30 years: IMF scholars admit trickle down free market Reagan capitalism a bust

[mike72903]

Baldo I am glad I am sitting down

It seems both you and Robert agree

A broken clock is right twice a day....

Which one is the broken clock?

[baldo]

Baldo I am glad I am sitting down

It seems both you and Robert agree

A broken clock is right twice a day....

Which one is the broken clock?

Yes...


For Willow.

[Willow]

For Christ sake. I'm not talking about raising the corporate tax rate. I'm not talking about 'sticking it to em'. I'm talking about getting after the bullshit loopholes that allow 19000 corporations to be based in that one building in Grand Cayman  ... 

Christ's.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.  If we're talking about increasing the amount of taxes paid by corporations then we are talking about raising corporate taxes, aren't we.  Whether we do it by changing the base rate or simply closing tax advantages it's all the same, isn't it?

I wasn't really thinking of what corporations will do with a tax cut I was simply speaking of how corporations pay taxes.  I think at one point you might have said that corporate taxes are paid fundamentally by customers.  That's a not only meaningless use of the word but a bit misleading.  Corporate taxes are entirely paid by customers.

I get a bit lost in the exchanges.  Someone(s) wanted us to not treat corporations as if they are persons but then it seemed the same folks wanted us to tax corporations the way we do persons.  Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  Corporations are owned by people.  Corporate profits result in dividends to the people who own them.  Those people should be taxed on their income (dividends).  If we've already taxed the corporation before it distributed the dividends it seems that income got double taxed, doesn't it?

I'm going to be out of the mainstream, left or right.  I don't really see the sense in taxing corporations and then taxing the owners of the corporations on the money they made through the corporations.  I'm a flat tax guy.  I think everyone (persons) should be taxed across the board on a percentage, the same percentage, of their income.  Maybe that's not complex enough.

I don't like tax loopholes but then I have noticed that the tax advantages that we are able to use are not usually seen by us as loopholes.  The tax advantages provided to someone else that we are not able to utilize are quickly identified as loopholes.  Maybe that flat tax thing would help our understanding.     

[dinosnake]

For Christ sake. I'm not talking about raising the corporate tax rate. I'm not talking about 'sticking it to em'. I'm talking about getting after the bullshit loopholes that allow 19000 corporations to be based in that one building in Grand Cayman  ... 

Christ's.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.  If we're talking about increasing the amount of taxes paid by corporations then we are talking about raising corporate taxes, aren't we.  Whether we do it by changing the base rate or simply closing tax advantages it's all the same, isn't it?

I wasn't really thinking of what corporations will do with a tax cut I was simply speaking of how corporations pay taxes.  I think at one point you might have said that corporate taxes are paid fundamentally by customers.  That's a not only meaningless use of the word but a bit misleading.  Corporate taxes are entirely paid by customers.

I get a bit lost in the exchanges.  Someone(s) wanted us to not treat corporations as if they are persons but then it seemed the same folks wanted us to tax corporations the way we do persons.  Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  Corporations are owned by people.  Corporate profits result in dividends to the people who own them.  Those people should be taxed on their income (dividends).  If we've already taxed the corporation before it distributed the dividends it seems that income got double taxed, doesn't it?

It sounds reasonable, and I'll give a nod of consent, but the problem is, as usual, more complicated than that.

"Corporate profits result in dividends to the people who own them" - right there is the problem.  Because that is not necessarily true.  Excess corporate profits are distributed to the people who own the corporation when the board of directors specifies a dividend payment. 

And the truth is that corporations almost never fully distribute their profits, keeping a percentage (sometimes a large percentage) as a cash reserve - for only ONE example, Apple Computer is quoted as currently holding $215 billion in reserve.  Now, where did that money come from?  Consumer's pockets.  Where did the money go?  If its a "reserve", then it didn't go to the shareholders, now did it?

So, what would happen if that excess $215 BILLION in income ("excess" because it was profit but it wasn't paid to the shareholders AND it is not being used for business growth) hadn't been taxed??

Think about it.  Free money from high prices, no taxes to do what you pleased with it.  Oh, the possibilities for corruption and graft are endless with this one...

I'm going to be out of the mainstream, left or right.  I don't really see the sense in taxing corporations and then taxing the owners of the corporations on the money they made through the corporations.  I'm a flat tax guy.  I think everyone (persons) should be taxed across the board on a percentage, the same percentage, of their income.  Maybe that's not complex enough.

