President Obama calls Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss 'fiscal cliff' - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macboy Pro 

Just tax the wealthy.  It will bring in $10 billion a year in new taxes.  That should take care of the $1Trillion++ Deficit and $17Trillion Debt.   Meanwhile, don't worry that those business will hire less and you lose less workforce (aka tax payers) and grow unemployment.    None of that will happen.  History has no place in helping us understand consequences.  

 

Since you exploited the 51% of our country that are blithering idiots and got yourself re-elected, you could at least do something to help your welfare society.   You should probably meet with Mr. Romney and find out how he helped all those companies come back from their own fiscal cliffs.    He is the right man for the job, regardless of whether he believes Sandra Fluck should receive free birth control.

 

Just saying...

Romney "helped" those companies by selling off non-performing parts, relocated manufacturing to 3rd world country, then took advantage of tax loopholes.  Let's see you come up a way to apply those strategies to help US government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple 

Obama talks with Tim Cook and Warren Buffett, but does he ever talk to small business people?  You know the mom bakery or the pop hardware store that may not have the millions, let alone billions, in cash reserves the likes these guys and their companies have?  We've already seen what Obamacare has started to do with certain businesses with over 50 employees that work 30 hours or more per week.  Fewer employees and less hours in order to comply with the Obamacare outs.  Unless you were union and got a waiver early on.  Should be an interesting year!...

More than he does with the Tim Cooks.

If Obama calls these business leaders to ask for opinions and advice about the looming 'fiscal cliff', don't you think that alone is his acknowledgement that a business man would be a better person to deal with our country's dire economic situation and should've been the one elected into the White House?

Just sayin'....

Quote:

Originally Posted by paxman 

The US has been waging some very expensive wars for the last decade or two.

Unfortunately neither of them require the kind of resources and money that US needed to fight the World War 2.  Today's defense spending likewise is less than 25% of the entire federal budget. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon 

 

So a healthy corporation is not in the best interest of the public?  

 

Personally, I can't imagine what Tim Cook could possibly tell President Obama.  If 16 trillion dollars in national debt and probably another 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) doesn't already get his attention, nothing will.   You simply can't keep spending money you don't have.  You can't keep on making promises you can't fulfill.   Well, you can.  But what do you do when China completely owns the US? 

Of course you can keep spending money that you don't have. The private sector does it every day. Borrowing and lending is the engine of capitalism. Did the private sector vow to never borrow beyond their own capital again after the financial meltdown in 2008-2009? Of course not. The ability of corporate America to make money would slow to an absolute crawl without constant borrowing. It's really just a cynical double-standard to claim that the U.S. (which bailed out the private banks) can't continue to borrow in order to grow the economy. And growing the economy is really the most viable way to reduce the debt relative to GDP. That's essentially what the U.S. did after World War II and it worked just fine. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion 

 

Of course you can keep spending money that you don't have. The private sector does it every day. Borrowing and lending is the engine of capitalism. Did the private sector vow to never borrow beyond their own capital again after the financial meltdown in 2008-2009? Of course not. The ability of corporate America to make money would slow to an absolute crawl without constant borrowing. It's really just a cynical double-standard to claim that the U.S. (which bailed out the private banks) can't continue to borrow in order to grow the economy. And growing the economy is really the most viable way to reduce the debt relative to GDP. That's essentially what the U.S. did after World War II and it worked just fine. 

OMG this is so stupid. Private companies that borrow money try to make a profit and pay the loans off. If they don't then they go into bankruptcy for reorganization or liquidation. Some of the outstanding loans are paid back for pennies on the dollar or not at all. The US Government has no such option. It doesn't make a profit and cannot go bankrupt. WW II is a terrible example. Wars end and the costs go away. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA ... those costs are never going away. A least not until the boomers all die which will be too late.

We're boned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooltalk 

 

Unfortunately neither of them require the kind of resources and money that US needed to fight the World War 2.  Today's defense spending likewise is less than 25% of the entire federal budget. 

Budget.... What budget?

