TC, enacting regulations to protect our food supply is not exactly socialism. Socialism is where the govt. takes over the food industry...you know, kind like GM and Chrysler.tunnelcat wrote:You mean the oligarchy that was consummated under Nixon and born under Reagan and fostered by Republicans (and Corporatist Democrats) policies thereafter?
Here's an example of why I won't EVER vote for any Republican, Blue Dog ConservaDem or Corporatist (any party) ever again. A slight tinge of socialism needs to make a comeback in the U.S.
Deadly Food
The Death of Capitalism?
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Re:
Re:
hyperbole? really?woodchip wrote:Heh..a corp. earning 18k a year is not exactly the size of the evil corporation TC loves so much. Also remember that all those foreign corporations have write offs too. Point is, on average the US is one of the highest taxed places to do business. If you are going to counter point at least produce something beside hyperbole.
I give you research and you call it hyperbole?
sometimes you're not worth talking to.
Re:
THAT is funny as hell !woodchip wrote:Socialism is where the govt. takes over the food industry...you know, kind like GM and Chrysler.
You may want to brush up on your knowledge about socialism.
Re:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure neither of those entities have been "taken over" by any government anywhere in the world.Grendel wrote:THAT is funny as hell !woodchip wrote:Socialism is where the govt. takes over the food industry...you know, kind like GM and Chrysler.
Roughly 9.85% of Chrysler is owned by the United States Government. 2.46% is owned by Canada. That's not a "takeover." That's not even a majority ownership.
GM, on the other hand, is 61% owned by the United States Department of the Treasury. The company is buying itself back as per the terms of the GM bailout.
wikipedia wrote:Although the Obama administration had initially provided the automaker five years to repay the money in full, in March 2010 GM made more than $2 billion in payments to the U.S. and Canadian governments and promised to pay the full balance of the loan portion by June. The company beat that self-imposed deadline when on April 21, 2010, GM CEO Ed Whitacre Jr. announced that the company had paid back the entire amount of the U.S. and Canadian government loans, with interest, a total of $8.1 billion. The government still has $2.1 billion invested in preferred shares that pay dividends, plus a 61% share of common equity valued at about $45 billion to the U.S. and another $8.1 billion to Canada. Improved sales of new models are cited as improving the company's cash flow and allowing for the early payments. GM is also investing hundreds of millions in assembly plants in Kansas and Detroit, credited for preserving jobs.
Re:
Not so much. We've seen where this eventually goes ...Ferno wrote:You'll end up liking socialism there woody.
Yeah, corporate taxation can be fairly complex. Here's a Forbes article on the recent tax situation with Google. Makes for some interesting reading.but you also forget that US corporations have about sixteen ways around the so-called high taxation.
for example:
from the 15k mark to the 18.3k mark, the tax rate actually drops from 38% to 35%. but if they file for the Alternative minimum tax, it goes down to 20%. So a person making about 50K a year ends up paying more tax than a corporation that uses the AMT.
highest in the world? I'm sorry, but no.
Let's keep in mind that Google's case is hardly typical of all corporations. Google's market cap is just a bit under $200 billion. There are many, many corporations that are not multinationals and have much lower market caps.
Right guys, and just how much ownership is now owned by the UAW because the govt. scratched out the ownership others had to give the unions a controlling stake i.e. UAW owns 65% of Chrysler and 17% of GM. I guess this was payback for all those contributions the Unions gave Obama. So try and look at the whole picture next time.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10124
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Re:
It may not fit Websters definition exactly but then your calling it a Co-op isn't exactly correct either since the democrat party run government took by threat of force the value owned by private citizens and gave it to the party's number one contributor. A far cry from how any Co-op I've ever heard of was formed.null0010 wrote:That sounds more like a co-op than socialism to me, Woodchip.
Re:
If the marketing is done right, people will buy anything. even if it does screw them in the end.dissent wrote: Not so much. We've seen where this eventually goes ...
Re:
Value based marketing FTW!Ferno wrote:If the marketing is done right, people will buy anything. even if it does screw them in the end.dissent wrote: Not so much. We've seen where this eventually goes ...
We can just change the coke logo to socialism:
Re:
Suddenly I'm reminded of a Eddie Murphy song... and then I'm just totally disgusted.Isaac wrote:Value based marketing FTW!
We can just change the coke logo to socialism:
