View Full Version : Rick Perry running for President
bem401
08-19-2011, 04:26 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/08/do_we_need_another_dumb_texan/perry_transcript.jpeg
Perry's transcripts from A&M. D in principles of economics, and perhaps more troubling, D in Shakespeare.
If you're troubled by a candidate who releases his transcript with a few D's, how do you feel about the candidate who refuses to release any academic records at all? How many D's do you think he has?
silk55
08-19-2011, 06:18 AM
This weekend there was a 60min special about corp tax loop holes. We as a country have one of the highest corp taxes in the free world (35%) that is why almost all fortune 500 companies have moved they're corp head quarters to foreign countries. If we took that down to flat rate 15-20%. Just imagine how much more capital would be infused into the economy. Also giving our government more of your $ is not the brightest idea in the world. Look at all the federally/state funded projects that are over budget/delayed. This country (this maybe extreme) is becoming a 3rd world country. Our infrastructure is falling apart is frankly embarrassing compared to other countries that I have visited...
Here's a example of how ridiculousness our taxes/health care system is. Lets say I decide to hire a executive assistant for around $60k per year with benefits/taxes that employee will end up costing me/my company almost $100k per year. Compare this to lets say Canada which would only cost around $75k max. Now you can see the benefits of out sourcing.
Krill_
08-19-2011, 07:02 AM
If you're troubled by a candidate who releases his transcript with a few D's, how do you feel about the candidate who refuses to release any academic records at all? How many D's do you think he has?
Probably at least one from his undergrad days, but it's public university record that he (Obama) graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude. Perry didn't voluntarily release his transcript from A&M either.
bem401
08-19-2011, 07:41 AM
Probably at least one from his undergrad days, but it's public university record that he (Obama) graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude. Perry didn't voluntarily release his transcript from A&M either.
Let me set the record straight for you. I graduated from an Ivy League school and the toughest thing about any of those schools is getting in. Plenty of my fellow students who had something "special" about them, be it athletics, family wealth, or ethnicity, gained admission on that basis. (Sports was my ticket, want to guess what Obama's was? If you ever listen to him speak "off the cuff", he's clearly no genius. He just knows how to play people, typical community organizer stuff). Harvard is the guiltiest of the Ivies when it comes to this sort of thing. One of my college coaches told me the toughest thing about Harvard was getting up in time to watch The Hollywood Squares. I have also read that graduate schools at Harvard are guilty of inflating grades so much that virtually everyone graduates with honors. Google "Harvard grade inflation" (156000 hits) if you don't believe me. You can't take what any politician (especially this one) presents himself as.
This weekend there was a 60min special about corp tax loop holes. We as a country have one of the highest corp taxes in the free world (35%)
This is pure bullshit. The U.S. corporate tax rate might be 35% but U.S. companies pay FAR less than that, some as low as NOTHING (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1). Your 15-20% tax rate suggestion would be a major tax increase in reality. This (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf) study shows that 55% of U.S. corporations paid no taxes at all at least once in a seven year period. Conservative ideology keeps getting smacked right in the face by reality and failing miserably every single time. The Bush tax cuts did not lead to higher revenues like conservatives said, it didn't lead to more investing or more jobs, all it did was balloon the deficit to previously unimaginable levels. And yet you people continue to parrot the same idiotic ideas that left our country on the brink of another great depression, it is unbelievable.
bem401
08-19-2011, 08:10 AM
This is pure bullshit. The U.S. corporate tax rate might be 35% but U.S. companies pay FAR less than that, some as low as NOTHING (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1). Your 15-20% tax rate suggestion would be a major tax increase in reality. This (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf) study shows that 55% of U.S. corporations paid no taxes at all at least once in a seven year period. Conservative ideology keeps getting smacked right in the face by reality and failing miserably every single time. The Bush tax cuts did not lead to higher revenues like conservatives said, it didn't lead to more investing or more jobs, all it did was balloon the deficit to previously unimaginable levels. And yet you people continue to parrot the same idiotic ideas that left our country on the brink of another great depression, it is unbelievable.
How do you know what would have happened had the tax cuts not been enacted? You're trying to compare it to what you THINK might have happened or what you want to THINK might have happened. No different than Obama running around claiming to have "created or saved" x number of jobs. Its a bogus statistic.
