Mark Cuban, "spend it or lose it" idea.

[Brian37]

No it isn't in the wrong thread. Nick was relating the lack of prepreperation to focusing too much on his class and not enough on saving for a rainy day.

He was making the point I've actually been making for for a long time. You cant keep focusing on his class, and not care about safety nets and workers.

Ok.  It just looks as if you meant for it to be a reply in the 'COVID-19' thread.  My mistake.

Boru

OFF WITH ABBA'S HEAD! LoL, no problem. 

The article says, it isn't the virus that is causing our bad economy, but our lack of long term preparation, and not caring about workers too. If we had saved and prepared and had livable wages and universal health care, and funded government to tackle things like this, this wouldn't have gotten as bad as it has.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Ok.  It just looks as if you meant for it to be a reply in the 'COVID-19' thread.  My mistake.

Boru

The article says, it isn't the virus that is causing our bad economy, but our lack of long term preparation, and not caring about workers too. If we had saved and prepared and had livable wages and universal health care, and funded government to tackle things like this, this wouldn't have gotten as bad as it has.

I read the article, I know why it says.  You linked to the same article in another thread (apparently before you read it).  I'm glad to see you got it right this time around.

Boru

[Brian37]

The article says, it isn't the virus that is causing our bad economy, but our lack of long term preparation, and not caring about workers too. If we had saved and prepared and had livable wages and universal health care, and funded government to tackle things like this, this wouldn't have gotten as bad as it has.

I read the article, I know why it says.  You linked to the same article in another thread (apparently before you read it).  I'm glad to see you got it right this time around.

Boru

No, I read it before I posted it in both threads. And you want to know why? I found it last night after debating another friend having nothing to do with this website. I read it when I found it, and actually sent it to HIM on twitter before I posted it here in either thread.

[Rhizomorph13]

Cool story bro

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I read the article, I know why it says.  You linked to the same article in another thread (apparently before you read it).  I'm glad to see you got it right this time around.

Boru

No, I read it before I posted it in both threads. And you want to know why? I found it last night after debating another friend having nothing to do with this website. I read it when I found it, and actually sent it to HIM on twitter before I posted it here in either thread.

If you read it, why did you say it was about tax cuts to billionaires and corporations? The article doesn’t mention anything about that.

Boru

[Brian37]

No, I read it before I posted it in both threads. And you want to know why? I found it last night after debating another friend having nothing to do with this website. I read it when I found it, and actually sent it to HIM on twitter before I posted it here in either thread.

If you read it, why did you say it was about tax cuts to billionaires and corporations? The article doesn’t mention anything about that.

Boru

OH MY THOR!

YES it is about stock buybacks. You keep missing the point Nick said what I was saying, DECADES OF MISMANAGEMENT!

Start with Reagan. He put policies in place that put the rich class before workers. And I can tell you election cycle after election cycle, midterm and Presidential, for the past 40 years corporate America has won in congress and SCOTUS 99.999999999 Percent of the time. That CLIMATE set up the environment to allow the buybacks that Nick rightfully objects to.  The article even points out these tactics by Wall Street CEOs didn't exist and were Illegal prior to Reagan.

Tax law matters. If you constantly favor the rich and powerful, they will create conditions that lead to the buybacks. Not having to pay taxes, and advocating deregulation leads to conditions that got us to this point. 

This isn't brain surgery. Why did the former WWF get away with lying about calling themselves a real sport? Because they had enough sucker viewers who believed it was a real sport. So when the WWF had to face the fact they were not a real sport, they changed their name to WWE. It is just like knowing Jerry Springer isn't interested in solving problems. 


My point is, and Nick is trying to make, and has been making long before Cuban put his bad idea out, you cant simply fake your way or consume your way to success. AND THAT is what a buyback program is. It is simply sucking money up to the top.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you read it, why did you say it was about tax cuts to billionaires and corporations? The article doesn’t mention anything about that.

Boru

OH MY THOR!

YES it is about stock buybacks. You keep missing the point Nick said what I was saying, DECADES OF MISMANAGEMENT!

