Left-wing Garrison rhetoric?

I never thought I'd finally hear some criticism of our "good ol' capytalist system" from Trey and Matt!

And WHO wants all that bailout money to go to his CEO friends??? (Hint: A trained chimp in a white house.)

In article ,

     Mr. Garrison said that the airline companies were losing money because of
their own incompetance.  The implication there is that the airliners should
be allowed to fail if they do poorly.  But government intervention is propping
the airliners up.  Government bailouts are making the system less capitalistic
because it's preventing a poor performer from failing in the free market.  You
could argue that liberals want more government intervention, but that left wing
intervention only gets corrupted into lining CEO's pockets and squashing new
innovations like the IT ( Ginger? ) device.  The ep was arguing for more
laissez-faire economics.
     At least you could read it that way. :-)

Heh-heh, George W. "SMIRK" going for "left-wing" interventions! And it's it a fucking SCREAM that the same "conservatives" who wanted to bail out the arlines are afraid that if they federalize the security workforce, those workers will GO UNION and vote Democrat?? (Their ONLY reason for opposing a professional security force.) Ask the California Prison Guards Union what party they prefer if you need an answer.

Juan F. Lara wrote:

Well, the airlines, who have been paying taxes and contributing to the nation's economy and productivity all along, should get some sort of insurance back from the government after unforeseen incidents like 9/11, don't you think? How this aid money is distributed needs to be supervised and accounted for more, though.

Overall, I thought this was the best episode so far this season. It was actually intelligent, sharply critical and witty without getting excessively gross or silly. And the homoerotic design of the "It" maching was a blast. No better way to make a statement about how the airline companies are giving it to you "up the ass".

Hey, it's better than the way the airline treats its customers...

...while providing "lip service."

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

because of

should

propping

capitalistic

market. You

left wing

new

What about other businesses that were affected? Who decides?

Um, for the previous post, it hardly seems as though it's the left wing throwing billions at the private sector these days, although the $$$ do seem to be ending up lining the exec's pockets.

Many corporations haven't been paying much in taxes (if you mean income taxes), and the ones who had to pay *something* because of the alternate minimum tax are going to get it all back (to 1986!) if Bush's stimulus bill is passed.

No, why, do you think the federal gov't is partly to blame for 09/11? This sounds pretty one-sided to me, the private sector expects financial (a lot of it) when times are bad; but they don't kick in anything extra when times are good, just bigger bonuses for the executive suite. Besides, the gov't isn't in the insurance business, where are the insurance companies in all this, i.e., aren't "unforeseen incidents" their raison d'�tre? All I've heard from the insurance industry is begging the gov't to limit their losses. The capitalists don't seem to be free enterprisers to me. If they're going to put their corporate hands out for public funds in hard times, it's only reasonable that they expect the public's hand to be out once in a while, too.

I certainly agree with you here, I thought this was a terrific episode. Who would ever have thought Garrison would turn out to be an inventor? I also loved Randy's question about the butt & mouth grips.

LiamD

Liam Devlin wrote:

I guess it takes exceptional circumstances, like the 9/11 tragedy, to bring out a bit of altruism in some of the most right-wing of politicians and citizens, though considering where that money is going, it may be a bit misguided or poorly acted upon.

Aren't the feds responsible for overseeing and setting the guidelines for security at the airports? And who, be it in government, the airline or the airline industry, would ever have forseen an incident of this magnitude ever occuring, and the economic aftereffect that it would have. Have the insurance companies set their rates accordingly, and the airlines passed the cost onto the passengers? Wouldn't the gov't have mandated it had it been seen as a real possibility? This is an unprecedented incident we're dealing with here. (Who ever would have thought...with knives!) So yes, we should probably learn from our mistakes, and set new security measures and regulations on both the airlines and the insurance policies, and restructure the entire airline industry accordingly, while at the same time, taking necessary action to minimize the damage. And tax them extra if they start to turn a profit, to reflect the increased risks and to eventually recover the aid money as much as possible.