I don't like tax loopholes but then I have noticed that the tax advantages that we are able to use are not usually seen by us as loopholes.  The tax advantages provided to someone else that we are not able to utilize are quickly identified as loopholes.  Maybe that flat tax thing would help our understanding.     

[RDAbull]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

Bob, The fact is Corporations do not pay taxes, PERIOD.  Look at any public corporation's annual report.  The income statement handles taxes just as it handles any other expense, such as cost of goods sold, wages, and general administrative expenses.  The corporation is just a conduit for the taxes we consumers of their goods pay by buying their goods.  If they can't pass the cost of taxes through to us, they go out of business because of the losses that are created.  
All of the tax breaks that the government has created for them are just like any other government program, designed to get them on the dole and keep their support by giving incentive for the officers and directors to donate to the re-election of their supporters.  No different than unions for the liberals.  Both sides are equally corrupt but blaming the corporation for following the tax laws as written by these political hacks is just as wrong as blaming the "free crap army" for taking the free crap the government gives out to keep them dumb, broke and voting democratic.

[rocketray]

OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN RUN BY WALL STREET FROM IT'S BEGINNING--YOUTUBE"HOW TO BE A CROOK" BY LARKEN ROSE--A 10 MINUTE CARTOON EXPOSE ON THE FED.......IT IS ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY--GOOGLE "THEMONEYMASTERS.COM"--A WEEK THERE WILL BE VERY INSTRUCTIONAL FOR MOST

[The emperor has no clothes]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

Bob, The fact is Corporations do not pay taxes, PERIOD.  Look at any public corporation's annual report.  The income statement handles taxes just as it handles any other expense, such as cost of goods sold, wages, and general administrative expenses.  The corporation is just a conduit for the taxes we consumers of their goods pay by buying their goods.  If they can't pass the cost of taxes through to us, they go out of business because of the losses that are created.  
All of the tax breaks that the government has created for them are just like any other government program, designed to get them on the dole and keep their support by giving incentive for the officers and directors to donate to the re-election of their supporters.  No different than unions for the liberals.  Both sides are equally corrupt but blaming the corporation for following the tax laws as written by these political hacks is just as wrong as blaming the "free crap army" for taking the free crap the government gives out to keep them dumb, broke and voting democratic.

The problem with that is its the big companies that are able to hire the lobbyists to adjust tax laws to their favor.

[RDAbull]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

Bob, The fact is Corporations do not pay taxes, PERIOD.  Look at any public corporation's annual report.  The income statement handles taxes just as it handles any other expense, such as cost of goods sold, wages, and general administrative expenses.  The corporation is just a conduit for the taxes we consumers of their goods pay by buying their goods.  If they can't pass the cost of taxes through to us, they go out of business because of the losses that are created.  
All of the tax breaks that the government has created for them are just like any other government program, designed to get them on the dole and keep their support by giving incentive for the officers and directors to donate to the re-election of their supporters.  No different than unions for the liberals.  Both sides are equally corrupt but blaming the corporation for following the tax laws as written by these political hacks is just as wrong as blaming the "free crap army" for taking the free crap the government gives out to keep them dumb, broke and voting democratic.

The problem with that is its the big companies that are able to hire the lobbyists to adjust tax laws to their favor.

And the Public Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers, NEA, ect can't.  Sorry, can't buy that argument.

[baldo]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

Bob, The fact is Corporations do not pay taxes, PERIOD.  Look at any public corporation's annual report.  The income statement handles taxes just as it handles any other expense, such as cost of goods sold, wages, and general administrative expenses.  The corporation is just a conduit for the taxes we consumers of their goods pay by buying their goods.  If they can't pass the cost of taxes through to us, they go out of business because of the losses that are created.  
All of the tax breaks that the government has created for them are just like any other government program, designed to get them on the dole and keep their support by giving incentive for the officers and directors to donate to the re-election of their supporters.  No different than unions for the liberals.  Both sides are equally corrupt but blaming the corporation for following the tax laws as written by these political hacks is just as wrong as blaming the "free crap army" for taking the free crap the government gives out to keep them dumb, broke and voting democratic.

The problem with that is its the big companies that are able to hire the lobbyists to adjust tax laws to their favor.

And the Public Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers, NEA, ect can't.  Sorry, can't buy that argument.

I challenge you to show the $$$ comparison between unions and corporations.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

Bob, The fact is Corporations do not pay taxes, PERIOD.  Look at any public corporation's annual report.  The income statement handles taxes just as it handles any other expense, such as cost of goods sold, wages, and general administrative expenses.  The corporation is just a conduit for the taxes we consumers of their goods pay by buying their goods.  If they can't pass the cost of taxes through to us, they go out of business because of the losses that are created.  
All of the tax breaks that the government has created for them are just like any other government program, designed to get them on the dole and keep their support by giving incentive for the officers and directors to donate to the re-election of their supporters.  No different than unions for the liberals.  Both sides are equally corrupt but blaming the corporation for following the tax laws as written by these political hacks is just as wrong as blaming the "free crap army" for taking the free crap the government gives out to keep them dumb, broke and voting democratic.

The problem with that is its the big companies that are able to hire the lobbyists to adjust tax laws to their favor.

And the Public Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers, NEA, ect can't.  Sorry, can't buy that argument.

You don't have to buy it. It's still the facts. Union lobbying predominantly goes to protecting workers rights and fighting anti-Union legislation. Corporation lobbying predominantly goes to swaying legislation for more profit. There in lies the biggest problem. The huge amount of money influencing OUR  representatives.

[RDAbull]

And the Public Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers, NEA, ect can't.  Sorry, can't buy that argument.
[/quote]

I challenge you to show the $$$ comparison between unions and corporations.
[/quote]

Do you think either one of these groups are going to publicly admit or make available the numbers that they spend to influence legislation.  Unions are just like any other bureaucracy, they are in business to perpetuate themselves, the workers are a secondary consideration.

[Cracker Jack]

For Christ sake. I'm not talking about raising the corporate tax rate. I'm not talking about 'sticking it to em'. I'm talking about getting after the bullshit loopholes that allow 19000 corporations to be based in that one building in Grand Cayman  ... 

Christ's.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.  If we're talking about increasing the amount of taxes paid by corporations then we are talking about raising corporate taxes, aren't we.  Whether we do it by changing the base rate or simply closing tax advantages it's all the same, isn't it?

I wasn't really thinking of what corporations will do with a tax cut I was simply speaking of how corporations pay taxes.  I think at one point you might have said that corporate taxes are paid fundamentally by customers.  That's a not only meaningless use of the word but a bit misleading.  Corporate taxes are entirely paid by customers.

I get a bit lost in the exchanges.  Someone(s) wanted us to not treat corporations as if they are persons but then it seemed the same folks wanted us to tax corporations the way we do persons.  Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  Corporations are owned by people.  Corporate profits result in dividends to the people who own them.  Those people should be taxed on their income (dividends).  If we've already taxed the corporation before it distributed the dividends it seems that income got double taxed, doesn't it?

It sounds reasonable, and I'll give a nod of consent, but the problem is, as usual, more complicated than that.

"Corporate profits result in dividends to the people who own them" - right there is the problem.  Because that is not necessarily true.  Excess corporate profits are distributed to the people who own the corporation when the board of directors specifies a dividend payment. 

And the truth is that corporations almost never fully distribute their profits, keeping a percentage (sometimes a large percentage) as a cash reserve - for only ONE example, Apple Computer is quoted as currently holding $215 billion in reserve.  Now, where did that money come from?  Consumer's pockets.  Where did the money go?  If its a "reserve", then it didn't go to the shareholders, now did it?

So, what would happen if that excess $215 BILLION in income ("excess" because it was profit but it wasn't paid to the shareholders AND it is not being used for business growth) hadn't been taxed??

Think about it.  Free money from high prices, no taxes to do what you pleased with it.  Oh, the possibilities for corruption and graft are endless with this one...

I'm going to be out of the mainstream, left or right.  I don't really see the sense in taxing corporations and then taxing the owners of the corporations on the money they made through the corporations.  I'm a flat tax guy.  I think everyone (persons) should be taxed across the board on a percentage, the same percentage, of their income.  Maybe that's not complex enough.

I don't like tax loopholes but then I have noticed that the tax advantages that we are able to use are not usually seen by us as loopholes.  The tax advantages provided to someone else that we are not able to utilize are quickly identified as loopholes.  Maybe that flat tax thing would help our understanding.     

Snake, you're full of it.

[RDAbull]

Bob, The fact is Corporations do not pay taxes, PERIOD.  Look at any public corporation's annual report.  The income statement handles taxes just as it handles any other expense, such as cost of goods sold, wages, and general administrative expenses.  The corporation is just a conduit for the taxes we consumers of their goods pay by buying their goods.  If they can't pass the cost of taxes through to us, they go out of business because of the losses that are created.  
All of the tax breaks that the government has created for them are just like any other government program, designed to get them on the dole and keep their support by giving incentive for the officers and directors to donate to the re-election of their supporters.  No different than unions for the liberals.  Both sides are equally corrupt but blaming the corporation for following the tax laws as written by these political hacks is just as wrong as blaming the "free crap army" for taking the free crap the government gives out to keep them dumb, broke and voting democratic.


[/quote]The problem with that is its the big companies that are able to hire the lobbyists to adjust tax laws to their favor.
[/quote]

And the Public Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers, NEA, ect can't.  Sorry, can't buy that argument.
[/quote]You don't have to buy it. It's still the facts. Union lobbying predominantly goes to protecting workers rights and fighting anti-Union legislation. Corporation lobbying predominantly goes to swaying legislation for more profit. There in lies the biggest problem. The huge amount of money influencing OUR  representatives.
[/quote]

The fun part about facts is that the interpretation of them can change with the viewpoint of the observer.  Or as Andy Rooney said, most people will accept as fact the things they already believe.
Is the legislator who is owned by the corporation any less corrupt than the legislator who is owned by the union?  Both are OUR legislators.

[baldo]

The fun part about facts is that the interpretation of them can change with the viewpoint of the observer.  Or as Andy Rooney said, most people will accept as fact the things they already believe.
Is the legislator who is owned by the corporation any less corrupt than the legislator who is owned by the union?  Both are OUR legislators.

To answer about the corruption. No, one is no less corrupt than the other. The point I was trying to make was that the influence that corporations have with the money they shovel at Congress is far greater than any that a union paid legislator could wield. When was the last time you saw a union-influenced policy enacted? Something that benefits the worker?

Yes, I know unions aren't perfect, but I thank the stars that they exist. But let's not go there in this thread.

The Citizens United ruling gave corporations carte blanche to throw endless piles of money at Congress with very few, if any, restrictions. Not so with unions.....

http://www.demos.org/publication/do-corporations-unions-face-same-rules-political-spending

Any money that a union my want to 'contribute' to a legislator is derived from member dues. A corporation has endless revenue streams they can tap into, and in much larger amounts.

The union argument is just another attempt to distract.

[Romeo]

Corporate taxes: They all pay taxes but not really, taxes are a cost of doing business, the more they tax a corporation to more we pay for their product or service, we end up paying the tax.

Unfortunately, those in line for the free stuff don't care as long as they get their share of the free stuff.  Their problem is in how they can go about increasing their share.   By hook or crook, what ever they can get away with.

You're talking about Exxon, Walmart, Monsanto, GE, Lockheed, Boeing, Nestle, Nabisco, and countless more, right? It makes me laugh when people say that corporates pay their fair share of taxes. That is unvarnished horse shyte.

What's greater horse crap is folks who are naive enough not to know where the taxes paid by corporations comes from.  Companies that do business with the public get their money from the public.  If the government demands those companies pay more tax they don't go out to their shareholders to retrieve the money for those taxes.  They retrieve what money they need from the sales they achieve.  That's from the customers of the company.

I do believe that if the government wishes to discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas the only real way is to adopt huge import taxes (tariffs?) on things that were produced elsewhere to be sold to American markets.  Of course, then we have to be ready for those foreign governments to do likewise for products produced in America intended to be marketed elsewhere.

Do you believe there is any irony in Americans who live in the top percentage of the world's wealth complaining that their jobs are being exported to people who live at the lower levels, people who would be starving without those jobs?

Life is complex.  It is made moreso by the average intellectual level (and self centeredness) of the human populace.     

once again, Willow hits the nail on the head.

[RDAbull]

The fun part about facts is that the interpretation of them can change with the viewpoint of the observer.  Or as Andy Rooney said, most people will accept as fact the things they already believe.
Is the legislator who is owned by the corporation any less corrupt than the legislator who is owned by the union?  Both are OUR legislators.

To answer about the corruption. No, one is no less corrupt than the other. The point I was trying to make was that the influence that corporations have with the money they shovel at Congress is far greater than any that a union paid legislator could wield. When was the last time you saw a union-influenced policy enacted? Something that benefits the worker?

Damn, you guys aren't getting what you are paying for.

Yes, I know unions aren't perfect, but I thank the stars that they exist. But let's not go there in this thread.

Didn't mean this to be anti-union, meant it to be anti-corruption.

The Citizens United ruling gave corporations carte blanche to throw endless piles of money at Congress with very few, if any, restrictions. Not so with unions.....

I agree completely with you on CU.

http://www.demos.org/publication/do-corporations-unions-face-same-rules-political-spending

Any money that a union my want to 'contribute' to a legislator is derived from member dues. A corporation has endless revenue streams they can tap into, and in much larger amounts.

What about the union members who do not wish to 'contribute'

The union argument is just another attempt to distract.  Not distract, but merely to debate.

that cold beer in Morgantown will sure taste good.

[baldo]

that cold beer in Morgantown will sure taste good.

lol....

[dinosnake]

Snake, you're full of it.

Strange, why am I full of it??  Apple, for example, has $215 billion saved - exactly WHO needs $215 billion?  What do you think they are DOING with that $215 billion, hanging it on walls in their bathrooms?  You can be relatively sure that they are using some of it to get what they want / need in the United States, Great Britain, Ireland, China and India, just to name a few locales they have significant interest in, for a start.

Tax breaks, industrial zoning and bureaucratic paperwork just doesn't happen on its own without some "concerned interest", you know.

[Jess from VA]

Every Corporation and business that is solvent today is holding all the cash they can and limiting their workforce as much as they can (jobs).... because of Obamacare and a hundred other socialist laws and regs, and because an untrustworthy and unreliable Federal G (and corrupt EPA, IRS, Justice Dept) could put them out of business in a keystroke.

I'm doing the same thing.  It's our money, not theirs.  

So now they are talking about taxing savings and 401Ks.... (called negative interest rates).

We want your cash... give it to us (or we'll take it), we will spend it smarter than you..... you know, in OUR best interest, not yours.  

Let them eat cake (and choke).  

[Oss]

Jess you beat me to it (again) must be nice being retired  !!!!

Cash is needed to keep from being a hostile takeover target as well if you are a publicly traded company


If you are a private company the up and coming trend is ESOP's which give employees part ownership and in return free money back to the owner (transalation the person who takes all the risk) of the company

Ive been taking CLE courses to try to learn this stuff but keep falling asleep       

Thread hijack  Does anyone work for a company that has an ESOP yet

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess you beat me to it (again) must be nice being retired  !!!!

Cash is needed to keep from being a hostile takeover target as well if you are a publicly traded company


If you are a private company the up and coming trend is ESOP's which give employees part ownership and in return free money back to the owner (transalation the person who takes all the risk) of the company

Ive been taking CLE courses to try to learn this stuff but keep falling asleep       

Thread hijack  Does anyone work for a company that has an ESOP yet

Companies have their own fables now ? 

[CaribouHunter]

Who in the Hell gives a rip what the IMF says?  They are a bunch of radical secular progressive liberals.  You can bet that what ever they say, the truth is the exact opposite.  We are $20 Trillion in debt, with 49 million on food stamps, 52 million on welfare, and 94 million have left the work force. All historic records.  We have spent another $20 Trillion since the "War on Poverty" and have more poor people today than back then.  And, the "Black Experiment" has been an utter failure. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Who in the Hell gives a rip what the IMF says?  They are a bunch of radical secular progressive liberals.  You can bet that what ever they say, the truth is the exact opposite.  We are $20 Trillion in debt, with 49 million on food stamps, 52 million on welfare, and 94 million have left the work force. All historic records.  We have spent another $20 Trillion since the "War on Poverty" and have more poor people today than back then.  And, the "Black Experiment" has been an utter failure. 

I had never heard of the "Black Experiment" . Is this what you are referring to ?
https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/the-black-white-social-experiment-has-failed/

[Patrick]

http://www.snopes.com/politics-soapbox-black-dilemma/

[baldo]

http://www.snopes.com/politics-soapbox-black-dilemma/

Patrick, I like your style....

[Valkorado]

Who in the Hell gives a rip what the IMF says?  They are a bunch of radical secular progressive liberals.  You can bet that what ever they say, the truth is the exact opposite.  We are $20 Trillion in debt, with 49 million on food stamps, 52 million on welfare, and 94 million have left the work force. All historic records.  We have spent another $20 Trillion since the "War on Poverty" and have more poor people today than back then.  And, the "Black Experiment" has been an utter failure.  

Incorrectly attributed doesn't mean wrong, Snopes.

[Jess from VA]

IMF....... ptuey

UN....... ptuey.

Here's some of their fine morality in action.    (Their..... meaning all things socialist)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/world/2016/02/27/peacekeepers/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/13/rape-charges-hang-over-un-peacekeepers-africa/80057004/

Their own watchdog agency is labeling trading sex with minors in exchange for survival food and water as consensual (not rape) (last I checked, minors cannot consent to sex.... ergo, it's rape).