Start with Reagan. He put policies in place that put the rich class before workers. And I can tell you election cycle after election cycle, midterm and Presidential, for the past 40 years corporate America has won in congress and SCOTUS 99.999999999 Percent of the time. That CLIMATE set up the environment to allow the buybacks that Nick rightfully objects to.  The article even points out these tactics by Wall Street CEOs didn't exist and were Illegal prior to Reagan.

Tax law matters. If you constantly favor the rich and powerful, they will create conditions that lead to the buybacks. Not having to pay taxes, and advocating deregulation leads to conditions that got us to this point. 

This isn't brain surgery. Why did the former WWF get away with lying about calling themselves a real sport? Because they had enough sucker viewers who believed it was a real sport. So when the WWF had to face the fact they were not a real sport, they changed their name to WWE. It is just like knowing Jerry Springer isn't interested in solving problems. 


My point is, and Nick is trying to make, and has been making long before Cuban put his bad idea out, you cant simply fake your way or consume your way to success. AND THAT is what a buyback program is. It is simply sucking money up to the top.

But corporate greed and malfeasance aren’t remotely the same as tax breaks. One is internal, the other is external.

I’m thorry you’re thor. Wrap it tightly and keep it elevated. It thould feel better in jutht a few dayth.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

I do so love to be schooled on reading comprehension by someone who has little to none.

[Brian37]

OH MY THOR!

YES it is about stock buybacks. You keep missing the point Nick said what I was saying, DECADES OF MISMANAGEMENT!

Start with Reagan. He put policies in place that put the rich class before workers. And I can tell you election cycle after election cycle, midterm and Presidential, for the past 40 years corporate America has won in congress and SCOTUS 99.999999999 Percent of the time. That CLIMATE set up the environment to allow the buybacks that Nick rightfully objects to.  The article even points out these tactics by Wall Street CEOs didn't exist and were Illegal prior to Reagan.

Tax law matters. If you constantly favor the rich and powerful, they will create conditions that lead to the buybacks. Not having to pay taxes, and advocating deregulation leads to conditions that got us to this point. 

This isn't brain surgery. Why did the former WWF get away with lying about calling themselves a real sport? Because they had enough sucker viewers who believed it was a real sport. So when the WWF had to face the fact they were not a real sport, they changed their name to WWE. It is just like knowing Jerry Springer isn't interested in solving problems. 


My point is, and Nick is trying to make, and has been making long before Cuban put his bad idea out, you cant simply fake your way or consume your way to success. AND THAT is what a buyback program is. It is simply sucking money up to the top.

But corporate greed and malfeasance aren’t remotely the same as tax breaks. One is internal, the other is external.

I’m thorry you’re thor. Wrap it tightly and keep it elevated. It thould feel better in jutht a few dayth.

Boru

Yes they are? Are you kidding me?

Between billionaires and millionaires and the middle and working class, who is more capable of influencing government if they have more money? Paying less in taxes means you have more money. If you are greedy, you will spend that money to lobby the government to benefit you.

So if a dishwasher gets a tax break, they have the same power as Jeff Bezos? 

It is connected and it is as simple as money equals power.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But corporate greed and malfeasance aren’t remotely the same as tax breaks. One is internal, the other is external.

I’m thorry you’re thor. Wrap it tightly and keep it elevated. It thould feel better in jutht a few dayth.

Boru

Yes they are? Are you kidding me?

Between billionaires and millionaires and the middle and working class, who is more capable of influencing government if they have more money? Paying less in taxes means you have more money. If you are greedy, you will spend that money to lobby the government to benefit you.

So if a dishwasher gets a tax break, they have the same power as Jeff Bezos? 

It is connected and it is as simple as money equals power.

I’m not disagreeing with you about the way corporations behave. I’m just asking why you would reference tax breaks about an article that doesn’t even mention tax breaks. If you want to talk about corporations behaving badly, fine. If you want to talk about government giving tax breaks to corporations, also fine.

But the article you mentioned was about how corporations are run, not about tax breaks. And as much as you would like them to be, the two are not the same thing.

Boru