GE Profits

[BigRob]

yes, and a bad idea to deem that corporations have freedom of speech also. A much better idea would be to outlaw lobbyists handing money to politicians, and have public funding of campaigns.

But, we all know that will never happen.

Pubic funding of campaigns is a horrible idea that creates far more problems than it solves. For example, what does one have to do to qualify for such funding? Not to mention the issue of forcing me to support candidates who hold views I do not agree with.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contribution of money to the propagation of opinions to which he does not agree is sinful and tyrannical."

Additionally, as someone who has run campaigns, the whole matching funds issue in smaller races opens up a huge area for "dirty tricks." Candidates are supposed to appeal to us, not to the government for our money.

Sorry for the brief response, I did it on my iPhone.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

One might argue that it was not the SC but the Constitution that made it "harder."

well the constitution did not change...the SC ruling of it did...and Wrongly I think.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

GE does nothing illegal to get out of paying taxes.

really? you have gone threw there books and checked? I am not saying they have ( though I would put odds on if realy checked some would be) But if not, and they made huge income, and paid no taxes...what does that tell us about the loopholes?

"Companies like GE". How many GE's exist? Not many. The vast majority of American companies get stuck with a high tax rate, which is bad for business, and especially bad if they are trying to expand overseas.

umm lots? Companies like GE...IE very large companies ...just as a example...all the banks, car companies, plane manufactures, electronics companies, Retailers, Food companies....

And no one knows what there tax rate really is...you can give a generic number...but when they factor all there breaks in ...then you find there real tax break....For GE...the tax rate is I guess...Zero....Is Zero to high of a tax ?

Its a rigged system bought and paid for by the biggest companies to give buy them tax breaks in return for political contributions and support.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Pubic funding of campaigns is a horrible idea that creates far more problems than it solves. For example, what does one have to do to qualify for such funding? Not to mention the issue of forcing me to support candidates who hold views I do not agree with.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contribution of money to the propagation of opinions to which he does not agree is sinful and tyrannical."

Additionally, as someone who has run campaigns, the whole matching funds issue in smaller races opens up a huge area for "dirty tricks." Candidates are supposed to appeal to us, not to the government for our money.

Sorry for the brief response, I did it on my iPhone.

As someone who has worked on many campaigns...many ok all but 2 , with very small amounts of funds to run it...matching funds helped a great deal and often was the only way we stayed in the races....Part of the reason it was harder for us...not taking in all the special interest money the others had...

But I guess if you like the Bought and paid for, do nothing but raise money for the next election...or campaigns of..I can't win on Ideas so I can outspend you 10 to 1...and your happy with those elections......

 

[BigRob]

As someone who has worked on many campaigns...many ok all but 2 , with very small amounts of funds to run it...matching funds helped a great deal and often was the only way we stayed in the races....Part of the reason it was harder for us...not taking in all the special interest money the others had...

It might have had more to do with a bad fundraiser, a bad candidate, or a general inability to connect with voters to make them want to donate.

But I guess if you like the Bought and paid for, do nothing but raise money for the next election...or campaigns of..I can't win on Ideas so I can outspend you 10 to 1...and your happy with those elections......

It is the ideas of a campaign/views of the candidate that get people, and special interests, to donate money.

 

[BigRob]

really? you have gone threw there books and checked? I am not saying they have ( though I would put odds on if realy checked some would be) But if not, and they made huge income, and paid no taxes...what does that tell us about the loopholes?

GE is apparently one of the most heavily audited companies out there, so I will stand by the statement that GE has not cheated on their taxes.

umm lots? Companies like GE...IE very large companies ...just as a example...all the banks, car companies, plane manufactures, electronics companies, Retailers, Food companies....

And no one knows what there tax rate really is...you can give a generic
number...but when they factor all there breaks in ...then you find there real tax break....For GE...the tax rate is I guess...Zero....Is Zero to high of a tax ?

Its a rigged system bought and paid for by the biggest companies to give buy them tax breaks in return for political contributions and support.

GE is taking specific deductions based on their business it sounds like, therefore that limits in a big way the true comparisons you can make. Look at Exxon or other major oil companies, they have a massive tax bill, even though they are "large companies."

