Corporate Socialism

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:30 am

It seems everybody is talking about all the entitlement programs and socialism as it relates to "the common man", yet I've heard very little mention on this board about corporate socialism and how government is actually helping business in unfair ways that actually are hurting the middle class and the poor.

I've been reading a book by David Cay Johnston called "Free Lunch" that addresses this issue and I was wondering if anyone had read any of his work?

Actually, I'd like to hear any opinions you have on corporate socialism and how government regulations and rules are actually rigged in favor of business at the detriment of the people.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:49 am

I've posted, more than once, my disagreement with corporate welfare.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:35 am

I've contended more than once that businesses should succeed or fail based on their own merits. The mortgage mess began with Fanny and Freddy manipulating the housing market. The health care mess began with Medicare dictating procedural costs and algorithmic formulations. The banking mess started with the FED almost 100 years ago. Regulating what can or cannot be done on private property, taxing large corporations out of competition while allowing foreign importers cart blanch access to our markets. Paying farmers to hold their land fallow is outrageous! The market has not been free for many generations, yet nobody holds the U.S. Government accountable for all their unintended consequences.

Ahhhhhhh JK you got me started,,,,, DAMMIT!

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:11 pm

why do you bother?

first of all, your conclusions based on barely semi-facts are erroneous.

secondly, by blathering on and on about your deluded opinions of our government you make the obvious all to clear.

you cant do anything to change it. you wont do anything to change it. you prefer to spout Fox News inspired non-sequitars instead of positive action.

same old shit, different day...

so, in the name of keeping my sanity against the constant dribble of a clap infected penis-mind and the numerous suckers of said vile cum, i give you a brief interlude.

this video will hypnotize you into actually getting a fucking clue...

go, biggie, go.

[youtube][/youtube]

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:43 pm

Simon, the reason I 'do it' is because I think discourse on these issues is important. There are lots of posts on this board that saying I disagree with would be an understatement to say the least. But there have also been eureka moments where there has been, if not a meeting of the minds, at least a much clearer insight into the issues. That's what makes it worthwhile to me.

JK

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:52 pm

john, i was referring to the neo-con drivel from TnT.

it makes we want to vomit when i hear these re-gurgitated memes ceaselessly repeated by people who cannot think for themselves and instead rely on fox news and the dark stinky corners of the interweb like RENSE.COM amongst others, to feed them their daily supply of hate-shit.

i know you're a democrat...I also know you have a fairly well informed opinion of all things political.

i dont mind debating facts, figures and historical reference and historical analysis, but i will not bother with swine, who have been reduced to swilling on so called pearls from their television Set.

theres is no point....stupid is as stupid does.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:21 pm

So please overwhelm us with your unsurpassed knowledge of the issues!

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:23 pm

pearls.swine.no.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:29 pm

If you truly believe in nothing then WTF do YOU care? If everything is sacred, name calling those who actually express an opinion is nothing more than sanctimonious inuendo. Just because someone might have some knowledge of truth beyond your 3 year-old mind, does not justify your playground antics of offense. Go pee on someone else's leg!

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:34 pm

it's funny how up in arms the right gets when called out on their shit....

However, they have no problem name calling all day every day.

if you plan on shoveling it, be prepared for my back-loader.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:32 pm

I hate how job-training funds are used by McDonald's. I consider it theft from the american people.

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:29 pm

Simon of the Playa wrote:john, i was referring to the neo-con drivel from TnT.

it makes we want to vomit when i hear these re-gurgitated memes ceaselessly repeated by people who cannot think for themselves and instead rely on fox news and the dark stinky corners of the interweb like RENSE.COM amongst others, to feed them their daily supply of hate-shit.

i know you're a democrat...I also know you have a fairly well informed opinion of all things political.

i dont mind debating facts, figures and historical reference and historical analysis, but i will not bother with swine, who have been reduced to swilling on so called pearls from their television Set.

theres is no point....stupid is as stupid does.

Thanks, but I'm going to stick up for TNT here. I don't agree with many of his posts, but what he writes is is his opinion based on his life experience. (when i was a LOT younger, i actually held public office as a Republican, so I've lived the other side) I know from reading his other posts that he isn't illiterate. So, I know he can reason. I figure the only chance I have of influencing his opinion is to respect where he is coming from and try to present my views in a way that he might not have considered before.