If 15-20% represents an increase, i say enact it and close the loopholes. We currently tax corporations at one of the highest rates in the world.
bem401
08-19-2011, 08:23 AM
Oh, and BTW, one of those corporations that pays nothing is GE, run by one of Obummer's czars, Jeffrey Immelt. Talk about hypocrisy! Then look at all the healthcare waivers the administration is granting to their friends. How can anybody support this stuff?
silk55
08-19-2011, 11:25 AM
This is pure bullshit. The U.S. corporate tax rate might be 35% but U.S. companies pay FAR less than that, some as low as NOTHING (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1). Your 15-20% tax rate suggestion would be a major tax increase in reality. This (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf) study shows that 55% of U.S. corporations paid no taxes at all at least once in a seven year period. Conservative ideology keeps getting smacked right in the face by reality and failing miserably every single time. The Bush tax cuts did not lead to higher revenues like conservatives said, it didn't lead to more investing or more jobs, all it did was balloon the deficit to previously unimaginable levels. And yet you people continue to parrot the same idiotic ideas that left our country on the brink of another great depression, it is unbelievable.
Of course companies pay far less then 35%! The majority are off shore and at a more reasonable 10-15% tax rate! This isn't conservative ideology just SMART BUSINESS SENSE!!!
JayATee
08-19-2011, 11:35 AM
Oh, and BTW, one of those corporations that pays nothing is GE, run by one of Obummer's czars, Jeffrey Immelt. Talk about hypocrisy! Then look at all the healthcare waivers the administration is granting to their friends. How can anybody support this stuff?
Excuse me. I'm sorry. I can't keep my mouth shut about this anymore. I don't give a fuck how you personally feel about him, the man is President of the United States of America. Elected by the people of the United States of America. He deserves more than a little respect, even if you don't like him or his politics.
silk55
08-19-2011, 11:45 AM
Excuse me. I'm sorry. I can't keep my mouth shut about this anymore. I don't give a fuck how you personally feel about him, the man is President of the United States of America. Elected by the people of the United States of America. He deserves more than a little respect, even if you don't like him or his politics.
I would have to agree on this one. Things can get heated in these discussions.
Of course companies pay far less then 35%! The majority are off shore and at a more reasonable 10-15% tax rate! This isn't conservative ideology just SMART BUSINESS SENSE!!!
So why act like America has the highest tax rates in the world when nobody actually has to pay them? it's nothing but a bullshit talking point, the amount corporations pay in taxes needs to go way up not down no matter what the actual rate that nobody fucking pays is.
Kellydancer
08-19-2011, 12:11 PM
I am not happy by the way Obama is doing things (I voted for him)but the disrespect I see him given is not cool. He's no where as an embarassment as Bush. I cringed when my European relatives would mention him and how stupid Americans were to elect a moron. A guy who brags about getting C's is not someone I would vote for in any case. I want smart people in charge. I have no reason to believe Obama was stupid and got bad grades. The comments about grades are very relevant. The idea that Obama got into the Ivy League because of being black (and we all know that was implied)was extremely racist. Do the same people mention Bush got in because of white affirmative action aka being rich? Nope, instead they say he got in because he deserved it. I often wonder what intelligent person did he take the place of in school. Bush shouldn't have gone there due to his grades.
However, getting back to taxes to me there are things that can be done. For one, get rid of the tax break that allows companies to outsource. Instead tax these companies more because of this. Someone will say that will lead to them outsourcing more jobs to which I say then tax them EVEN MORE. Eventually these companies will either go bankrupt or will bring back the jobs. Honestly, I do not care that the upper management like CEOs lose their jobs (and in many cases the only jobs here from these companies are upper management). The companies that keep jobs here or bring them back should get tax breaks. I know someone will say this will allow companies to charge more for products, to which I would respond that sending jobs overseas has not kept prices cheaper either. Besides, not all these companies manufacture products, many are white collar management positions.
As for taxing people more, this is a mixed bag. I have no problem with taxing the truly wealthy, unless they are creating jobs here. If they are just the spoiled rich I don't care about them. However this does open a bag of worms because the threshold for being rich gets lower and lower until you see someone making $30,00 or so being taxed more. In Illinois our dumbass liberal governor wants to increase taxes starting at $14,000 which is ridiculous. I think it's outrageous that they want to increase taxes on the unemployment checks but welfare? They'd never touch that.
That brings me up to my other issue and that is yes cut government waste. First off, get the hell out of the Middle East. That's where the money is going. Also, tighten budgets on everything. My former employer had the tendency to keep spending more and more tax money while crying poor. Guess where the money was going? To hire incompetent people at the top and lobster dinners for the upper management. Meanwhile those at the bottom were lucky to get a raise once a year.