Also, it was America, in general, that was targeted by the terrorists, and the airlines just happened to be in the most vulnerable position. So I don't really think it would be too unreasonable to ask for the government to cover their asses during unprecedented and unforseeable emergencies such as this, especially considering the damage that would occur to other sectors of the economy if the airlines go under. Though I fully concur with the argument that there are other businesses that were affected that need aid to get back on track, and that the funds have been mishandled, and if the funds are being misappropriated, that is also an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I think it's really a matter of society, in general, paying for its collective naivete.

"Liam Devlin" wrote in message news:[email]...

The fact corporations pay income tax at all, as corporations, is double-taxation. Thus, it's rather disingenuous to argue that corporations "haven't been paying much in taxes" just because they don't pay twice as much as individuals would if they acted independently of the corporation. As to the feel-good AMT, which generates no net revenue but costs businesses billions by requiring everyone to compute their income tax twice, the only companies (or individuals) who have to worry about it are those who donate too much to charity, or make too many other expenditures Congress deemed worthy enough to entitle them to deductions. If you've got a problem with a particular deduction, take that up with Congress, but keep the friggin' AMT out of it.

We don't expect, nor even allow, airlines to raise their own private air forces to defend themselves against a foreign attack the federal government was unable to prevent. Hell, the FAA doesn't even allow individual pilots to arm themselves! Simply butting out on that issue alone probably would have prevented all, and almost certainly would have prevented some, of the tragedies of 9-11. So I really have to wonder how (or, this being Usenet, IF) can you argue with a straight face that the airline industry is just as culpable as the federal government in failing to prevent the 9-11 attacks.

Wrong again. The private sector rarely obtains anything from the government when times are bad, though of course we read about a few exceptions here and there. When times are good, however, the corporations earn more income, and as a result, pay more income tax (twice).

If you mean because the dividends are taxed again by those who receive them, I agree completely. I have advocated, on other NG's, that the US eliminate corporate income taxes altogether because, for anyone earning a profit, the tax is passed right thru to its customers. If there were no corp. income tax the businesses could make business decisions, not tax decisions; but until that happy day (I'm not holding my breath, BTW), they're jumping thru hoops to avoid income taxes. But we need legislation to make that so and it has to be clear to all involved, no loopholes for industry groups who kick in major $$ to the right political candidates, etc.

What do you mean by this statement? What tax are you claiming the corporations pay twice?

Billions? Please, what numbers don't they have from filing their 1120's and how much did it cost them to perform the few extra calculations with their computers? We're not talking about rooms full of guys wearing eyeshades any more you know.

Dude, I didn't write the AMT bill. It was passed at the request of the right wing hero Ronny Reagan back in 1986, part of the TEFRA business, IIRC.

Too bad, that would be lots of fun, wouldn't it?

Did you manage to type that with a straight face, Mr. Straw Person? I asked the original poster if he thought the US gov't was partly to blame for 09/11, you've interpreted that as my claiming that the airlines were "just as culpable". Interesting interpretation, do you know something we don't?

Which tax is it that the GOP's major contributors are paying twice, not calculating twice?

LiamD

<<The capitalists don't seem to be free enterprisers to me.>>

What the airlines and other businesses practice is hardly free enterprise or pure capitalism. It's corporate welfare. (A point that Joe Lieberman missed entirely during his debate with Dick Cheney, who said that he'd made his fortune without any help from the government. In fact, he made his fortune, and his company's fortune, through government subsidies, tax credits and so on. If that's not welfare, what is it? Or is it only welfare when it's a mother with six kids?)

Cheryl3b wrote:

Really? Have airlines been regular recepients of corporate welfare, even before the 9/11 attacks?

"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...

enterprise or

missed

fortune,

so on.

mother

It's a question of semantics. As applied to individual recipients, "welfare" means a payment of public funds, and never includes a tax break unless the end result is a negative overall tax liability. "Corporate welfare," by contrast, is more of a generic term for anything the speaker doesn't like.