I shouldn't be directing this at TNT, as I try to do this with everybody, with a few topics excepted, like religion and anybody quoting Glen Beck.

I know it can be frustrating at times, which is why I have stopped watching news all day! And I know I've been less polite than I should have been when emotion takes over. But hey, nobody's perfect.

JK

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:47 am

John, you have your lines in the sand, i have mine.

And some people cannot and will not have their minds changed by fact logic or kindness.

Im not saying TNT is one of these people, but when i see the same cut and dried cliches masquerading as thoughts delivered over and over again, i speak my mind.

I dont really care what other people think of my frankness.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:24 am

SOP wrote:

i dont mind debating facts, figures and historical reference and historical analysis, but i will not bother with swine, who have been reduced to swilling on so called pearls from their television Set.

If you don't mind debating facts, get on with it! I take it you are of the opinion the FED was a good thing back in 1913. They were supposed to stop the boom and bust cycles previously experienced in our country. Twenty years later, we had the greatest depression of our history. You support the U.S. Senate placed by popular vote instead of State Legislatures. You support farm subsidies? You support appointed officials (with permission of elected officials) telling us what our healthcare should be? You support appointed officials (with permission of elected officials) giving away mortgages which therefore falsely increased housing prices.

I do not argue there are corporations receiving special treatment. Goldman Sachs is blessed with great talent. A good share of that talent works in the Treasury Department and FED. Was this not Corporate Socialism to pick which investment firm wins and which one loses? A moratorium on oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico last year was simultaneous with a $200B infusion of U.S. Government funds to Brazil for,,,,,, oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico! Is this not Corporate Socialism?

Just because I agree with certain pundits does not mean they are my sole source of information. Facts are facts no matter where they come from or who might agree with them. Please do not assume me a puppet for anybody's agenda.

Again I say, pigeon-holing and catagorizing individuals as if they are "swine" you cannot be "bothered" is elitist and drives at the heart of this current class system which tears us apart.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:21 am

I've contended more than once that businesses should succeed or fail based on their own merits.

Absolutely agree. Same with individual people.

If you don't mind debating facts, get on with it! I take it you are of the opinion the FED was a good thing back in 1913. They were supposed to stop the boom and bust cycles previously experienced in our country.

Well, actually, there was a recession just before the Great Depression that was averted by drastically cutting government spending and cutting taxes. What happened after the stock market collapse was a little different and is pretty much what is currently going on with the housing market crash.

Individuals were given unbelievably cheap credit to invest in the stock market. There was a lot of leverage. You could buy on margin and put up very little of your own money (sort of like buying a house with little or no money down). Then the market collapsed. Trouble was that the banks had a considerable amount of their capital lent out on stock market investments (much like they currently had a lot lent out on mortgages.)

Had there been no FDIC, there would have been another run on the banks as we saw in the 1930's. The government made the great depression worse by putting wage controls in place. Business owners were prevented from reducing salaries as profits fell. As a result, they simply closed throwing the employees out of work. These days the unions play that role and refuse to allow wage reductions resulting in layoffs.

Currently the government is making the situation worse by not allowing some firms to die that should. Doing things like stopping foreclosures will extend the misery, too, because it only delays the inevitable. It keeps banks on the hook for dead loans longer forcing the banks to hold more reserves that they can not lend.

In fact, I see just about the very worst possible move being made each time they do something. It is as if they are doing the things designed to make this worse and last longer.

There is nothing they are going to be able to do to reduce the housing glut for at least 20 years unless they start just reducing supply by razing older units that foreclose. The baby boom generation moving out of that last big house is going to free up millions of them. This isn't a problem where it is going to turn around in the next year or two. This problem is going to be with us for a couple of decades because you have the largest generation in American history moving out of the housing market.

This country is not financially situated to see 10,000 people retire (on average) each day for the next 20 years.

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:23 am

Well, on the positive side of money, banks and government:

The state of Oregon has received $200+ million dollars in TARP funds from the federal govt. Rather than just handing it straight to banks, they are setting up a series of programs to help pay mortgages for people that have suffered income reduction, moving & relocation assistance funds for those that have lost homes to foreclosure, things of that nature. It's nice to see that kind of money being used to help real people rather than just businesses.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:17 am

As long as the corporations are stronger than the government, they will make the rules and ordinary citizens will pay the price.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:17 pm

If you don't mind my saying so, Dougly, well, duh...