The fact of the matter is the middle class is disappearing here and this need to be taken care of otherwise we will become a third world country.
silk55
08-19-2011, 12:26 PM
So why act like America has the highest tax rates in the world when nobody actually has to pay them? it's nothing but a bullshit talking point, the amount corporations pay in taxes needs to go way up not down no matter what the actual rate that nobody fucking pays is.
Speaking of bull shit! WHY DO YOU THINK CORPORATIONS GO OFF SHORE OR AS YOU SAY DON'T PAY TAXES!!!!??? lower the tax rate and you instantly become more competitive! It's seems that you think that I'm for a no corporate tax initiative??? I have stated make the corp taxes more reasonable than 35%!!! Cut it down to a flat 15-20% and get rid of the loop holes. It's a simple solution!!
Krill_
08-19-2011, 12:50 PM
Let me set the record straight for you. I graduated from an Ivy League school and the toughest thing about any of those schools is getting in. Plenty of my fellow students who had something "special" about them, be it athletics, family wealth, or ethnicity, gained admission on that basis. (Sports was my ticket, want to guess what Obama's was? If you ever listen to him speak "off the cuff", he's clearly no genius. He just knows how to play people, typical community organizer stuff). Harvard is the guiltiest of the Ivies when it comes to this sort of thing. One of my college coaches told me the toughest thing about Harvard was getting up in time to watch The Hollywood Squares. I have also read that graduate schools at Harvard are guilty of inflating grades so much that virtually everyone graduates with honors. Google "Harvard grade inflation" (156000 hits) if you don't believe me. You can't take what any politician (especially this one) presents himself as.
1. You're equating your experience at a school to that of everyone else, and not only that, an entire group of schools.
2. Law school isn't easy and the honors Obama received denotes that he graduated in the top 10% of the class.
3. Impromptu speaking isn't the only indicator of intelligence. Obama is good at delivering prepared speeches, but I agree he is not the best at impromptu. He stumbles, falls back on talking points, makes poor analogies of policies, and fails to capitalize on points that are overwhelmingly popular. He's never going to be as good as Clinton or Reagan at delivering a basic stump speech or town hall Q&A.
4. Compared to Perry and George W. Bush, Obama is a tower of intellect. Romney vs. Obama would be an interesting comparison, but if public speaking is the standard, Romney has his own deficiencies.
bem401
08-19-2011, 01:01 PM
1. You're equating your experience at a school to that of everyone else, and not only that, an entire group of schools.
2. Law school isn't easy and the honors Obama received denotes that he graduated in the top 10% of the class.
3. Impromptu speaking isn't the only indicator of intelligence. Obama is good at delivering prepared speeches, but I agree he is not the best at impromptu. He stumbles, falls back on talking points, makes poor analogies of policies, and fails to capitalize on points that are overwhelmingly popular. He's never going to be as good as Clinton or Reagan at delivering a basic stump speech or town hall Q&A.
4. Compared to Perry and George W. Bush, Obama is a tower of intellect. Romney vs. Obama would be an interesting comparison, but if public speaking is the standard, Romney has his own deficiencies.
No, but I'm in a far better position than you to judge what an Ivy League degree really means or doesn't mean, so don't throw that out there as if its proof of anything. There were a few borderline morons that I attended school with and they were among the better known students at the school. If he is so much smarter than Perry or Bush, why are his transcripts sealed?
bem401
08-19-2011, 01:08 PM
Excuse me. I'm sorry. I can't keep my mouth shut about this anymore. I don't give a fuck how you personally feel about him, the man is President of the United States of America. Elected by the people of the United States of America. He deserves more than a little respect, even if you don't like him or his politics.
Look, post 29 you trashed Bush. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he didn't. However, I don't give a fuck what you feel about my entitled opinion regarding Obama. I respect the office, that's why seeing him (or Bush or Clinton ) there is so troubling. He was only elected because of the MSM-generated lack of respect shown to Bush (and the office, by your train of thought) and either the lack of intelligence or presence of white guilt of the electorate. Unless and until he does something (in addition to the UBL thing) that deserves respect, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it. He has approval ratings plummeting despite media allegiance to him. Get used to it.
Kellydancer
08-19-2011, 01:20 PM
No, but I'm in a far better position than you to judge what an Ivy League degree really means or doesn't mean, so don't throw that out there as if its proof of anything. There were a few borderline morons that I attended school with and they were among the better known students at the school. If he is so much smarter than Perry or Bush, why are his transcripts sealed?