As opposed to things like the gov't paying for the interstate highway system, which benefited the automakers, or building & maintaining airports, which, to my limited point of view, seems to benefit the airlines. The interstate highway system was unfortunate, in one respect, because it aided the development of the trucking industry at the expense of the railroads, who were not getting gov't funds to built & maintain track. This may have been an example of the law of unintended consequences, but the deck was certainly stacked against the railroads. The railroads were more efficient at hauling big loads long distances.

But you're correct, it certainly is a matter of semantics. "Welfare" is generally intended for "inner city" people who tend to vote for the Democrats and it's generally regarded as a bad thing, while what some call "corporate welfare" is intended for rich white guys who tend to vote for the Republicons and is widely regarded as a good thing by those who rail against "welfare". There's a long history of CEOs from the private sector praising competition and the magic of free markets in public, but in private they beg the gov't for protection to protect their profits & bonuses. If there were actually any relationship between a CEO's performance and his compensation, AT&T's board would have fired Michael Armstrong a year or more ago with 2 weeks severance for what he's doing to AT&T. Besides, Klinton got a BJ:-)

LiamD

"Liam Devlin" wrote in message news:[email]...

break

speaker

The interstate highway system wasn't built for the benefit of automakers. Their industry would do just fine with a system of private toll roads. If the federal government hadn't built the interstate system and left it to the private sector to do the same, you'd probably be decrying THAT as "corporate welfare" for the private toll road companies. The meaning of "welfare" in other contexts is nowhere near that elastic.

See above. Whether the airlines are better off with or without federally maintained airports is immaterial, as they are not the intended beneficiaries of that policy. Maybe poor people living on real welfare are better off with publicly funded interstates and federally operated airports, too, but no one in his right mind would call these projects "welfare." Calling them "corporate welfare" is equally stupid.

Puh-leeze. The railroads have gotten a lot more in handouts from the federal government than the trucking industry ever will. And the trucking industry, like most others, pays a lot more to the federal government in taxes than it can ever hope to receive in subsidies. Talk about "corporate welfare!"

Funny how you raised the partisan non-issue, while ignoring the much more salient distinction: real welfare is a paycheck for people who don't work. "Corporate welfare," even in its worst form, is intended to keep a large business going; it is never paid to corporations that sit idle. Also, in case you've forgotten, while welfare queens may prefer to vote Democrat, recipients of "corporate welfare," i.e, corporations, don't vote at all.

Interesting you should bring this stereotype up. I was riding the subway in NYC last Saturday and the car also had a few kids who'd obviously just seen "Harry Potter". I was standing next to a woman who commented that HP was a good example of what a single mother who'd been on welfare for several years could achieve. I asked her what she did and she said she was an attorney now, but she'd been on welfare for 7 years previously. We could certainly swap lawyer jokes here, but she's no longer on welfare. I wonder if she votes for Democrats or Republicons?

Wrong, this is corporate welfare in its best form. A good example of corporate welfare at something less than its best was the recent gift to the airlines from the Congress. IIRC the funds were to help the airlines remain in business, which suggests to me maintaining their routes and retaining their employees, yet the airline execs saw it as a good opportunity to lay off thousands of workers.

That last bit is almost very clever. Corporations don't vote in elections; but they do contribute to PACs (IIRC). Even if they don't contribute to PACs anymore, corporations are run largely by very well off white guys who, is my experience is indicative, tend to vote for the Republicons. Corporations are legal entities who do *nothing* on their own, everything done by a corporation is decided by the corp's board of directors or executives.