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:35 pm

The CO wrote:Well, on the positive side of money, banks and government:

The state of Oregon has received $200+ million dollars in TARP funds from the federal govt. Rather than just handing it straight to banks, they are setting up a series of programs to help pay mortgages for people that have suffered income reduction, moving & relocation assistance funds for those that have lost homes to foreclosure, things of that nature. It's nice to see that kind of money being used to help real people rather than just businesses.

So the obvious question is, where did the "federal govt." get those funds?

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:59 pm

Geekster wrote:

Well, actually, there was a recession just before the Great Depression that was averted by drastically cutting government spending and cutting taxes. What happened after the stock market collapse was a little different and is pretty much what is currently going on with the housing market crash.

And that was to the credit of Calvin Coolidge after WWI when unemployment was much higher than what we officially have now.

Individuals were given unbelievably cheap credit to invest in the stock market. There was a lot of leverage. You could buy on margin and put up very little of your own money (sort of like buying a house with little or no money down). Then the market collapsed. Trouble was that the banks had a considerable amount of their capital lent out on stock market investments (much like they currently had a lot lent out on mortgages.)

That unbelievably cheap credit was provided by the FED, was it not? Much like the oil speculators today who affect prices based on futures.

Had there been no FDIC, there would have been another run on the banks as we saw in the 1930's. The government made the great depression worse by putting wage controls in place. Business owners were prevented from reducing salaries as profits fell. As a result, they simply closed throwing the employees out of work. These days the unions play that role and refuse to allow wage reductions resulting in layoffs.

Price controls were also put into place. Henry Ford refused to play along and was black listed from doing business with fed gov't. So not only were employers strapped by frozen wages but they could not adjust prices either.

Currently the government is making the situation worse by not allowing some firms to die that should. Doing things like stopping foreclosures will extend the misery, too, because it only delays the inevitable. It keeps banks on the hook for dead loans longer forcing the banks to hold more reserves that they can not lend.

Just think about housing prices. Around here, they rose double-digit percentages per year as the bubble inflated. Now, gov't is trying to prop up these inflated prices to maintain unrealistic values which are unsustainable. I would contend also, that many companies,,,, even green energy and conservation companies were given funding because of persons in business whom are either related or associates of D.C. heavyweights.

In fact, I see just about the very worst possible move being made each time they do something. It is as if they are doing the things designed to make this worse and last longer.

I know many here disagree,,,, but I sincerely believe it is purposeful dismantling of our quality of life. There are those in power who want us to be globally competitive by diminishing us rather than inspiring others.

This country is not financially situated to see 10,000 people retire (on average) each day for the next 20 years.

Retire? Not me! I just hope I die in my sleep after working myself to death.

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:53 am

Trishntek wrote:So the obvious question is, where did the "federal govt." get those funds?

I don't know off the top of my head & don't like to speculate, but if it bugs you a lot I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find out.

My point was more about where those funds are going and how they are being used to actually help people rather than being handed to a corporation or bank for bailout purposes. Anything that helps people keep a roof over there heads in this economy is a good thing.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:20 pm

An interesting phenomenon which has been taking place for years in California occurred to me this morning. I work at several healthcare facilities around the state and all of them have been required to refit their buildings for earthquake resistance. Hundreds of $millions$, if not $billions$ per each facility is being spent in new construction. It is a boon to the construction companies and a major boost to local economies. But it is also a major outlay of "healthcare funds".

I'm just pondering whether the "cost of healthcare" nationwide is related to these major investments. I mean, the money has to come from somewhere and one would assume hospitals pay for their campuses with money they earn from patient care,,,, right?

So following that logic, is it not accurate to say the mandated construction costs contribute to increase healthcare expenses? I'm sure there are tax breaks and maybe even assistance from public funds. Obviously the county hospitals would fall into the latter category. But privately and corporately owned facilities are dealing with huge outlays of coin due to mandated construction costs.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:09 pm

Imagine with me if you will. A catastrophic earthquake. You've broken your spine. The hospital is in ruins. Go ahead and let your imagination take you...

Your "health care dollars" are eaten up when your physician gets compensated for a percentage of the procedures he or she recommends for you. Bruised knee? CAT scan! Let's do some bloodwork!

