Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Toyota hurting the poor

Press Release:

Daniel calls for a "windfall profits tax" on the Toyota Prius. "With gas prices going up, more consumers are encouraged to buy the Prius" said Daniel in a prepared statement, "these market forces are causing obscene profits at Toyota which must be reined in."

A corportate spokesmouth from Toyota indicated that people seem to want to buy their product and that it's up to consumer choice but a recent survey of the Pearl District found that many consumers felt pressured to use the Prius for transportation.

"I just want to get to my government job" said one PD resident.

Daniel insists that if Toyota and other manufacturers are going to continue to respond to market demands there must be some regulation. "We can't just allow these companies to take advantage of people by producing goods and services that they want, there has to be a reasonable limit" says Daniel.


Anthony DeLucca said...

OK, back to the constitutional thing: Exactly WHERE in the constitution does the Government get the power to cap profits on private industry?? Where does it explain when and where the government is allowed to dictate how much companies are allowed to pay their CEO's??

This is simply another indication that the Democratic party is turning into a Socialist party.

Which industry is next?? Do you think that the America bashing liberal knuckleheads in hollywood will ever get their "20 Million per picture" salaries capped? Doubtful.

What I see the Democratic controlled congress doing right now is scary. Most of the Tax proposals they float onto the Senate floor are un-constitutional. What Barack Obama is proposing in the form of "Windfall Profit Taxes" is also not Constitutional.

Excessive taxation of the wealthy in order to benefit the poor simply does not work. Ultimately, there will be no incentive at all for anyone to take the risks and pay the price in order to start companies and become successful. You've got to remember that the wealthy in this country are the ones who are creating jobs. Take away the incentive to become wealthy, you will surely lose jobs.

A free market economy that is left to thrive under its own devices without the excessive intrusion of Government, will flourish and create both wealth and jobs for everyone who desires them.

Anonymous said...

the taxing and spending clause? please read the constitution before commenting on what is in it.

"excessive" taxation of the wealthy in order to benefit the poor worked quite well in the war and post-war years.

the wealthy in this country are not the ones creating jobs - small business are.

there is no such thing as a market absent rules, regulations and a court system to prosecute breaches of contract, trade, patent, trademark, etc. taxation to fund such rules, etc. is necessary. otherwise anarchy reigns.

how many dumbass fox talking points can you throw out in your post dude?

Anonymous said...

Anthony - Straightforward question:

You state that "A free market economy that is left to thrive under its own devices without the excessive intrusion of Government, will flourish and create both wealth and jobs for everyone who desires them."

Our economy underwent massive de-regulation under W's administration. Can you explain why the opposite outcomes of your hypotheses transpired? Instead of wealth and jobs for everyone, unemployment is higher than it has been in about 15 years, and in real-dollar terms, the average person is getting poorer, not richer. Can you explain this?

Anonymous said...

think about this who will in the end pay those taxs !!!
The people that use the product will . The company will just pass that added expense on to you and me !

Anonymous said...

It's tempting to take seriously DeLucca's feigned concern for what the Constitution says and does not say, but given that he hasn't objected at all while the president he voted for spent the last 8 years shitting all over the Constitution, the only proper response is to laugh, shake one's head, and move on.

Streck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

So sorry Streck. I misspoke. the unemployment rate was about 5.5 in 1995 (13 years ago), declined steadily through the Clinton years, and then started rising during the Bush years.

Quite an Orwellian response from you though. The question is quite simple: if free markets are to magically provide wealth and employment to all, why, under an administration with strong free-market policies, has unemploymnet increased, job creation slowed considerably, and real wages declined?

Mark said...

I don't really think The Bush Administration was fiscally responsible anyway but we need to look at the facts. He was delt a bad hand with 911 and Katrina. Plus war is expensive but not as expensive as our national sovernity so I believe it was necessary being an Iraqi vet. He did have free market solutions to drill in the United States but was shot down by the democratic Congress. Free enterprise can work without governemnt interference. Why should we depend on the government for everything?

Anonymous said...

Weak post, Mark - Bush is the first president in the history of our nation to not raise taxes during war time. Why do think he didn't ask the voters to pay for the war? My guess is because the electorate is smart enough to know that Iraq didn't pose any greater threat to our sovereignty than Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. Should we be at war with these countries too?

Hell, insofar as our increasing economic insecurity is a threat to national sovereignty, we should go to war with China as well. They're burning up all the oil and a big part of why we're about to be paying $5 per gallon.

And what exactly does our government provide us with right now? You all act as if we live in the Soviet Union or something, when in fact we have the skimpiest welfare state of all developed nations. If you want to see a large welfare state, go visit Europe, where, by the way, most countries are quickly becoming more affluent than the good ol' US of A.