 

[pocketfullofshells]

GE is apparently one of the most heavily audited companies out there, so I will stand by the statement that GE has not cheated on their taxes.



GE is taking specific deductions based on their business it sounds like, therefore that limits in a big way the true comparisons you can make. Look at Exxon or other major oil companies, they have a massive tax bill, even though they are "large companies."

Becuse they make billions....but if you look at the percent I bet its still not the stated percent tax rate.

And like I said...and Obama talked about....Possibly we could lower the rates...if we closed the loophole...then GE and Exxon can play about the same percent...Right now with loopholes...its seems GE gets a check..and just based on what you said...Exxon pays in a huge amount....

 

[PLC1]

It might have had more to do with a bad fundraiser, a bad candidate, or a general inability to connect with voters to make them want to donate.



It is the ideas of a campaign/views of the candidate that get people, and special interests, to donate money.

No, it's what the candidate can do for the donor that gets special interests to donate money. After the election, the new politician then represents money more than people. That's what's wrong with the current system of fund raising for campaigns.

Public funding isn't perfect either, for the reasons you just gave, but it is better than government of the special interests, by the special interests, and for the special interests.

Best yet would be to take most of the mother's milk of politics out of campaigns altogether, but, that will never happen either. Monied interests are already too well entrenched for that to ever work.

 

[BigRob]

Becuse they make billions....but if you look at the percent I bet its still not the stated percent tax rate.

And like I said...and Obama talked about....Possibly we could lower the rates...if we closed the loophole...then GE and Exxon can play about the same percent...Right now with loopholes...its seems GE gets a check..and just based on what you said...Exxon pays in a huge amount....

The issue I would immediately have with forcing higher tax rates on US companies is that it would make competing I'm a global market that much harder... Which hurts us in the United States.

 

[BigRob]

No, it's what the candidate can do for the donor that gets special interests to donate money. After the election, the new politician then represents money more than people. That's what's wrong with the current system of fund raising for campaigns.

I think it is some of both...companies, like people, want their interests represented when they donate to a political campaign. I think at the core, it is still just that a politician represents their interests, which often align with that of their donors, hence why they donated to begin with.

Public funding isn't perfect either, for the reasons you just gave, but it is better than government of the special interests, by the special interests, and for the special interests.

Best yet would be to take most of the mother's milk of politics out of campaigns altogether, but, that will never happen either. Monied interests are already too well entrenched for that to ever work.

You can't take money out of political campaigns, they cost a lot of money to run.

 

[PLC1]

I think it is some of both...companies, like people, want their interests represented when they donate to a political campaign. I think at the core, it is still just that a politician represents their interests, which often align with that of their donors, hence why they donated to begin with.



You can't take money out of political campaigns, they cost a lot of money to run.

If I had my way, we'd hire politicians just like we hire anyone else. Advertise the position, and ask for letters of recommendation, and resumes. Paper screen those, and then hold an interview, only do it on TV, paid for the same way we pay for everything from sitcoms to soccer. Hold a primary election, then a series of debates between the top two or three vote getters, also televised in the same way. After the debates, hold a final election.

No parties, no fund raising, no absurd TV ads.

It would be perfect.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It might have had more to do with a bad fundraiser, a bad candidate, or a general inability to connect with voters to make them want to donate.



It is the ideas of a campaign/views of the candidate that get people, and special interests, to donate money.

of course it is, money never changes anyones mind of course not....

 

[dogtowner]

yes, and a bad idea to deem that corporations have freedom of speech also. A much better idea would be to outlaw lobbyists handing money to politicians, and have public funding of campaigns.

But, we all know that will never happen.

how about we just take money out of it completely ?

publish your platform, allow independent concerns to stage debates, and let the people have their say.

everything else is just vote buying.

 

[dogtowner]

well the constitution did not change...the SC ruling of it did...and Wrongly I think.

if free speech = money then the SCOTUS did the right thing.

 

[dogtowner]

It might have had more to do with a bad fundraiser, a bad candidate, or a general inability to connect with voters to make them want to donate.

It is the ideas of a campaign/views of the candidate that get people, and special interests, to donate money.

if nobody likes what you have to say there will be no money or votes. why bother ?

if all candidates are made equal by eliminating money, then its just no votes nor need for POS to fritter away their time tilting at windmills.