GOP Politicians Hate Small Business

Modern Communism is the marriage of Big Bad Government with Big Bad Business.

 

Like when Trump said we need to open up?

 

Nice talk, but talk is cheap. Isn't it?

 

1040A's were ended in 2018, so nothing is the same benefit as what you propose.

 

The 1040 form still exists.
You may have used the 1040SR, but I certainly hope you are not that old.

https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi

Any American with enough reportable income in 2019 to be required to file with the IRS should be given a Big Green Government Check for $4000.00 to compensate for the damages inflicted by the government mandated economic crash.

 

Well, Trump doesn’t run democrat controlled states or cities. Civics 101.

 

1040A's, however, do not so the Treasury sending "every American who reported income in 2019 on their 1040 Form A BIG GREEN USG CHECK for $2,000.00 every month for SIX months." would result in zero dollars in additional debt at the expense of a lot of pretty green trees. Perhaps they should throw in an extra $12K for every American who rides a chariot to and from work.

As for your morphed $4K proposal, the unfortunate reality is that Washington cannot resist giving bonuses to breeders. The more you have, the more you get. They are more likely to give then $4K per child than per employed adult.

 

Well, the DP has become the enemy of the productive working class. That is why Trump has won two presidential elections. McConnell just proved that, for the most part, RP pols are little better.

Politicians who pretend to worry about deficits are now fully exposed phonies.
They share responsibility for over $200T in unfunded mandates - debt.
So why aren't the streets paved in gold?

 

That is true, but if Trump, or McConnell had proposed a clean bill similar to my one sentence draft bill the offer of $2000 would have had more credibility.
Of course that will never happen. Professional politicians will never tolerate clean spending bills.

 

If there's no difference, why did you put GOP in your title?

 

They don't want to rid the world of capitalism. They want to rid the world of independent humans.

 

Capitalist enterprise is still capitalism ... no matter who owns it.

When a govt owns all the business, it's still capitalism .. but in a non-democratic form. It's not communism, IOW.

 

So you would know which party I was talking about.
My preferred "RP" seems to confuse some people.

BTW, I did not say "there is no difference between the parties".

“Both of them have sold us out, both parties have sold us out. Both parties are racist, and the Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party.” Malcom X, By Any Means Necessary, Malcom X, Betty Shabazz and Pathfinder Press, 1992, P 46.

 

Communism ultimately rejects democracy.

"Democracy is not identical with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e. it is an organization for the systematic use of violence by one class against another, by one section of the population against another.
The State and Revolution", VI Lenin, Penguin, 1992 p. 74.

 

Too soft to keep the tires out of the mud.

 

Excellent question - but do you know the answer ? Hint - Presidents are "Selected" - not Elected.

100% nail on the head. The big ones gobbling up the little ones - The big restaurant Chains will be around after covid --- it is the little guy that suffers..

 

You are simply incorrect. Nobody but you defines capitalism that way.

 

I THINK he means what was called "State Capitalism" It's where you have State ownership but individuals still "manage" the "firms". Since the managers were usually just there to be shot if the quotas weren't made they often suffered from real shortages of enthusiastic applicants, but no matter, they were just appointed.

It was popular for a few years immediately after Stalin died. if I'm correct, but my knowledge of Soviet Economic history was never good.

 

Trump wanted a clean Bill but the unitary wants to keep the cash flow going.

 

Just another term for socialism. The reason capitalism is so effective is competition. It motivates innovation and efficiency. Anything that interferes with competition is anti-capitalist and capitalists themselves attempt to squash competition all the time. In a sense it doesn't matter who owns all the businesses. If they are all owned by government or one big company, the result would be the same - anti-capitalism.

A good example of that is the concept of MAP or minimum advertised price policies. These arise because sellers don't like having to deal with price competition so they motivate the manufacturers and importers to "control the marketplace" under threat of reduced purchases. This is purely anti-capitalist as it removes competition. It hurts companies that have developed a lower cost business model. It also hurts consumers. The strange truth is that the manufacturers and importers wouldn't lose any business by accepting the price competition. If some sellers fall out then other sellers will take up the slack. They would even be more competitive in the market place and probably increase sales. To implement MAP is not a business decision. It is an emotional one.

If this sort of thing is what the poster meant then, obviously, I agree. The words, however, say otherwise. Having government own all the businesses is not capitalism. It is anti-capitalism.

 

Not socialism at all. More akin to Mussolini's Corporatism if anything.

Socialism never worked at all, not even in the early Soviet Union when Lenin's New Economic Plan, actually nothing more than the highly authoritarian Capitalism now extant in China, had to be called in to save it.

 

They could... if we demand taking them out of the swamp.

 

Yes. I didn't suggest that a capitalist economy doesn't work for an authoritarian government. I only said an authoritarian government was the only way to maintain a socialist economy.

 

MAP dosn't hurt businesses or consumers as you suggest. It is not anti-competitive, either. The manufacturer can set MAP at any level it sees fit, it is completely arbitrary. Or it can forego MAP altogether and use a MSRP or RRP model. MAP does not even strictly determine the selling price, but rather is a tool to maintain stasis in the market and improve revenue predictability. It does not prevent a reseller from selling to a consumer at any price they mutually agree on -- it simply states the price at which a given item may be advertised to the public.

You are likely aware MAP is illegal in many places outside the US -- such as the EU -- and while you may argue this is a benefit to consumers, it is only for the short term as it allows the big players to act like market makers and eventually eliminate competitors by pricing them out. Once a market maker successfully eliminates the competition, they enjoy a vertical quasi monopoly and you can watch the prices incrementally rise not only back to the original level, but even higher if demand for the product is sufficient.

 

Sorry, you got everything wrong. Consider my earlier post to be a double down.