;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

OMG this is so stupid. Private companies that borrow money try to make a profit and pay the loans off. If they don't then they go into bankruptcy for reorganization or liquidation. Some of the outstanding loans are paid back for pennies on the dollar or not at all. The US Government has no such option. It doesn't make a profit and cannot go bankrupt. WW II is a terrible example. Wars end and the costs go away. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA ... those costs are never going away. A least not until the boomers all die which will be too late.

 

We're boned.

So you've never heard of the term "structural debt" as it relates to the private sector? You don't think it's possible for a company to pay off debt and continue borrowing at the same time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by echosonic 

Here's a clue, to the stupid:

 

The national debt is upwards of 16 trillion dollars.  The YEARLY BUDGET DEFICIT is a total unknown, arbitrary number, because the government, thanks to democrats, has not PRODUCED an annual budget in 4 years, so the next time you want to spout off about the budget, just shut your hole.  There is no deficit until there is a budget, because without a budget, you don't know what the deficit number is.

Before you call others clueless or stupid, it might be a good idea stop and ask 'could I be accused of the same too?' You know, so that you don't make an a$$ of yourself. (i) We have an actual deficit that you can look up; (ii) We have various different budgets proposed by various protagonists, each of which has a budgeted deficit, that you can look up (granted, none of them may be any better than wishful thinking on either side of the aisle); (iii) There are many, many forecasts of business-as-usual scenarios with forecasted deficits that you can look up.

The fact that Congress 'passes a budget' doesn't make its forecast any more or less accurate than pulling a number out of that 'hole' you speak of.

The only real number is from the past. The rest is b-s, regardless of whether a budget has 'passed' or not. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by echosonic 

The load of BS is almost everything you just said.  The lifeblood of this country is not a series of corporations, it is a plethora of small businesses, and all of them are independent, and all of them rely on every available dime fro growth.

 

Start a company and build something before you open your mouth to say something so stupid again.  You don't have clue what you're talking about.

I agree that the smaller the business the greater taxation is going to have on hiring or laying off employees as a second order effect.   However, it is demand that inherently drives growth not the bump or decrease in the tax rate.    But if a company is operating at a profit the demand of the product and/or service will determine the number of employees more than any other factor.    The tax rate will be felt more directly in the profits, wages and price of product/service.

A tax rate increase will more likely drive the product/service price up.  This could decrease demand indirectly and thus effect jobs.  This is one reason to have stimulus packages and NOT increase taxes during a depressed economy.  Hmmmm....   I wonder who had stimulus packages and did not raise taxes?  Any guesses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dickprinter 

If Obama calls these business leaders to ask for opinions and advice about the looming 'fiscal cliff', don't you think that alone is his acknowledgement that a business man would be a better person to deal with our country's dire economic situation and should've been the one elected into the White House?

Absolutely not. Obama is just being Obama. Inclusive not exclusive. Why not get the major heads of business on board? It only makes sense. Romney wouldn't have called Tim Cook. He would have just consulted the Tea Party extremists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

It's be hilarious if the goons in DC don't reach a deal and we fall off the fiscal cliff. 

 

I have very little faith in the leadership of this county and I am prepared.

The fiscal cliff might be the best thing for this country - the more the government and the Fed try to "fix the economy" the worse they make it.

Both revenue increases (taxes) and spending cuts will be required.  Given the current political leadership in both parties,  I could see them crafting some twisted contrived "solution" that banks on improbable economic predictions and spending "cuts" which are really just a slowing of the past growth of increased Federal spending.  No one will step up and make the hard choices and offer real solutions.  

A rewrite and simplification of the tax code which eliminates most deductions and tax credits given to special interest groups is needed.  Raising the taxes on the top 1% won't generate enough revenue - and may raise very little because the very rich all have accountants and tax lawyers and trust funds to avoid paying taxes.  8 of the 10 richest counties in the US went for Obama in the election, and they were laughing all the way to the bank.

The elimination of pork barrel projects and special deals for various groups needs to happen.  Anytime you have to give a business or industry a special deal you are distorting what the true market value of the goods and services are they produce.  (See bailouts).  

I don't think any sane person would say that we don't need a Federal government and do believe that it has important roles to play in our country, but with all the waste and bureaucracy the truly important responsibilities placed on the Federal government get lost in the mess.  

The financial cliff would force change to happen and might make the voters finally rise up and throw all the bums from both the Democrats and Republicans out on their behinds.  A centrist third-party that did not cater to the far-left or far-right and focused on a fiscally responsible government that did not attempt to invade people's private lives or dictate social morals could get a lot of support from Americans who really care about the future of this country and all of its citizens would be welcome. 

Our current politicians could start by giving the US Constitution a good read.

I too am tired of all of the bullcrap from both parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

It's be hilarious if the goons in DC don't reach a deal and we fall off the fiscal cliff. 

 

I have very little faith in the leadership of this county and I am prepared.

We'll see about that. You seem to me like an evolutional loser. Good luck surviving the times they are a changing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


No. A country and a business are run differently.

Tell that to Mike Bloomberg. He seems to be doing pretty good with his City.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

We'll see about that. You seem to me like an evolutional loser. Good luck surviving the times they are a changing.

We'll see about that. And I believe that you've misused the word evolution, as devolution is a more fitting term, as that is the direction that the country is heading in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dickprinter 

 

Tell that to Mike Bloomberg. He seems to be doing pretty good with his City.

New York is a mess and Bloomberg is an idiot, although, at least he's not afraid to tackle the important issues... like large sodas.

While being successful in businessman doesn't necessarily preclude being good at political governance, there's no reason we should think it particularly qualifies someone to be a political leader.

It's the job of a business leader to make his own company successful, and if he does that by laying waste to dozens of companies around him, putting more people out of work than he employees, and generally causing more harm than good, that's OK. His stock price went up and he's a "successful businessman".

That however, I think, is not the model of a successful political leader, who is responsible for creating conditions that will lead to optimal success for the broadest segment, for all businesses, not just a single business.

That's just one difference between the two jobs. There are hundreds, thousands, more. So, no, the idea that we ought to have businessmen running things because, "they understand how to get the economy working," isn't sensible. Quite the contrary.

Hmmmm. Here's a solution for Mr. Hopey Changey - maybe stop bombing the hell out of useless countries overseas and subsidizing Israel while Americans starve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion 

 

So you've never heard of the term "structural debt" as it relates to the private sector? You don't think it's possible for a company to pay off debt and continue borrowing at the same time?

It's one thing to use a LOC to float your payroll or fund infrastructure based on confirmed contracts and another to borrow endlessly and kick the can down the road. Krugman and the rest of them are dangerously wrong about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

It's one thing to use a LOC to float your payroll or fund infrastructure based on confirmed contracts and another to borrow endlessly and kick the can down the road. Krugman and the rest of them are dangerously wrong about that.

Can you point us to where Krugman or "the rest of them" said that corporate and government debt are equivalent and bound by the same principles?

Well, no you can't, yet you are conflating them here. I know that's a common argument technique on the right, but, frankly, it just makes you seem hopelessly confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Can you point us to where Krugman or "the rest of them" said that corporate and government debt are equivalent and bound by the same principles?

 

Well, no you can't, yet you are conflating them here. I know that's a common argument technique on the right, but, frankly, it just makes you seem hopelessly confused.

He's not conflating them, he's comparing them.  Krugman et al are arguing for massively increased borrowing to fund the Keynesian folly of government creating growth.  FloorJack is saying that massive debt and deficits will have a serious negative impact, and are more dangerous than Krugman realizes.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

We'll see about that. You seem to me like an evolutional loser. Good luck surviving the times they are a changing.

We'll see about that. And I believe that you've misused the word evolution, as devolution is a more fitting term, as that is the direction that the country is heading in.

Extinction of dinosaurs is part of the evolutionary process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

He's not conflating them, he's comparing them.  Krugman et al are arguing for massively increased borrowing to fund the Keynesian folly of government creating growth.  FloorJack is saying that massive debt and deficits will have a serious negative impact, and are more dangerous than Krugman realizes.   

He's not making a comparison, and yes he and you are conflating them in your arguments. You are essentially saying that, "a company can't just go on borrowing, so the finances of the government are in trouble if they do."