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:13 pm

Oh I don't argue the need for updating earthquake resilience. I'm just saying there are mandated costs there which have to be passed onto the consumer somewhere along the line. And if that is so, does it not contribute to the rise in healthcare cost?

As one who works along side surgeons on a regular basis, I can tell you they do not and legally cannot receive any compensation from the hospitals unless they are employees of an HMO like Kaiser.

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Trishntek wrote:An interesting phenomenon which has been taking place for years in California occurred to me this morning. I work at several healthcare facilities around the state and all of them have been required to refit their buildings for earthquake resistance. Hundreds of $millions$, if not $billions$ per each facility is being spent in new construction. It is a boon to the construction companies and a major boost to local economies. But it is also a major outlay of "healthcare funds".

I'm just pondering whether the "cost of healthcare" nationwide is related to these major investments. I mean, the money has to come from somewhere and one would assume hospitals pay for their campuses with money they earn from patient care,,,, right?

So following that logic, is it not accurate to say the mandated construction costs contribute to increase healthcare expenses? I'm sure there are tax breaks and maybe even assistance from public funds. Obviously the county hospitals would fall into the latter category. But privately and corporately owned facilities are dealing with huge outlays of coin due to mandated construction costs.

My guess is no. Just like the new affordable health care act prevents insurance companies from spending over a certain percentage on non-related expenses, I would guess that costs not directly related to patient care would not be factored into health care costs.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:05 pm

jkisha wrote:
Trishntek wrote:An interesting phenomenon which has been taking place for years in California occurred to me this morning. I work at several healthcare facilities around the state and all of them have been required to refit their buildings for earthquake resistance. Hundreds of $millions$, if not $billions$ per each facility is being spent in new construction. It is a boon to the construction companies and a major boost to local economies. But it is also a major outlay of "healthcare funds".

I'm just pondering whether the "cost of healthcare" nationwide is related to these major investments. I mean, the money has to come from somewhere and one would assume hospitals pay for their campuses with money they earn from patient care,,,, right?

So following that logic, is it not accurate to say the mandated construction costs contribute to increase healthcare expenses? I'm sure there are tax breaks and maybe even assistance from public funds. Obviously the county hospitals would fall into the latter category. But privately and corporately owned facilities are dealing with huge outlays of coin due to mandated construction costs.
My guess is no. Just like the new affordable health care act prevents insurance companies from spending over a certain percentage on non-related expenses, I would guess that costs not directly related to patient care would not be factored into health care costs.

JK

How does that work?
They've got a bucket of money.
the need to fix a building.
they take money from the bucket, to do that.
now, they need more money.
Where does it come from?
Yeah, they may hide the process, but, they won't stay in business, if they start to lose money, so, ultimately, don't they get it from "us"?
It seems we're talking here about "mandated" things...not discretionary spending.
I guess I might see it with things like management "retreats" and cars and such.....but not earthquake mandates.....

or, did I read that wrong?

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:18 pm

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
Trishntek wrote:An interesting phenomenon which has been taking place for years in California occurred to me this morning. I work at several healthcare facilities around the state and all of them have been required to refit their buildings for earthquake resistance. Hundreds of $millions$, if not $billions$ per each facility is being spent in new construction. It is a boon to the construction companies and a major boost to local economies. But it is also a major outlay of "healthcare funds".

I'm just pondering whether the "cost of healthcare" nationwide is related to these major investments. I mean, the money has to come from somewhere and one would assume hospitals pay for their campuses with money they earn from patient care,,,, right?

So following that logic, is it not accurate to say the mandated construction costs contribute to increase healthcare expenses? I'm sure there are tax breaks and maybe even assistance from public funds. Obviously the county hospitals would fall into the latter category. But privately and corporately owned facilities are dealing with huge outlays of coin due to mandated construction costs.
My guess is no. Just like the new affordable health care act prevents insurance companies from spending over a certain percentage on non-related expenses, I would guess that costs not directly related to patient care would not be factored into health care costs.

JK
How does that work?
They've got a bucket of money.
the need to fix a building.
they take money from the bucket, to do that.
now, they need more money.
Where does it come from?
Yeah, they may hide the process, but, they won't stay in business, if they start to lose money, so, ultimately, don't they get it from "us"?
It seems we're talking here about "mandated" things...not discretionary spending.
I guess I might see it with things like management "retreats" and cars and such.....but not earthquake mandates.....

or, did I read that wrong?