If you free-marketeers could point to some recent evidence of how free-market policies have benefitted everyday Americans, I'll gladly consider voting Republican in the next election. Until then, I think I'll vote for a change in course in fiscal policy, if, for no other reason, to balance the deficit so that my daughter's generation isn't faced with burdensome debt. That is just not fair.

Mark said...

Gee, I think it was the Clinton Administration who stated that Iraq did have WMDs. Let me tell you something, I was there and if you want to really debate geopolitics I’m all for it! Our military proved that there were sects of Al Queda in northern Iraq and throughout the Middle East. If there was one country where we could make a difference it was Iraq. Did you see the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis’ that Saddam butchered? We went over there for a noble cause. We took a murderous danger out od power because it was the right thing to do! What’s it going to take, five more 911s?
You’re missing the point and to use China as some comparison to Iraq is weak. If we went to war because of economic insecurity then why are we not reaping the benefits form our war time efforts now?
You asked what the government provides us now… well I’ll tell you what…….lost promises! We give them 2.3 trillion dollars a year of our hard earned money and what are they doing with it; they waste it on earmarks and other worthless programs. Are the developed nations you mentioned like, UK, Germany, Spain, etc…? Is this the reason why most of their healthcare programs are falling apart? I heard of many actually coming to this country for healthcare because their governments denied service!
If you believe in a change in course of fiscal responsibility then you’d better not vote for O’Bama because you’ll go from paying 30% to 55% in taxes. I’m an everyday American and I worked my way up so I’m living proof that a free market can provide results. If you can tell me one socialist society where the redistribution of wealth didn’t suppress the people trying to live up to there potential, please let me know. I’m very interested!

Anon 12:56 PM said...

Actually, I was just kidding earlier ... it was not in the least bit tempting to take Anthony DeLucca seriously.

Anonymous said...

THERE IS NO FREE MARKET! Roads to deliver goods cost money to build. Court systems to decide disputes that arise, and which protect the right to contract and intellectual property cost money to run. Need I go on?

The EU is smoking us right now and even though they say they are "open trade" they have some of the most protectionist policies around.

Do the free marketers here support dumping? Do they know what it is?

And, Mark, really, let's chat. Foremost, I appreciate your service to our fine country. I really do and I am thankful. However, there are many things we need to discuss.

1) Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist as much of any threat until we invaded - since our invasion, they are growing exponentially.

2) Who cares what Clinton said - if he said it, he was wrong too.

3) The healthcare systems of socialized medicine countries (notice, you said "socialist" and none of the countries you speak of is socialist) are not falling apart. People come here to not have to wait. Which is their wont - but, waiting versus no coverage at all = I'll wait if I'm poor.

4) Please tell us why 9/11 happened. Did it have anything to do with our buildup of bases in Saudi Arabia? How is more of our sticking our bases and military in that region going to prevent "five more 9/11s"?

5)As to "I’m an everyday American" - hey, so am I, we just have different opinions. I hope you aren't trying to say I'm some sort of "elitist." Let us at least agree we are both "everyday Americans."

6) AS to "and I worked my way up so I’m living proof that a free market can provide results" - congrats. But let us dissect this
a) how did you work your way up? I'd love to know because we can take a look along the way how regulatory measures helped you.

b) prove to me it is a "free market" that got you there - did you use the public roads to go to work? did you use regulated currency to do so? did you contract with others? if so, did you ever need to use the courts? did you ever think you might need to and that gave you some relief?

c) how well are you really doing? this is not a troll, it is just that i find many who feel they are "making it" are really just passing credit around and not moving much more upward.

d) as to "If you can tell me one socialist society where the redistribution of wealth didn’t suppress the people trying to live up to there potential, please let me know." Let us talk some more. Foremost, no one is promoting socialism. Second, let us look at Europe, where a visible middle class exists. Third, why is a 20% tax increase going to cause you to work any less hard?

Mark said...

Look, I’m not an anarchist. I do believe in government involvement in the context of our constitution. Small government….. There are free market enterprises within the United States but some of them are over-regulated to the point that they’re not.

Your right about protectionist policies, I agree. I do not support dumping and you might think I’m a hypocrite because I believe in a free market but like I said; “In the boundaries of the US.”

1) We obviously disagree about Iraq. Al Qaeda has been a threat before 911 throughout the Middle East then and now. It’s whether or not to deal with them now and reduce there numbers or deal with them later when they do grow exponentially. We truly have them backed in a corner now and they do feel threaten like they should! You think they’ve grown; I think they’ve been reduced and threaten. Those are our points.

2) I agree about Clinton….who cares! Sorry to bring it up!

