutting taxs has not a thing to do with it...or corps running to china either...its all about greed.
 
I think its wrong that 10 people who are receiving welfare can vote up their welfare payments as much as they want from 3 guys who are paying net taxes.
Of course, which is part of the reason the founders were against a direct democracy and chose to insitute a more representative form of government. You propose going a step futher and limiting those that are represented.

Of course, I would argue....the moment 70% of voters are on welfare there's major issues and maybe there needs to be some drastic change.

I want a tax system that prevents anyone from being able to increase the taxes on others without also paying a proportionately equal tax hike themselves

Once again, I would ask this. A huge majority of Americans support a tax increase on the rich. How much have their taxes gone up? You make it seem as if the founders didn't ever consider this at all. I would argue they were elitists. When they spoke of protecting the "minority" a lot of times they meant the land owners and large plantation owners.
 
Thats right and cutting taxs has not a thing to do with it...or corps running to china either...its all about greed.

Raising taxes will mean less money for the private sector to spend. The demand for goods and services can only be created by the private sector. The government can't do it.
 
Do you know who owns GE stock?

My guess would be a lot of rich people who aren't paying much tax on their earnings.


You're retired, right? Living off of a pension?

How is your pension invested?

Most likely, it's in mutual funds, which are aggregations of stocks. There's a good chance that you are one of GE's stockholders.
 
I don't believe government creates jobs, and I agree they need to set the stage for economic growth, for personal liberties to be explored, and to allow for people to better themselves and their situation as a result of their own efforts.

I agree with you here wiseone, and further would ask if you think right now, is the current administration setting this stage for economic growth? or inhibiting it?

As to your question there's no answer, I can't say "X is who creates jobs" and "Y is why they aren't doing so." Its not that simple, the economy can't be summed up in two questions. I suppose the most specific answer I can give to that very vague and broad question is that businesses create most jobs, aside from public service. And why they aren't may be because they view an expansion of business wouldn't be profitable for that company, for example a manufacturer wouldn't manufacture more if didn't believe its additional product could be sold, and therefore won't hire more workers because they don't need to build anything more. Additionally they may want to expand in the US however a government policy makes the cost of business too high, or impractical. Or maybe they want to expand and there aren't enough potential employees with the skill set they require. Or maybe there are those with the skill sets the company needs, however due to the Cost of Living and Standard of Living in the US they may demand/require wages higher than those in other places, like China, may demand/require to survive.

In addition to these factors, ofcourse there are others caused by government that breed uncertainty no? Such as over regulation, vagueness out of the administration on tax policy, and so on right?

As to your question there's no answer, I can't say "X is who creates jobs" and "Y is why they aren't doing so." Its not that simple, the economy can't be summed up in two questions. I suppose the most specific answer I can give to that very vague and broad question is that businesses create most jobs, aside from public service. And why they aren't may be because they view an expansion of business wouldn't be profitable for that company, for example a manufacturer wouldn't manufacture more if didn't believe its additional product could be sold, and therefore won't hire more workers because they don't need to build anything more. Additionally they may want to expand in the US however a government policy makes the cost of business too high, or impractical. Or maybe they want to expand and there aren't enough potential employees with the skill set they require. Or maybe there are those with the skill sets the company needs, however due to the Cost of Living and Standard of Living in the US they may demand/require wages higher than those in other places, like China, may demand/require to survive.

You're right, I should have been more clear in what I was looking for, sorry. I do know that when I was growing up, and watching my father run his business, bottom line considerations were made according to forecasting at least 3 years, and in most cases 5 years out. Business can't do that with this administration, because the policy is constantly changing coming out of Washington.

j-mac
 
No jobs created here ???? That's funny, they just took applications here for 500 new jobs at Appliance Park for a new line of energy efficient washers and dryers.

Wow! Five hundred whole jobs! Well, the recession is over.
 
under any objective standard the rich pay too much and everyone else pays too little.

That's because it's the rich who have most of the money, and they can afford it while the poor cannot.
 
Some of us moved those out of the US markets when GWB was elected to a second term. It was obvious to me that a crash was coming if we continued down the path he had us on.

? you run a pension fund ? I thought you were retired?

so instead you moved to... Europe?
 
Wow! Five hundred whole jobs! Well, the recession is over.

not only five hundreds whole jobs, but they only cost $750,000 a piece! :D
 
Nope the rich dont pay enough, they pay far less than half of what they did and some pay NOTHING...they need to pay far more and to stop their whining...no one believes them or listens to it anymore...its the little boy crying wolf in real life

very few rich pay nothing

Most of us in the top one percent pay an effective federal tax rate of over 30%

if you want to prove otherwise by all means do so.

and the effective federal rate was NEVER 60% as you claimed
 
Of course, which is part of the reason the founders were against a direct democracy and chose to insitute a more representative form of government. You propose going a step futher and limiting those that are represented.

Of course, I would argue....the moment 70% of voters are on welfare there's major issues and maybe there needs to be some drastic change.



Once again, I would ask this. A huge majority of Americans support a tax increase on the rich. How much have their taxes gone up? You make it seem as if the founders didn't ever consider this at all. I would argue they were elitists. When they spoke of protecting the "minority" a lot of times they meant the land owners and large plantation owners.

as I noted, if you polled everyone with ALS or AIDS and asked them if they would support killing 1000 virgins if that would cure them of their fatal disease permanently I bet a vast majority would say yes

that some want others to pay more taxes so those being polled don't have to really isn't all that intellectually compelling. I would love if us in the top few percent would be united but right now half of the rich encourage class warfare to buy the votes of people like you so people like you make those rich richer and more powerful
 
That's because it's the rich who have most of the money, and they can afford it while the poor cannot.

complete BS

if you have a TV or a cell phone you can afford a little tax

and you miss the point

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD MORE TAXES maybe you won't be so eager to demand more GOVERNMENT spending if you actually might have to pay a few more dollars to pay for it

saying 47% of the public cannot pay at least some income tax is a complete, total and utter lie

and people like me pay way too much
 
complete BS

if you have a TV or a cell phone you can afford a little tax

If you have a TV or a cell phone one is paying a federal tax on their electric bill to power the things.
 
? you run a pension fund ? I thought you were retired? so instead you moved to... Europe?
I moved my pension funds to Europe (Britain) in 2004 and then to Asia after Tony Blair ran the Brits ship aground. My funds are still making money. That is my retirement funding and just because my government isn't ethical enough or smart enough to keep its financial institutions under wraps doesn't mean I am required to be stupid as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom