Corporations and the election

[Mensch1351]

I guess I'm again looking for your opinions on an observation I'm making which could be wrong. I'm open for feedback for those with more experience in this field.

It seems to me that corporations are RIGHT NOW sitting on tons of cash and have been doing fairly well in the market. Are they intentionally slowing down the economy in order to MAKE the Obama administration fail? Have they been waiting for a more "user friendly" congress in order to get "their" legislative agendas passed? Have they been "punishing" the American people by not creating jobs and using "confidence" in the economy as a convient excuse?

 

[Speculator]

If the Obama administration fails he'll have nobody to blame but himself. I'm sure the big corperations use their muscle to gain a political advantage, but it's the president's job to stand strong and look out for the interests of the people. If he's unable guide your country through these rocky times then he's clearly the wrong man for the job.

Tbh I'm a little ticked off with all this banker bashing, the politicians bask in the glory when the good times are rolling but when it goes pear shaped their immediate reaction is to blame somebody else. In fact our ex prime minister (Gordon Brown) kept on telling the public that it was America - not him or his party who had been in power for 11 years - that were to blame for our economic mess. The little toad.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I think you might be giving corporations too much credit. (That is, that they're even capable of acting in a coordinated effort). Corporations are entirely motivated by profit (today, enormous greed). Their goal is to make the greatest amount of money for themselves (and I primarily mean management....nobody actually gives a shit about the shareholders), for the least amount of investment. Employees are basically seen as a liability (a necessary evil). Sure, they extract a disproportionate benefit (knowledge and labor)....but, then you've got to pay them....and, that's what companies hate to do....either in total wages (size of labor pool), or in increasing wages (paying enough to reward and retain experienced knowledgeable staff). Companies actually prefer a tolerable turnover rate....it's much cheaper to replace someone every 3-5 years.

So companies are sitting on all this cash....???? What are they going to do with it...??? Well, remember...companies don't give a shit about anything, but quarterly earnings (got to make the mutual funds happy, so management can collect their bonuses)...So, if they think that the market would support expanding production (I'm talking manufacturing here), then they immediately see, if they can outsource those jobs to China, India, Vietnam, etc (Nobody would dream of building a manufacturing plant in the US today...that'd be crazy !)...But, if you can't do that....then, you buy back your own stock. That way, you reduce the number of shares..and your earnings per share go up (and then more bonuses !!!..) And guess what?...IBM....one of the world's greatest "outsourcers" of American jobs...did just what I described !

 

[houtx48]

"but it's the president's job to stand strong and look out for the interests of the people"......naive much? Agree that that's the way it should be but the all branches of government are corporate whores.

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

Are they intentionally slowing down the economy in order to MAKE the Obama administration fail? Have they been waiting for a more "user friendly" congress in order to get "their" legislative agendas passed? Have they been "punishing" the American people by not creating jobs and using "confidence" in the economy as a convient excuse?

YES

YES and

YES

Even though the OBAMA admin. saved their sorry fukin asses they are doing everything they possibly can to halt economic progress, but America being what she is is not bending to their will .
They feel attacked by FIN-REG, just b/c our Government has committed the sin of trying to put consumers ahead of corporations. This BULLSHIT about them being reticent to invest in the American economy is a LIE.
Hell, you may not KNOW this but YOU paid more in taxes (and you didn't pay all that much) than some of the biggest corporations paid last year... they paid ZERO, that's right, they screw the American middle class in favor of PROFITS yet don't pay a fukin PENNY in Taxes.
On top of this, many of them and especially our very own Chamber of Commerce will be beholden to FOREIGN nations for their investment in the elections. You can be DAMN SURE these nations who threw money at the Chamber will be expecting tit-4-tat.
I really don't know WHEN the American public will finally come to terms with a big truth:
Under a Republican president, Corporate America thrives at the cost of American citizens.
Under a Democratic president citizens are far better off, except of course in times of recessions, especially one as bad as we just endured !



~HH~

 

[dandelion]

dont know what american corporations are doing but in britain commentators worry about the fact that banks are not lending enough money to businesses. Having a read of the Bank of englands report about this, it says that in fact the banks are approving exactly the same proportion of loan requests they ever did, but no one is asking for a loan. Instead everyone is repaying debt as fast as they can. I dont interpret this as industry trying to deliberately cause a slump and screw the new conservative government. I interpret this as companies thinking this is a bad time to be owing money when anything might suddenly happen to their profits or their loans might instantly be called in.

 

[deleted15807]

On top of this, many of them and especially our very own Chamber of Commerce will be beholden to FOREIGN nations for their investment in the elections. You can be DAMN SURE these nations who threw money at the Chamber will be expecting tit-4-tat.

The Chamber of Commerce is an anti-American organiztion. It is an organzation dedicated to pure greed.

Chamber of Commerce promotes outsourcing jobs

 

[Mensch1351]

I wonder how far it would fly if US corporations had to pay a different tax rate (higher) on their Overseas operations than they do on their domestic operations? I truly believe Haliburton should have lost ALL its US government contracts when it shifted its world headquarters to Dubai!

 

[dandelion]

Thats the sort of thing we logically ought to be heading for. Also something which i heard the US already takes an interest in, taxing locals on foreign income which is currently discounted as being entirely overseas. So the local subsidiary of a japanes car company gets a bill for the income of its parent in Japan. Banks may not like new taxes in the UK so threaten to move abroad. Then we still tax their local branches just the same?

 

[Speculator]

I wonder how far it would fly if US corporations had to pay a different tax rate (higher) on their Overseas operations than they do on their domestic operations? I truly believe Haliburton should have lost ALL its US government contracts when it shifted its world headquarters to Dubai!

There have been some shocking examples of this sort of thing in the UK too. Private companies basing themsleves offshore for tax purposes buying up government buildings and then leasing them back to government departments, normally for generous profits. I swear our politicians spent the past 13 years soley thinking of ways to creatively screw the taxpayer. I must say, they've done a mighty fine job.

 

[lucky8]

This is ridiculous. There is no way in hell corporations are conspiring to take the economy down. What it comes down to is the availability of cash and consumer spending. It's a big circle. Typically, corporations borrow money to lower their cost of capital, add value to shareholders, and grow. In today's environment, not only are loans hard to come by, but the riskiness of increased debt levels in this unknowing environment exceeds the benefits. Cash is king right now, and with the unavailability of capital, companies are holding on to their cash rather than investing it in order to remain economically viable in the long-term. Also consider that consumer spending is still down drastically, most companies just don't have enough money or the need to create jobs. Couple this with the value of the dollar in relation to other currencies, it just makes more sense from a business standpoint to outsource work rather than trying to secure loans to pay for the demands of Americans that think they are worth more money than they really are.

So then the question becomes: why are banks so reluctant to lend? Simple answer is it's too risky; adverse selection. I think it's kind of lame seeing all these people saying "people need to stop borrowing so much money" then in another thread "banks need to lend more money." There's just no logic there. Banks will not start lending like they used to until the housing market stabilizes, period. With all this bad debt on their books, and the mortgage backed securities market in such disorder, it's going to be a loooong time before the US gets back on the track we were a few years ago. Adapt and get used to it

 

[lucky8]

If the Obama administration fails he'll have nobody to blame but himself.

Wrong. This isn't a normal economic downturn...any person, no matter who they are, could have done anything to stop/fix this. This was decades in the making, and there's just nothing any person or group of people could do to make this one better without a decade to do so. It's just a flat out uneducated claim, regardless of political ideologies.

 

[Speculator]

Wrong. This isn't a normal economic downturn...any person, no matter who they are, could have done anything to stop/fix this. This was decades in the making, and there's just nothing any person or group of people could do to make this one better without a decade to do so. It's just a flat out uneducated claim, regardless of political ideologies.

Nope, Obama's policies are making the situation worse, the American public seen to understand this which is why his popularity is fading. He has to take responsibilty for the economy from the moment he steps into office, if he doesn't know what he's doing then it's time he put his hands up.

You seem to forget the same thing happened here in 1997. A left leaning PR friendly candidate -Tony Blair- won over the British people with his easy manner and commitment to "change". But it was all spin and no substance, he had no strategy and the British people are now paying the price for his decade of shoddy workmanship. It was obvious from this side of the Atlantic that Obama was going to send the U.S down the same path.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Nope, Obama's policies are making the situation worse

Please elaborate and use statistics... not empty rhetoric.

the American public seen to understand this which is why his popularity is fading/

Some Americans don't even know whether or not Obama is a Muslim even after he was bashed by those same people for having a Christian pastor with questionable views just 2 years ago. Trust me, they don't understand anything. But unfortunately, they do have a right to vote.

He has to take responsibilty for the economy from the moment he steps into office, if he doesn't know what he's doing then it's time he put his hands up.

And he has taken responsibility for his portion.
However, if the Republicans can still try and blame Jimmy Carter for failed policies, reminding folks that the people before them fucked up royally is not out of bounds. We went from a surplus after the end of the Clinton Administration to a record deficit after the Bush Administration. THAT IS A FACT. Things like this don't get corrected by ANY party in power in two years. The problem here is, Republican supporters just don't like it when people remind them that their politicians are not as perfect as they portray themselves to their minions (who still don't know whether or not Obama is a Muslim even after he was bashed by those same people for having a Christian pastor with questionable views just 2 years ago).

 

[B_crackoff]

Wrong. This isn't a normal economic downturn...any person, no matter who they are, could have done anything to stop/fix this. This was decades in the making, and there's just nothing any person or group of people could do to make this one better without a decade to do so. It's just a flat out uneducated claim, regardless of political ideologies.

Untrue. It was wholly predictable, & predicted. The worst is yet to come - at some point!

You need to start reading around. Guys like Marc Faber & Gerald Celente give a wider perspective, as does Richard Russell & Jim Rodgers.

F*ck even George Soros (& he's part of the problem!) called the start in May 2007. The housing problem was known because of junk securitisation, the September interest problems for banks were well known!

Even I called Sept/Oct 2008!

So many experts have been calling it all f*cked since 2003 & saying buy gold, & silver - it's all just a complete ramp of a bubble.

The US (& most of the West) is bust, & normally what happens is massive war, currency collapse, or soaraway inflation. Again, & again & again through history.

Obama's just putting soluble sticking plasters over canyon type cracks. He's delaying the inevitable. I hope I'm wrong, but ...

He could try & whip ass, but he's just not up to it, & no one else likely to get elected would be either as they'd have to sell out for financing.

If you read, or watch the guys I mentioned, it'll be a bit gloomy, but look back, & they were always right - & what they said will hapen that hasn't - global default, the possible demise of the $,mass rioting & martial law is scarily close.

Look at what Brad Sherman (R) said about the 2008 bail out!
YouTube - Rep. Brad Sherman Martial Law

 

[B_New End]

Speculator is a sock puppet. I wonder who. All his 13 posts have been in politics.

 

[Speculator]

Speculator is a sock puppet. I wonder who. All his 13 posts have been in politics.

Wow, this guy's smart. You've got me, I'm a sock puppet for Big Oil and the Bush family. I wander around from forum to forum trying to alter people's minds by insidiously spreading propaganda.

It's not that I'm just interested in my own c*ck size but happen to find politics more interesting to discuss from a forum point of view. No, that's way too unlikely.

I wonder if you would have still called me a "sock puppet" if you had agreed with all my posts?

Nice way to treat mew members btw, a really warm welcome.

 

[B_New End]

Wow, this guy's smart. You've got me, I'm a sock puppet for Big Oil and the Bush family. I wander around from forum to forum trying to alter people's minds by insidiously spreading propaganda.

It's not that I'm just interested in my own c*ck size but happen to find politics more interesting to discuss from a forum point of view. No, that's way too unlikely.

I wonder if you would have still called me a "sock puppet" if you had agreed with all my posts?

Nice way to treat mew members btw, a really warm welcome.

A sock puppet means you are an old forum member, more than likely banned, who has come back under a new name.

However, your response leaves a clue it is quite possible you are a brand new member here... but completely clueless as to where you even are. Simply here to be a keyboard commando.

I'll clue you in. It is COCK and FUCK and PUSSY and ASSFUCK and CUMSLUT. No need to put *'s in your words.

 

[dandelion]

You seem to forget the same thing happened here in 1997. A left leaning PR friendly candidate -Tony Blair- won over the British people with his easy manner and commitment to "change". But it was all spin and no substance, he had no strategy and the British people are now paying the price for his decade of shoddy workmanship.

The conservative and labour parties had similar policies thoughout the last labour government under both blair and brown, and they still do now that Cameron is running a conservative administration. Although they play up ideological differences they have the same policies. Whether this is because they agree with each other or because they agree what the voters would like and do that instead I dont know. There was -and still is - agreement to spend as much as possible. The US screwed the world right royally because of it laissez-fair administration of the banking sector. The british too have suffered economically from recent US administrations, which ones precisely I couldnt say.

From this side of the pond it looks as though there isnt much difference between democrats and republicans either. They both seem to have the same views on how to run the US economy. Matters are complicated I suppose because in the UK you need a majority of 1 in the house of commons and you can do anything, whereas in the US you seem to invariably have three elements with vetoes continuously squabbling with each other. Delightful agreements that within each institution you have gradations of veto. All this was a deliberate choice when the constitution was created, to prevent absolutist government. One of the effects now seems to be that everyone has a gold plated opportunity to blame everyone else. No one ever gets a chance to do what they want, so no one ever gets to see the results of that policy clearly.

To be more partisan, Republicans seem to have a track record of cutting taxes but not cutting spending. There seems to be a reluctant consensus between the parties that certain expenditure is in fact needed, but somehow a larger disagreement between the parties on how to raise money. Is it a major flaw in the US system that this is not clear to people?

Both parties seem to agree that a huge military is a good thing, god knows why. It may have something to do with this issue of funding for elections, where it seems to be believed that if you spend enough you can buy a victory? Or maybe it is a vicious circle, that the tea party has a valid point that federal governmnts are constrained in areas they can spend money. One area they can legitimately spend is the military. That building a new factory can make people happy and buy votes, and they are unable to do this by building a new hospital or school as in the UK?

 

[Speculator]

A sock puppet means you are an old forum member, more than likely banned, who has come back under a new name.

However, your response leaves a clue it is quite possible you are a brand new member here... but completely clueless as to where you even are. Simply here to be a keyboard commando.

I'll clue you in. It is COCK and FUCK and PUSSY and ASSFUCK and CUMSLUT. No need to put *'s in your words.

Translation: "blah blah blah blah, I've got nothing interesting to say so I'll resort to personal attacks instead".

This is the politics forum, unless you want to respond to any points that I made with sensible remarks of your own I'll consider this little foray over with.