Of course, this "argument" of yours also hinges on pretending that Krugman has said that any amount of government debt is ok, which he hasn't, and that they are no downsides to debt for the government, which he also hasn't said. What he has said is that we're in a tough situation with two unpleasant choices -- cut our way to prosperity, or spend our way to prosperity -- neither of which is ideal, but one of which -- cutting -- would be disastrous. So, unless you can explain how cutting federal spending will stimulate the economy, rather than stifle it, you should stop tossing around phrases like "Keynsian folly", because the only folly here is the idea that by shrinking the size of the economy we'll grow it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

He's not making a comparison, and yes he and you are conflating them in your arguments. You are essentially saying that, "a company can't just go on borrowing, so the finances of the government are in trouble if they do."

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  

 

 

 

 

Krugman is arguing for massively increased borrowing in spite of record deficits and debt, correct?  Can you provide some links to times where he has argued for limits on debt, deficits, etc?  

 

 

 

 

False dilemma.  Those are not the two choices.  

 

 

 

 

That's a strawman and highly misleading.  I agree that cutting spending alone will not stimulate the economy, just as I agree that government spending contributes to the economy in some way.  However, the best kind of economic stimulus involves cutting taxes.  Private citizens and the private sector spend money more efficiently and more effectively than government.  They create lasting growth and jobs.  Government does not.  Simultaneously, we must reduce the size and scope of the government to get our fiscal situation under control.   The problem with your position (and why I call Krugman's a Kenyesian Folly) is that it presumes government spending is the best (and often, only) solution for economic growth.  I reject this notion.  

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you reject it even though you offer no arguments to support your position. The problem is that you are arguing from religious belief, not facts and history. The private sector isn't going to spend us out of a recession, they're going to sit on their cash until they see a recovery in progress. Austerity is not a recipe for recovery, it's a recipe for worsening a recession into a depression.

You have to admit it seems a little bit Naive to ask the CEO of the company that practically "invented" the 'Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich' how to go about improving our tax code.

With that trick Apple manages to pay less than 2% taxes on earnings of $37bil and GE managed to not only pay $0 in taxes on $14bil in profits, but managed to get a $3.5 bil credit to boot.

End the corporate welfare first.  Then go after the little fish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood 

You have to admit it seems a little bit Naive to ask the CEO of the company that practically "invented" the 'Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich' how to go about improving our tax code.

 

With that trick Apple manages to pay less than 2% taxes on earnings of $37bil and GE managed to not only pay $0 in taxes on $14bil in profits, but managed to get a $3.5 bil credit to boot.

 

End the corporate welfare first.  Then go after the little fish.

I thought that was a Bain Capital invention

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugsnw 

Who do we owe this money to? We're not paying it back. There, I just solved the debt problem. -- Dennis Miller
Taxes are a cost do doing business. Higher taxes hurt small business (and people). Businesses are running away from CA into TX, a far more biz friendly state. High taxes and regulations are harmful. Obama leans in that direction. I don't see a zeal to cut spending in him. In a debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama was given a little history regarding Bill Clinton's cap gains tax hike, which resulted in lower treasury revenue. Hillary said she would not raise it, but Obama said he would, for the principle of fairness. Yikes.
What he should have said was what JFK said.....let's try to lower taxes to stimulate and grow the economy. Our tax code needs an aggressive overhaul as it stands today.
Steve Jobs admonished Obama for his business hostile stance, saying he would be a one term president. Unfortunately, he was wrong.

Our tax code does need an overhaul, but not the one you suggest. This country has been following the right wing prescription for job growth -- tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts -- for the last 30 years, and it has repeatedly failed. Not only has it not been effective at creating jobs, but real income for the middle class has gone down over this same period. (And, frankly, your little capital gains anecdote doesn't impress, it reeks of post hoc reasoning.)

What tax cuts and other right wing economic policies have accomplished is the largest redistribution of wealth in this countries history. These policies amount to nothing more than welfare for the rich, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the rich in the form of interest on the national debt, And, it's beyond disingenuous for the right to complain about deficits, when right wing presidents are the ones who are responsible for blowing up the national debt, and the only period of real prosperity the country has experienced in the last 30 years was under a president who didn't follow those policies.

