• 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!

U.S. companies hoard record amount of cash

Are you saying that by way of taxation, compassionate conservatives demonstrate their sense of conscience? I don't see what you're saying. :confused:
Demonstrating one's sense of conscience isn't required. What is required is funding the government and corporations already do that in spades, both directly and indirectly through taxes collected on wages paid. Anything else isn't their problem nor mine.
 
LOL It doesn't mean the wealthy will piss on us if we give them tax breaks? Since it never happened I don't really see why I should care about your "concept of trickle down". Most of us are worse off than when supply-side coddling began.

Again, your ignorance of the concept of trickle down
is on display. I would explain it to you in great detail, however I doubt you would listen objectively enough to grasp it,
 
1) one time bonuses for employees
2) cut prices and see if sales increase and even more profits are made
3) give out raises
4) provide more benefits to employees
5) provide an actual and HONEST cost of living increase to employees

All of those hurt the immediate, short term profit margin, which is what most execs seem to care most about these days.


So they won't happen.
 
Essentially I agree with you--I think every successful company should have cash reserves, every individual should have savings and cash reserves.

The point is that (from my previous post) various ratios are going the wrong way, assuming one buys into that romantic notion that ours is a democratic society in which anybody willing to work hard can get ahead and support a family, and that all men are equal before the law.

Do compassionate corporations exist, or is the bottom line the only thing that drives American industry today?

There ACTUALLY IS a trend towards a new corporate entity called B corps.
 
LMFGDAO!!!


your white flag is accepted.

but since you asked...........
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=152M

On the other hand, we have this...from your source...which supports the AEI analysis:

Screenshot (729).jpg

Federal government total expenditures - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

http://www.aei.org/publication/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/


(Sorry...no white flag waving from me)
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, we have this...from your source...which supports the AEI analysis:


um, no it does not support the AEI analysis. I'm not sure how spending (nominal) vs spending (as a % of gdp) is confusing you. No wonder you can't read in your link that it's from 2012, and was wrong, to boot.

With that said though, it was nice of you to show a chart that, if adjusted for inflation (aka real $), which reveals Obama to be a spending decreaser.


Do you routinely enjoy destroying your own arguments?
 
um, no it does not support the AEI analysis. I'm not sure how spending (nominal) vs spending (as a % of gdp) is confusing you. No wonder you can't read in your link that it's from 2012, and was wrong, to boot.

With that said though, it was nice of you to show a chart that, if adjusted for inflation (aka real $), which reveals Obama to be a spending decreaser.


Do you routinely enjoy destroying your own arguments?

You need to learn to read. Start with the quote I gave you, compare that to the graphic I gave you. They correspond.

And the graphic I gave you shows no spending decrease during Obama's Presidency.

Here, I've refined the parameters of the graph so you can see spending during Obama's Presidency. No real reduction visible.

Federal government total expenditures - FRED - St. Louis Fed

He's kept it at that absurdly high level the whole time. Which means your liberal article writer got caught with his spin down around his ankles.
 
Last edited:
in which of those is the government owning the means of production of an industry?

Ah, another one who cannot actually comprehend but is quick to quote without actual understanding. You might also want to check your source because you are using a very narrow definition that not even many socialist use. Government ownership does not equal socialism. Further, as none of your fellow socialist have been able to give a actual answer, perhaps you can explain what the realistic difference between total control with the confiscation of profits and outright ownership is?

Socialism is any, usually leftist, philosophies that place society, not the individual, as the center of societies and characterized by the suppression of individual freedoms in the name of "the good of society". All leftist are on the socialism side of the scale.

You will also find direct references to Unions and Taxes in Marx's Communist Manifesto.
 
You need to learn to read. Start with the quote I gave you, compare that to the graphic I gave you. They correspond.

And the graphic I gave you shows no spending decrease during Obama's Presidency.

Here, I've refined the parameters of the graph so you can see spending during Obama's Presidency. No real reduction visible.

Federal government total expenditures - FRED - St. Louis Fed

He's kept it at that absurdly high level the whole time.

reading fail, understanding fail, and now---- LINK fail.

Strike 3.
 
Ah, another one who cannot actually comprehend but is quick to quote without actual understanding. You might also want to check your source because you are using a very narrow definition that not even many socialist use. Government ownership does not equal socialism. Further, as none of your fellow socialist have been able to give a actual answer, perhaps you can explain what the realistic difference between total control with the confiscation of profits and outright ownership is?

Socialism is any, usually leftist, philosophies that place society, not the individual, as the center of societies and characterized by the suppression of individual freedoms in the name of "the good of society". All leftist are on the socialism side of the scale.

You will also find direct references to Unions and Taxes in Marx's Communist Manifesto.


"a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. "
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com


try harder next time.
 
reading fail, understanding fail, and now---- LINK fail.

Strike 3.

The link works.

Spin failure equals three strikes with one swing. Too bad, dude...yer OUT of here.
 
Last edited:
The link does work, but it doesn't DO what you claim it does.
Do you even internet, bruh?

Must be you...it works for me.

Tell you what...since you are challenged, you can just go to the graph, change the range of dates from 1959-07-01 to 2014-10-01...to...2009-01-01 to 2014-10-01. Then you'll see the lack of decrease in federal spending that Obama is responsible for. At least till near the end of 2014.