I would hope he would unseal his college transcripts but by the same thing I would hope Palin's records would be unsealed as well. He was on the law review and I understand that is reserved for the brightest students, which to me says that he had the grades.
Is there such a thing as grade inflation? absolutely. I saw it when I was in college and how teachers would give A's just for attending college. I mean one class (geography)the teacher gave a test in the class where you needed to identify many countries and you got an A. If you got an A on the midterm you automatically got an A in the class. In grad school though I didn't see this as much. However, since my major was media and since this was my field I already knew almost everything I learned. Sometimes I do question a few A's I got from papers but I am an excellent writer and I am a bit harsh on myself at time.
Just FYI: if you want to tell people you went to an Ivy League I would leave it at that and not bring up you didn't get in due to grades. Many people feel the same way about athletes they do about rich getting into these schools (I am opposed to sports scholarships though I was an athlete myself). I understand why one wouldn't want to admit this because I attended a "name" art college and I am ashamed that I attended school with many people who never should have been there.
bem401
08-19-2011, 01:33 PM
Oh, I ranked very highly out of a prestigious private HS and did even better on my SAT's. The thing that set me apart from some classmates was that I was recruited for a couple of sports. It's part of the acceptance process. You get rated on grades, SAT's, athletics, school connections, family resources, and contribution to diversity. I had friends who matched me in every regard except athletics who got declined admission, so it did open the door for me (especially since I knew I was accepted weeks before the letters came out). Oh, and the Ivy league doesn't give sports scholarships but they do recruit athletes just like they recruit minorities.
All candidates for public office should be forthcoming with any documentation people want, including birth certificates, transcripts, and health records, IMO.
Krill_
08-19-2011, 01:37 PM
No, but I'm in a far better position than you to judge what an Ivy League degree really means or doesn't mean, so don't throw that out there as if its proof of anything. There were a few borderline morons that I attended school with and they were among the better known students at the school. If he is so much smarter than Perry or Bush, why are his transcripts sealed?
Not really, unless you were by chance a student at Harvard Law circa 1988-1990 and had the same instructors Obama did. I am not a law graduate, but I do know that the experience instructor to instructor can vary wildly and year to year internal politics play a large role in the evolution of law education.
All we can really know about a person's intelligence without a firsthand account is the accounts of others. Obama has been described as everything between brilliant and lazy, so that doesn't really get us anywhere. I've yet to see an account of Perry that was anything close to brilliant.
bem401
08-19-2011, 02:08 PM
I merely told you what friends of mine relayed to me about the school and I've heard and read even less flattering things about their post-grad programs. I mean, really, Bush went to Yale, Gore went to Harvard, Obama went to Columbia (as a transfer), Gov. Chafee of RI went to Brown, Ted Kennedy went to Harvard, I think Kerry went to Yale. These are facts the Ivy League should be concealing. FTR, grade inflation in Harvard grad programs has been the subject of numerous articles. The school I went to was essentially a country club. Just saying, don't let it make you think products of these places are necessarily towering intellects. In other words, citing it doesn't rationalize anybody's position. Including politics in the grading process as you did only calls Obama's (or any of the others I mentioned) grades more deeply into question.
Melonie
08-19-2011, 02:23 PM
The fact of the matter is the middle class is disappearing here and this need to be taken care of otherwise we will become a third world country.
I'm in complete agreement with your observation. But the problem is that there are only two ways that this trend can be stopped. The first is for the US to remain part of the global economy ... and change enough economic factors that US industries can again be competitive with competing industries in other parts of the world. A higher than average corporate tax rate, plus mandated US wage and benefit costs / environmental compliance costs / worker safety costs etc. all tip the global scales against US companies. Yes there are measures that ( nominal ) US companies can and do take ... such as moving corporate HQ to a foreign country, such as moving intellectual property to a foreign country, such as moving some elements of production to a foreign country etc. ... to make those scales less out of balance.
The other option is to revert to the 'Smoot-Hawley' solution of 'severing' the US economy from the global economy via tariffs, quotas, wage / price freezes etc. This would help rebalance those scales by the US gov't effectively adding 'weight' on the foreign competitors' side of the scales to counter balance the 'weight' that US wage and benefit mandates, environmental mandates, worker safety mandates etc. already have added on the US businesses side of those scales. While this would certainly prompt ( nominal ) US industries to restore / increase US production, it would also significantly raise the prices American consumers must pay for the 'lowest cost option' imported products.
