Exclusively? Absolutely not. In fact government can completely ignore them if it so chooses. And has. Of course there will be reactions.

The relationship is symbiotic. Balance must be struck. Government cannot survive without the private sector.

When I moved from the military to the private sector, my first job was with a corporation, where I was blessed with incredible mentors. Part of my responsibility included the management of several million dollar plus contracts.

I was taught from a child to ride for the brand. I understood my responsibility was to drive the costs of my contracts as low as possible to help my company.

One of my mentors fortunately took the time to explain to me how my drive was creating a toxic environment for my contractors. He said something to me I remember clear as a bell to this day: “You can break your contractors and we can’t be successful without them.” That was all he said.

The same holds true with regulatory socialism. The government can break the private sector, it cannot survive without it.

The media and pols focus on the cases of abuse, malfeasance, etc. And there are many. They need to be addressed as they arise. In many cases harshly.

The other side of that coin is in our zeal to right wrongs, we punish the innocent by creating a toxic environment in which none of them can operate.

Most Americans work for a corporation. The majority for large corporations. Most Americans have good lives because they do.

It doesn’t matter how qualified one is for a job if no one is hiring. No one can live where they choose to while having a good life if the jobs have moved somewhere else.

If it happens naturally, that’s one thing. If it happens because of government causing it, it is a different thing.

Toxicity is real. I was privileged on several occassions to be part of analysis teams deciding to expand into other areas, including countries, or to contract out of them. Always there were numerous factors. But always the major ones were economic and regulatory. The ability to manage tax liabilities was its own sub-team. Always. Lawyers and accountants.

In some cases we recommended expansion. In others the environment was so toxic we didn’t, or closed up. My role was operations and all its aspects, but I listened, argued and learned. Always. I led some of those teams.

There are some jobs and environments are just not worth it. A smart management team walks away from them to focus efforts where there was a greater probability for success.

Government takes. Some taking is necessary. Too much is toxic. The key is the balance.

They paid nothing on the debt when they were in office. They had a chance. They can’t control what their successor does.

Good info…

Economists, for the most part, do not run businesses. They are specialists looking at but one aspect of infinite.

I agree that the buy backs did not follow my understanding of the intent. If that is the case, it is very easy to place stipulations on the use of the funds. I’m sure there are others.

However, I would like to hear the other side of the story.

By the way, Biden, Harris, the Squad and the other zealots do not understand this at all.

Fair points. I’m not in any rush to raise corporate taxes and they did appear to be higher in the US than other places. Perhaps the cuts could have been delivered as deductions based on behavior rather than a straight cut.

With the rise of populism, it seems the real goal of voters is increasing the incomes of wage-earners rather than the profits of corporations. They are certainly compatible goals, but the policy could have been more directly tied into the benefit of the wage earner by tying it to job creation or expansion.

This is a big failure of our current political crises— voters give up their vote to platitudes while the lobbyists that fund politicians exact real policy in exchange for support.

I actually support that idea.

I’ll add to it. Long ago a decision was made in this country to focus on punishing bad behavior instead of rewarding good behavior. I don’t know by whom or exactly when, I do have my suspicions.

It is now in our American DNA. We need to shift the focus; a difficult task.

No, it’s not easy in the US to stipulate how corporations spend their money.

Sounds kind of liberal. Smacks of ‘government picking winners and losers’ and ‘Solyndra!!!’

But I’m all for it.

I didn’t say it was easy and it’s not their money. Conditions are put on government funds every day.

I am a liberal. It is them picking themselves.

Lowering tax brackets isn’t ‘government funds’.

Tax credits, etc would be.

And will anyone in the democratic party be brave enough to push back against them? Especially against the squad.

No.

The time to raise taxes are in a good economy, not one on the brink of a massive meltdown.

Of course it is, plenty of reduced taxes based on corporate behavior already exist. Like, a zillion of them.

National debt increased in every Clinton year. Any “surplus” anyone asserts is just the product of bookkeeping sleight-of-hand.

1 Like

My search on this topic doesn’t bear that out. Much slower debt growth with a single or few year of surplus.

Different charts show only one year of surplus with no growth in debt.

Slower debt growth is no a bad thing. It is never going to be paid by taxes, but if it’s growth rate is slower than the growth rate of the economy as a whole then it’s percentage of the budget in interests payments will decrease. This is a good thing and we should figure out how to shape policy to do just this.

Even this link asserts a surplus in 2000, yet the national debt grew.

The national debt grew in every Clinton year.

No question about that.

And I certainly didn’t suggest anything about that, so if you took that from anything I said, you have misinterpreted me.