Nearly as disingenuous as the right blaming the current administration for the present economic mess, which was created by the previous right wing administration, who put us into the worst recession the world has experienced in the lifetime of probably anyone reading this.

Right wing economic policies, otherwise known as tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of everything (because, a society doesn't need laws) have been a colossal disaster, not just for this country, but for the world. There are no facts or evidence to support these beliefs, and the facts and evidence contradicting them are now so strong that one can only hold them by discarding reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Our tax code does need an overhaul, but not the one you suggest. This country has been following the right wing prescription for job growth -- tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts -- for the last 30 years, and it has repeatedly failed. Not only has it not been effective at creating jobs, but real income for the middle class has gone down over this same period. (And, frankly, your little capital gains anecdote doesn't impress, it reeks of post hoc reasoning.)

 

What tax cuts and other right wing economic policies have accomplished is the largest redistribution of wealth in this countries history. These policies amount to nothing more than welfare for the rich, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the rich in the form of interest on the national debt, And, it's beyond disingenuous for the right to complain about deficits, when right wing presidents are the ones who are responsible for blowing up the national debt, and the only period of real prosperity the country has experienced in the last 30 years was under a president who didn't follow those policies.

 

Nearly as disingenuous as the right blaming the current administration for the present economic mess, which was created by the previous right wing administration, who put us into the worst recession the world has experienced in the lifetime of probably anyone reading this.

 

Right wing economic policies, otherwise known as tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of everything (because, a society doesn't need laws) have been a colossal disaster, not just for this country, but for the world. There are no facts or evidence to support these beliefs, and the facts and evidence contradicting them are now so strong that one can only hold them by discarding reason.

Exactly the type of ideological stubbornness that's no help at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
However, the best kind of economic stimulus involves cutting taxes.  Private citizens and the private sector spend money more efficiently and more effectively than government.  They create lasting growth and jobs.  Government does not.  Simultaneously, we must reduce the size and scope of the government to get our fiscal situation under control.   The problem with your position (and why I call Krugman's a Kenyesian Folly) is that it presumes government spending is the best (and often, only) solution for economic growth.  I reject this notion.  

 

 

 

 

 

Tax cuts are statistically known to be one of the weakest forms forms of stimulus in terms of "bang for the buck". The CBO has confirmed this time and time again, and the federal government has decades of statistics on it. One of the problems with tax cuts as a stimulus during slower economic times is that people tend to save the money rather than spend it if they're worried about the economy...and it's only SPENDING of the money that stimulates the economy. Unemployment insurance and food stamps actually provide a higher percentage of "bang for the buck" than tax cuts when the economy is slow. 

And when you look at the Fortune 500 in this country, what do you see? Do you see a lack of profit and a lack of cash reserves that could be used to spend on hiring etc.? No, you see record levels of profit and cash reserves. It's not like the private sector lacks the money to expand and is in desperate need of a tax cut to free up some additional $$. They're mostly just waiting for demand to pick up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion 

 

Tax cuts are statistically known to be one of the weakest forms forms of stimulus in terms of "bang for the buck". The CBO has confirmed this time and time again, and the federal government has decades of statistics on it. One of the problems with tax cuts as a stimulus during slower economic times is that people tend to save the money rather than spend it if they're worried about the economy...and it's only SPENDING of the money that stimulates the economy. Unemployment insurance and food stamps actually provide a higher percentage of "bang for the buck" than tax cuts when the economy is slow. 

 

And when you look at the Fortune 500 in this country, what do you see? Do you see a lack of profit and a lack of cash reserves that could be used to spend on hiring etc.? No, you see record levels of profit and cash reserves. It's not like the private sector lacks the money to expand and is in desperate need of a tax cut to free up some additional $$. They're mostly just waiting for demand to pick up.

Okay so so what? How about we give up the whole "stimulus" idea all together. While we are at it we can give up the foolish notion that tax increases will solve the budget problem. Then also the foolish idea of taxes being "fair" or that there is a "fair share". Also that taxes should be used to make life for "fair". That's just political rhetoric. Let's cling to the idea that government needs just enough money to function. Any more is a waste and government function should be kept to a minimum in order to create more freedom.