The risk of course is that, even with the 'middle class' US unemployment problem supposedly 'solved', the actual future 'middle class' standard of living under these conditions may be far lower than the present 'middle class' standard of living due to the inevitable higher price levels ( a.k.a. price inflation ) resulting from the tariffs and quotas. And arguably, the reimposition of 'Smoot-Hawley' protectionist policies could potentially prompt the re-emergence of even less desireable side effects a la WW2 as the US export oriented economies of China, Japan, South Korea, Germany etc. quickly implode once their export industries no longer have a US 'market' to export to !!!
Falling back on the ever famous 'dancer' analogy, the root of this problem is the equivalent of a city gov't adding taxes and other mandated costs to all businesses located within that city which add 27% to the 'normal' cost of every product ( the 27% figure comes from a US Congressional study regarding how high of a tariff would need to be enacted on Chinese imports to 'level the playing field' ). Or put another way, in order for clubs and dancers in this city to earn 'normal' levels of income with the added taxes and other mandated costs in place, private dances must be sold at a cost of $20 * 1.27 = ~$25. A mile down the road is the city limits, and new clubs open up just outside the city limits where they don't have to pay the same added taxes and mandated costs, thus those clubs can sell private dances for $20 and still earn a 'normal' level of income. A fair number of strip club customers elect to drive an extra mile in order to take advantage of the lower private dance prices.
If the clubs inside the city limits want to keep selling the same number of private dances, they are under market pressure to lower their price from $25 to $20 ... with the $5 either coming out of clubowner profits or out of dancer earnings. If that 'missing' 20% of income is enough to push the city clubs into the red, they wind up going bankrupt and the dancers working for the city clubs wind up unemployed. Obviously, this situation could be 'rebalanced' if the city's additional taxes and mandated costs were reduced.
If the 'Smoot-Hawley' route is taken, the closest analogy I can think of is the city erecting a toll barrier at the city limits on the road leading to the other clubs ... and charging drivers / club customers a $10 toll ( covering an average cost difference of two private dances ) in order to reach the other clubs. By one means or another, the customers of either the inside the city limits strip clubs or the beyond the city limits wind up spending more money to buy the same number of private dances ... and if they are on tight budgets fewer total private dances get bought / clubs and dancers earn less.
Kellydancer
08-19-2011, 02:45 PM
That's why I support giving tax breaks to companies keeping jobs here. Many of them could technically outsource but for one reason or another have chosen not to. I know you didn't mention the unions but that is one reason many companies outsource and I do think unions cause a lot of this too just like the companies themselves.
Melonie
08-19-2011, 02:58 PM
^^^ another factor in the Texas economy ... it's a 'right to work' state.
That's why I support giving tax breaks to companies keeping jobs here
The problem with this, of course, is exactly where the gov't funds are going to come from to 'pay for' the lost gov't tax revenues created by these tax breaks. In essence, this still amounts to gov't subsidizing globally non-competitive US industries - and sidesteps the more basic issue of why those US industries became globally non-competitive in the first place !!! Or viewed another way, such gov't subsidies would amount to applying an expensive band-aid over an arguably self-inflicted wound !!!
Not that I have anything all that positive to say about Rick Perry or Texas, but the state HAS tried to limit the depth of those self-inflicted wounds. I'm obviously talking about low state tax rates, fighting against expensive federal CO2 reduction mandates that significantly increase energy costs, trying to keep environmental and worker safety compliance costs at a 'reasonable' level etc.
camille27
08-19-2011, 03:04 PM
i know, right?
This gave me a wonderful chuckle....
camille27
08-19-2011, 03:07 PM
this is his undergrad record? how is this even possible?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/08/do_we_need_another_dumb_texan/perry_transcript.jpeg
Perry's transcripts from A&M. D in principles of economics, and perhaps more troubling, D in Shakespeare.
Kellydancer
08-19-2011, 03:46 PM
^^^ another factor in the Texas economy ... it's a 'right to work' state.
The problem with this, of course, is exactly where the gov't funds are going to come from to 'pay for' the lost gov't tax revenues created by these tax breaks. In essence, this still amounts to gov't subsidizing globally non-competitive US industries - and sidesteps the more basic issue of why those US industries became globally non-competitive in the first place !!! Or viewed another way, such gov't subsidies would amount to applying an expensive band-aid over an arguably self-inflicted wound !!!
Not that I have anything all that positive to say about Rick Perry or Texas, but the state HAS tried to limit the depth of those self-inflicted wounds. I'm obviously talking about low state tax rates, fighting against expensive federal CO2 reduction mandates that significantly increase energy costs, trying to keep environmental and worker safety compliance costs at a 'reasonable' level etc.