Not funny, but interesting, you snipped my post where you did. The original last paragraph read:

"But you're correct, it certainly is a matter of semantics. "Welfare" is generally intended for "inner city" people who tend to vote for the Democrats and it's generally regarded as a bad thing, while what some call "corporate welfare" is intended for rich white guys who tend to vote for the Republicons and is widely regarded as a good thing by those who rail against "welfare". There's a long history of CEOs from the private sector praising competition and the magic of free markets in public, but in private they beg the gov't for protection to protect their profits & bonuses. If there were actually any relationship between a CEO's performance and his compensation, AT&T's board would have fired Michael Armstrong a year or more ago with 2 weeks severance for what he's doing to AT&T. Besides, Klinton got a BJ:-)"

How about the rest of it, or did you black out when you saw the word "Democrats"?

LiamD

"Liam Devlin" wrote in message news:[email]...

is

more

work.

I didn't bring the stereotype up. You did, assuming the "stereotype" to which you refer is the idea of welfare recipients voting Democrat, as opposed to not working. Neither stereotype is 100% accurate, of course; it's just that working welfare recipients are breaking the law. [I suppose one could argue that welfare recipients who vote Republican are breaking some unwritten law, as well.]

Seeing as she lives in NYC, there's probably not much to wonder about. Of course, it would also be interesting to know who she works for now (private vs. gov't), what kinds of cases she handles, on which side, and most importantly, what prompted her to get off of welfare. Those who got "forced" off by recent welfare reforms may have a very different perspective from those who got fed up with it on their own.

You are making my point there. Key word: *intended.* At its best, corporate "welfare" actually accomplishes what it set out to do, saves a big company from bankruptcy, and pays for itself in spades once that company is back on its feet. At its worst, it accomplishes nothing beyond keeping a badly run business afloat for an extra year or two. Either way, however, the *intent* is the same: to keep a viable business going, particularly in industries where start-up costs are high. The jury is still out as to whether the current airline bailout will have that effect in the long term, or even the short term. It may well be that fewer people got laid off as a result of the bailout than would have been the case without it.

It was intended to be sarcastic.

I didn't black out, I'm just not a big fan of "me too" postings. Thus, I didn't see much of a point in responding to the part of your post that I agreed with, i.e., the observation that many CEOs want laissez faire economics for every industry except their own.

YOU GOT IT!!!! It's like when the Repugnicans say, "You give a PERSON a tax cut, they'll just SPEND it! But you give a CORPORATION a tax cut, they make jobs and lower prices! That's how the free enterprise system works! You cut property taxes, rents will go down! That's how the free enterprise system works!"

"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...

Problem is, you cut corporate taxes they make more money, and in turn want more money. Usually by cutting more jobs. The really sick thing is so many companies using 9/11 as an excuse to put people out of work.

I'll have a brown one.

That's rugged individualism:-)

Depends who you ask, but I almost plotzed when Lieberman let THAT one slide.

LiamD

D.G. Porter wrote:

Uh, no. Opposing corporate abuse of government handouts and legal strongarming to quell competition is consistent with their libertarian views.

Well gosh! A leftist like me, and many others, saw it as a validation of their own views!

Apparently this dingbat didn't see the same show as the rest of the world.

Apparently this buttsucker can't see that Garrison had a valid point about how all that bailout money didn't go making the airlines work better.

Talking about yourself in third person now, I see. Let us know when you watch the show and get somewhat of a clue about what transpired.

Nice attempt to back-peddle after getting clued in to what Garrison spoke, although what Garrison said wasn't even remotely left-wing. You really outta ask your facilitator about these things before making an arse of yourself in this newsgroup.

It took you 2 tries to get your reply straight, or are you not finished yet? Speaking of arses...

It's kind of funny when rightwing kooks and LOONIES condemn anything on "the left" and don't knowsquat about "the left" in the first place.

I remeber when we "on the left" were complaining about corporate welfare long before you LOONS caught onto it. Matter of fact, I remember rightwing douchebags complaining that the corporate handouts weren't big enough!

What did Mobil do with the big breaks they got in the '70s -- look for more oil (as they said they would), improve their business, or lower prices? None of the above -- they bought Montgomery Wards.

Apparently the success of rightwing LOONS is dependent on their ignorance and stupidity.