Like I said twice in my answer, I'm just guessing. Of course money is fungible, but that isn't legal. Hospitals get their money from a variety of sources. Money from the government designated for health care cannot be spent on building improvement expenses. This is not a guess. It's the same as colleges that get money for stem cell research for example...none of that money can be legally spent on new stem cell lines. Same with abortions, no federal money given to health care facilities can be spent on that either.

Earthquake retrofitting is a state issue, though i wouldn't be surprised to find out that money is provided by the state for items they mandate. Ironic considering CA is broke as it is.

JK

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:02 pm

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote: My guess is no. Just like the new affordable health care act prevents insurance companies from spending over a certain percentage on non-related expenses, I would guess that costs not directly related to patient care would not be factored into health care costs.

JK
How does that work?
They've got a bucket of money.
the need to fix a building.
they take money from the bucket, to do that.
now, they need more money.
Where does it come from?
Yeah, they may hide the process, but, they won't stay in business, if they start to lose money, so, ultimately, don't they get it from "us"?
It seems we're talking here about "mandated" things...not discretionary spending.
I guess I might see it with things like management "retreats" and cars and such.....but not earthquake mandates.....

or, did I read that wrong?
Like I said twice in my answer, I'm just guessing. Of course money is fungible, but that isn't legal. Hospitals get their money from a variety of sources. Money from the government designated for health care cannot be spent on building improvement expenses. This is not a guess. It's the same as colleges that get money for stem cell research for example...none of that money can be legally spent on new stem cell lines. Same with abortions, no federal money given to health care facilities can be spent on that either.

Earthquake retrofitting is a state issue, though i wouldn't be surprised to find out that money is provided by the state for items they mandate. Ironic considering CA is broke as it is.

JK

JK

ok, that makes more sense......thanks for the elucidation.

I can see the linear money thing.

you're always so patient with me..........

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:04 pm

Well in the context of Corporate Socialism, I see your point JK. But I would contend those facilities who's primary source of income is via private insurance and patients' personal payments have got to be spending a good piece of that income for mandated upgrades.

Corporate Socialism goes both ways. There are winners and there are losers. Right here in Ventura, the county hospital just finished one new building and received approval for another $250M construction project. Their primary source of income is public funds. The majority of their patients are either uninsured, MediCal and Medicare.

Meanwhile, the privately owned community hospital is still seeking loans to satisfy mandated upgrades to the tune of $800M while the county hospital already completed theirs!

The community hospital is one of my biggest customers while the county hospital doesn't even have 220V outlets for my equipment to plug into for power!

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:39 pm

Trishntek wrote:Well in the context of Corporate Socialism, I see your point JK. But I would contend those facilities who's primary source of income is via private insurance and patients' personal payments have got to be spending a good piece of that income for mandated upgrades.

Corporate Socialism goes both ways. There are winners and there are losers. Right here in Ventura, the county hospital just finished one new building and received approval for another $250M construction project. Their primary source of income is public funds. The majority of their patients are either uninsured, MediCal and Medicare.

Meanwhile, the privately owned community hospital is still seeking loans to satisfy mandated upgrades to the tune of $800M while the county hospital already completed theirs!

The community hospital is one of my biggest customers while the county hospital doesn't even have 220V outlets for my equipment to plug into for power!

I'll bet there are plenty of these sorts of examples. I'm thinking that it might just be like watching the evening news at eleven though. The only thing that is reported is the number of murders, the city councilman that was found guilty of corruption, the person that was killed in a car crash, all the negative stuff, because that's what makes news.

Now let's start counting the number of people that weren't murdered, the city councilmen that have never been corrupt, the people that were never in a car crash and all of the positive stuff that actually happens everyday.

My point is, that whenever there is money involved, no matter if it's from the government or private sources, there will always be those that are corrupt in how they spend or steal the money. That's not a reason to just give up or to assume that the entire system is corrupt. It should be a call to action to try to clean up all the abuses and make the system function as it was intended to function.

I see it like a glass half full, I guess...or maybe three quarters full, and I want to make sure it gets filled to the brim with good and root out the corruption along the way.

Personally, I don't mind paying taxes if I believe they are being put to good use. I will be the first to admit that at times, they aren't; but I think the good far outweighs the bad.

Just my opinion.

JK

Corporate Socialism

Corporate Socialism

SIT DOWN SHUT UP AND GET HYPNTZD.