1. Kick the UN out of NY.

2. Reduce our contribution to the same as Portugal.

3. Remain a member of the security counsel, so we can try to curb/block their worst abuses. (like global warming initiatives)

[dinosnake]

Who in the Hell gives a rip what the IMF says?  They are a bunch of radical secular progressive liberals. 

Where do you people come up with this ridiculous stuff?  Anything you don't like is "liberal"??!!!

The IMF is CONSERVATIVE, my friend - do you even know their policies?  You'd better learn about the Washington Consensus and the IMF's socioeconomic history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

This is why they have lost a lot of respect in the world, they have stuck with market fundamentalist policies and they HAVEN'T WORKED.  That's the entire point of the beginning of this thread -didn't you catch it??  The IMF itself posted a research article that says the strict fundamentalist, trickle-down pro-free market agendas are a FAILURE, even though the IMF itself has been pushing them for the past 20 years.

You don't go calling a organization that forwards beliefs of Milton Friedman and freshwater economists "liberal" and expect any respect for the statement.

[Jess from VA]

I may stand corrected (on IMF, not the UN).

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-IMF-tend-to-be-more-liberal-or-conservative-in-policies

http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-admitted-their-economists-were-wrong-2013-1

I took a (4.0) minor in economics, but it's been four decades since then.

I still think corporations do much more good than harm.  But that's a long discussion.

And no tax and spend socialist G should ever be bailed out, they should all implode so people will stop that foolishness.

[Jeremy]

Free enterprise system, freedom, capitalism, freedom of religion created the most individual wealth and largest middle class in the history of the world . No one has even come close. Under current administration and loss of moral compass in our country we are in grave danger of losing it all. We need to wake up before it's to late. That's all I have to say about that as forest grump says.

[dinosnake]

I may stand corrected (on IMF, not the UN).

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-IMF-tend-to-be-more-liberal-or-conservative-in-policies

http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-admitted-their-economists-were-wrong-2013-1

I took a (4.0) minor in economics, but it's been four decades since then.

I still think corporations do much more good than harm.  But that's a long discussion.

And no tax and spend socialist G should ever be bailed out, they should all implode so people will stop that foolishness.

That's a great article by Business Insider that you linked to, excellent plain-English reading for the average person to understand the promises and failures of our tax-cut and "smaller government" spending ideas (although I do not prefer the political-tilted comments in the latter half of the article - just the facts, ma'am).

All it takes is a bit of common sense coupled with depreciating the propaganda: if it is claimed that we have more millionaires / billionaires than any time during the past 80+ years, how can our economic recovery from a near-collapse of the banking industry take so long if the wealthy can boost our economy so much?  

I'm in the luxury goods business, jewelry manufacturing, and trust me, my man, its falling flat on its face, has been since the crash.  Why?  Middle-class purchasers have disappeared, no discretionary spending on baubles and trinkets.  Jewelers have gone out of business in droves.  The bankers have been buying their $10,000+ watches and their $20,000+ engagement rings, but there are only so many of them spending their cash so mainstream product sales have dried up.  We've been doing mostly expensive custom work for years but our mainstream catalog design sales are fractions of what they used to be.

[Daddie O]

As dinosnake's anecdotal story illustrates, trickle down economics don't work.  For an economy to thrive it needs a strong middle class.  If a corporation is making record profits (which most are) that does not create jobs.  What creates jobs is demand for products and services.  If a corporation has enough employees to provide the products and services that the market demands, they will not hire more employees no matter how much profit increases.

If the middle class earns decent wages compared to expenses, they have discretionary money to spend for products and services.  Higher demand reduces supply.  To meet demand more supply must be able to be created, thus more employees are necessary.  More employees making decent wages creates more demand for products and services.  it isn't rocket science, and you don't need a master's degree in economics to figure it out.  The market has shown it to be true, and it isn't just dinosnake's anecdote that proves it.

It is amazing that many of you have been bamboozled into thinking that the solution to any economic woes is to lower wages and give larger tax breaks to the wealthiest.  The big corporations actually have many people believing that having a higher minimum wage is bad for the economy.  They make you think that if wages increase that profits will fall unless they can pass the difference onto you in the form of higher prices.  It doesn't work like that.  A corporation doesn't have to pay slave wages and have employees on welfare to survive like Walmart or McDonalds does.  Costco and In-n-Out pay their employees well and they are highly profitable.