3) I never mentioned that Europe was completely socialist but I believe that any country that nationalizes healthcare and suppresses their people by excessive taxes is leaning on a socialist agenda. There has been case after case on how awful the healthcare in these societies are. I have friends in the UK who have to depend on privatized insurance to help pay for the healthcare that the government will not. What’s the point of having if it doesn’t do any good! Hell, Russia and China have a flat tax of 16% on their citizens, look at us. We’re leaning towards socialism too….. Look, do you know how much laser surgery cost 3 years ago? Its price is cut in half not because of government involvement but thru competition. In nationalized healthcare, you will not have that competition and those prices would never fall!
4) 911 happened over extreme ideologies just like what happened during Hitler’s reign. War is horrible and I don’t like it but it is necessary for liberty and freedom. Some people don’t believe that but I do!

5) I don’t think you’re an elitist but I do think you need to recognize that there are far more opportunities in this society than anywhere else in the world. We’re not a perfect nation but we are who we are.
6) I worked my way up through the military which like I said before, I believe in small government in the context of the constitution. I went to school and paid my own way. I managed to get a good job. Do you really think that more government regulation will allow innovation and competition to increase?
b) I have no idea why you think that I am imposing that all government involvement is bad. We give over 2.3 trillion dollars to the federal government a year to take care of our infrastructure and protect our borders. Only $4000 billion goes to the military. Where in the hell does the rest of it go? Tell me? I’m not even talking about the trillions that go to state and local governments either. It sure in the hell didn’t go to protecting our sovereignty did it? I mean there has been over 6,000 deaths on our borders due to drug related incidents from illegal’s. that’s more than the American casualties in Iraq.

c) I do believe we can move forward without an increase in taxes for more government programs that are bound to fail!

d) I will still work but my ambition to make more money and become more successful are now shot down because why should I work any harder when I know it’s going to the government. The Office of Management and Budget reported that was 39% short of meeting it’s financial goals. So out of the 5.2 trillion the government spends only 1.6 goes to actual benefit. You tell me where a good allocation of our money should be going?

Anonymous said...

Mark - Two things. First, I think our actions in the Middle East have whipped up hostile sentiment towards the U.S. Stories from reporters on the ground across the region suggest that al Qaeda is recruiting jihadists faster than we can kill them. I believe that. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Secondly, ideology aside, do you have any ideas as to how we are going to turn around our record deficit AND pay for the war which up to now we have borrowed in order to finance (a respected economist and former head of the IMF has estimated the total cost at $3 Trillion) WITHOUT raising taxes??? Seriously. How else are we going to balance the books and fund our war machine?

I'd love to hear some practical solutions that don't involve taxes.

Mark said...

We owe 500 billion in loans and the governemnt waste over 2 trillion in taxes a year. Hmmm... it seem to me that if we eliminate all earmarks and worhtless governemntal programs that doesn't benefit anybody; ie ethanol, that should be enough in it's own to pay off the war debt. Then thereafter we start working on our national debt. Bigger government means more and more of our taxes that goes to waste. I can't even imagine how much we'll have to spend in national healthcare and with a failed energy policy, the AMerican economy is just going to get worse. When you look at the waste in Federal spending each year, it makes "our" war machine seem like a matchbox car. Think about it just once, if we had a smaller governemnt, we could chip away at the debt each year. Can you imagine the huge beaucracy we would have if the Cap and Trade bill ever passed. Beside the war, would you at least agree that a lot of our tax dollars are wasted by Congress each year?

Anonymous said...

So all of our tax money is wasted? All of the programs are worthless?

My understanding is that we don't have much in the way of "programs" left anymore, insofar as you're talking about social services. Reagan slashed them; Clinton reformed welfare, W sure didn't create any. What programs are you going to cut? Social security?

Also, what do you think about bail-outs? Should the government let the airlines, amtrak, etc, go under? And farm subsidies? Should we do away with those as well?

Finally, I think there's a moral principle that we should keep in mind. As a society are we okay with a scenario, not uncommon today, where a CEO earns several million dollars and large annual increases in bonuses at the same time that his or her company is closing factories and laying off workers? This sort of thing has never been tolerated in American society until now. Is this your idea of a free-market? One in which a few gain at the expense of all others?

Mark said...

Did I ever once say all the governmental programs are worthless? No! Do I think NAFTA was a horrible idea, yes. Are you saying we should have one class? Is this your idea of liberty? Maybe I should turn down the next opportunity for the VP spot of my company. The guilt is killing me! How dare I try and develop my potential.

Anonymous said...

I think it's quite unreasonable to conclude that saying high level execs shouldn't be taking huge salaries and raises in the context of corporate decisions that put members of the working class out of work is akin to advocating for one economic class, don't you?

I'm not saying that you should feel guilty about your success. I just question the ethics of corporate decisions to lay off people who live paycheck to paycheck so that those at the top, execs, shareholders, etc., can bring in another million $.

Mark said...