Of course, we can expect him to keep it at this level until he's replaced in early 2017. Then we'll just have to wait and see what happens. If a Democrat is elected, nothing will change. If a Republican is elected, that spending will start to go down.

In any case, we've established your liberal spin artist was doing just that...spinning...and you have nothing but pathetic attempt to cloud things by complaining about internet links.

Next time you'll have to do better when trying to make your case.
 
Must be you...it works for me.

Tell you what...since you are challenged, you can just go to the graph, change the range of dates from 1959-07-01 to 2014-10-01...to...2009-01-01 to 2014-10-01. Then you'll see the lack of decrease in federal spending that Obama is responsible for. At least till near the end of 2014.
Too funny coming from the clown who said he can't open an excel file. Did you forget that I already linked to a graph with a custom date range? You think I Don't know how to use it? LMFGDAO.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ard-record-amount-cash-15.html#post1064449585

Of course, we can expect him to keep it at this level until he's replaced in early 2017. Then we'll just have to wait and see what happens. If a Democrat is elected, nothing will change. If a Republican is elected, that spending will start to go down.
Funny, you gave a graph here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ard-record-amount-cash-16.html#post1064449712
which kind of debunks the statistical likelihood of what you claimed in bold

In any case, we've established your liberal spin artist was doing just that...spinning...and you have nothing but pathetic attempt to cloud things by complaining about internet links.

Next time you'll have to do better when trying to make your case.

right, I'm spinning. That's why "I" moved the discussion from spending/gdp to gross nominal spending, then ignored the discussion point about real spending.

AHlQQOM.gif
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if Obamacare is repealed, they might do so.

yeah, i'm already aware that you think that the ACA is the worst. i don't like it either. i like single payer instead; you don't. perhaps we can skip three pages of sniping about it.
 
Along with 30 years of coddling corporations and the wealthy in the insane hope that the wealth would "trickle down".

The biggest problem with this statement of yours, is we have had plenty of Presidents with a (D) behind their name and plenty of Congresses that majority leaned (D) and we still ended up with the same thing. Spare us the "trickle down" nonsense, Republicans do not own entirely the last 30 years of economic handling.
 
1) one time bonuses for employees
2) cut prices and see if sales increase and even more profits are made
3) give out raises
4) provide more benefits to employees
5) provide an actual and HONEST cost of living increase to employees

In other words: "Dump all their investment capital, expose themselves financially to anticipated future expenses and make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy."

Businesses need to protect themselves from the ACA by having the funds available to make the expenditures that it would mandate. Until they know how that all pans out, they will be holding funds in reserve.
 
I agree with you.

I think the counter argument is that thing Bush called "compassionate conservatism", or what some call "responsible capitalism".

That is, considering the vast disparity in wealth distribution in this country, would those holding the money be acting in a responsible and humane way if they raised wages a bit? Increased benefits a bit?

Because that's a short term action that provides minimal benefit to the companies. Holding onto the money so that if the ACA rains on their parade they can cover the cost, can mean the difference between staying in business and closing the doors. I guess that you'd rather their employees have a small raise today and risk having no job next year....
 
LOL!!

Okay. You go ahead and strive for your ideal. I'll continue to live in the real world.

btw, what might seem to be ideal to you is against human nature. The only way you can achieve your ideal is by forcing it upon people. That seldom works. You might be better served by re-aligning your idea with reality. You'll piss less people off that way.

Some folks are in an almost constant state of being pissed off, and reality tells me there is precious little I can do about that, even if I wanted to.

So thanks for the advice, but I live in the real world too. Maybe you are not capable, but I am capable of telling the difference between an ideal expressed or desired, and the reality that will develop. For example, the ideal is that the electoral process in this country allows the government to be controlled by the voters.

Reality, of course, is very much the opposite.

The ideal is that conservatism and capitalism unbridled will bring up happy days and peace and opportunity for all. Reality, of course, is that we have essentially a fascist system in play, in which the government is controlled by special interests.

So which world do you live in Mycroft? Ideal or real?
 
Demonstrating one's sense of conscience isn't required. What is required is funding the government and corporations already do that in spades, both directly and indirectly through taxes collected on wages paid. Anything else isn't their problem nor mine.

Thank you for helping make my general point--demonstrating one's sense of conscience simply is not required in modern American life, no. We today do not need any sense of moral guidance. The bottom line is the only thing in life that is important.
 
In other words: "Dump all their investment capital, expose themselves financially to anticipated future expenses and make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy."

Businesses need to protect themselves from the ACA by having the funds available to make the expenditures that it would mandate. Until they know how that all pans out, they will be holding funds in reserve.

Dump all their investment capital and expose themselves? No sir, I did not suggest that, you did.
 
Reagan had the same problem explaining it. I would guess that it would help if you are from Haiti but I am not into the occult anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/paul-krugman-voodoo-economics-the-next-generation.html?_r=0[/QUOTE

Reagan had no problem explaining it, he had no problem demonstrating it. And again, I will point out that you lack even a basic understanding of what trickle down economics is. And I am not impress with a Paul Krugman piece in the New York Slimes. Neither are anything close to objective.
 
Back
Top Bottom