I do agree there tends to be less ethics in today’s business world but you tend to only look at only the negative aspect of the big corporate nirvana. Have you ever thought about how those same evil corporations provided income for millions of families? Have you looked at the rest of the world nations and thought about their unemployment rate? In spite of all the money those evil executives get, have you noticed the real good they have provided by running an efficient company? We don’t have unemployed people dying in the streets because of starvation unlike some other nation, oh I don’t know….. maybe “Zimbabwe.” I mean the poorest families in this nation still have roofs, microwave, televisions, etc. I’m not going to blame some rich executive who worked hard to get to where he or she is at and had to lay off hundreds because of competition! When I got laid-off I didn’t cry about it, I grabbed my self by the bootstraps and got another one. I went to school. I bettered myself. Opportunities galore in this country. If you believe capatalism is evil and you had command of this country, I'm curious; what would anonymous do (WWAD)?

Anonymous said...

I think Jesus was pretty explicit about taking care of the poor. So if I were in charge, I'd do just that. It's probably reasonable to assume that wealthy corporations have some money to spare, and so I'd tax them and put this money into programs serving the poor.

I'd also get rid of corporate tax shelters. No more allowing "American" companies to put their "headquarters" in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes.

Are you really wanting to compare the U.S. to Zimbabwe?

How about we stick to other advanced industrialized nations, like those in Europe. What I don't like about Europe is that they are stuck in their traditions and it limits their way of thinking and viewing the world. What I do like about Europe is that they have managed to distribute their wealth realatively more equally than we have and without negative consequences for their economy.

Your statement, "I mean the poorest families in this nation still have roofs, microwave, televisions, etc." is laughable. No they don't. They're on the streets. Go to Paris, Berlin or Amsterdam and tell me how many homeless you see there. There are probably more in Pioneer Square than in all of these cities combined.

Mark said...

The poorest families comment was in reference to the US not other nations..........

Mark said...

I would get rid of corporate tax shelters as well and I do agree that Jesus’s principles work best! I give 10% of my income to my church. I send money to a child in Sri Lanka and give money to many organizations. But using the government your whole life to supply your every need is wrong. That’s what’s wrong with society today, we try and tell everyone that the government will take care of your every need! Let people stand on their own two feet and work hard to get ahead in society and please don’t lecture me on how there are still people out there who can’t get ahead if they tried. I understand some with disabilities but majority can. The ones that rely on the governemnt who can stand on there own two feet won't do it because someone else will take care of them. You can't tell me there's people out there not abusing the system. Allowing people to work hard and stand on there own two feet builds character. I don’t mind giving my tax dollars to help families who need help thru school and "need" welfare, ie Pell Grants. Sometimes I wish that I could take my tax dollars to those families myself because I sure don’t trust that the government is spending it wisely.

Anonymous said...

"The poorest families comment was in reference to the US not other nations.........."

So was mine. Our poorest families are homeless.

Thanks for the lecture on personal accountability. I'm sure that there must be some people out there "abusing the system" but it's not like we have, comparatively speaking, very generous welfare programs to begin with. What are all these services you're talking about that people rely on and are abusing. Can you point some of them out to me?

And your logic sucks, Mark. You conclude that because, I gather, you live comfortably, it must be because you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, and therefore, anyone who is in poverty or who asks their government to help take care of the little guy must just not be trying. Do you know how many Americans work multiple jobs, but just can't seem to get over the hump? Do you know how many more have been completely ruined financially because they or a loved one got sick?

Mark said...

Your poorest family argument is weak in comparison to third world countries. If there are families out there who are homeless then they are out of touch with SoS community services,beyondshelter.org and the other hundreds of programs available to prevent US families sleeping under bridges. How can you compare families in this nation to others? I think it’s because of capitalism that has kept this country strong and vibrant.
This country does more good for this country and third world countries than all nations combined. How much more generous should our welfare programs be? Welfare is one program many people are abusing. When you have a mother who is on welfare but continues to have kid after kid after kid or a person on welfare that buys more in cigarettes, alcohol and drugs rather than food for their children, it makes me sick! I’m not saying these people are not trying. I worked multiple jobs before, I know what it was like but you have to agree with me it’s the life decisions an individual makes that puts them in that situation. I know it depends sometimes on an individual’s environment but I’m not telling people to take drugs; get pregnant at 16, drink. I understand there are people struggling because of disease and medical reasons and we have programs for them as well. Your outlook in life is very bleak. You make people like me angry because I believe many people in this nation do try to help others through community service work, donations, etc. Yes, others can do more but we don’t live in a perfect society. This nation is not perfect nor is it’s institutions but we try. Have we had the perfect representation in office, absolutely not! When you have special interest groups that prevent the ability for corporations to prosper which then move overseas it’s an atrocity. No wonder we have pay $136 a barrel for gas, the Democrats think we can just switch to alternative energy overnight without impacting our economy based on false Science. Cap and Trade………..crap!!!!!!!! But that’s a different subject.