Then I support raising taxes on the companies that get tax breaks for outsourcing and basically in effect giving them to the companies that deserve tax breaks for keeping jobs here. I really do resent that many companies are getting tax breaks to outsource jobs. These companies are stealing from Americans to support their outsourcing and that is wrong.
Melonie
08-19-2011, 04:33 PM
These companies are stealing from Americans to support their outsourcing
(snip)"Here's the loophole:
...the ability to defer and often never pay taxes on foreign-earned profits. The result: foreign profits of U.S. companies end up taxed at a lower rate than their U.S. income, creating an incentive to invest overseas in factories. The jobs are where the factories are.
And here's how it works
The tax code is written in a way that allows companies not to pay the full 35% U.S. corporate tax rate on foreign income when that money remains invested overseas.
Backing up a step, here's how it works before the loophole: A company earns $100 million abroad in Lowtaxistan where the corporate tax rate is 20%. The foreign subsidiary pays that money to the U.S. parent. The parent then pays $35 million to the U.S. government and takes a credit for the 20% (or $20 million) payment to the Lowtaxistan government. So the net to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is $15 million.
But here's how it works with the loophole: The U.S. subsidiary simply keeps the money offshore and certifies to its accountants that the money is invested overseas. It never remits the money to the parent and so never pays the $15 million extra to Uncle Sam.
The buzzword for people in the know in big corporations is "unrepatriated earnings" i.e. money you make off shore that doesn't come home to the US. Apparently, its getting to be more and more prevelent.(snip) from
So the fact appears to be that your advocacy of discontinuing this 'tax break' boils down to this. A company manufactures a product overseas and in turn sells it to customers overseas. That company also pays corporate taxes ( at a lower tax rate ) to the overseas country. If that company is headquartered overseas, that's the end of the story. But if that company is headquartered in the USA, that supposedly gives the US gov't the right to also tax the company's foreign sales and foreign profits in addition to the overseas country ?
Along the same lines as the tariffs discussed in my earlier post, this amounts to a 'reverse tariff' ... with the US gov't adding additional tax cost to the foreign country produced products / sales of USA headquartered companies, while allowing the non-USA headquartered competing company who might be located on the same street in Shanghai to not have to bear similar additional tax cost. The two probable results should be obvious ... either the USA headquartered company changes it's headquarters to a foreign country ( resulting in even more US jobs and US tax revenues being lost ), or the USA headquartered company's foreign production facility closes down due to lack of competitiveness resulting in lower cap gains / dividends to company stockholders ( thus US tax revenues being lost, only indirectly via lower cap gains / dividend income tax payments by those stockholders ).
I would also add that the types of companies who appear to gain the most from this 'unrepatriated earnings' loophole are tech companies like Microsoft and Apple, GM, GE, pharmaceutical companies like Phizer, Wall St. financial houses like Citi etc. It is no coincidence that the last attempt to close the 'unrepatriated earnings' loophole in 2010 failed in the US congress despite Democratic majorities in both houses of congress, and the fact that these companies ( via their employees ) are heavy contributors to the Democratic party. Or viewed skeptically, it would appear that the Democratic message for public consumption via MSM and the actual Democratic voting position regarding ending this 'unrepatriated earnings' loophole were diametrically opposed !!!
~
Speaking of bull shit! WHY DO YOU THINK CORPORATIONS GO OFF SHORE OR AS YOU SAY DON'T PAY TAXES!!!!??? lower the tax rate and you instantly become more competitive! It's seems that you think that I'm for a no corporate tax initiative??? I have stated make the corp taxes more reasonable than 35%!!! Cut it down to a flat 15-20% and get rid of the loop holes. It's a simple solution!!
Once again what you are suggesting is a tax increase.
eagle2
08-19-2011, 05:09 PM
Yeah, all those shovel-ready projects from the last two stimuli did wonders and really helped keep our heads above water.
They did have a significant impact on the economy. When Obama became President, the economy was in free-fall and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. By the time the stimulus was in full effect, the economy had stabilized and we went from losing 700,000 jobs a month to gaining 100,000 - 200,000 jobs a month. Given how badly conservatives wrecked the economy, the stimulus wasn't anywhere near big enough to bring us back to pre-recession employment levels.
The USSR collapsed because they couldn't financially keep pace with us in the Cold War. It devastated the country financially. Obama is spending us into oblivion. He has already added over 5 trillion to the debt and is on pace to triple that over all.
No it didn't. You're just making that up. (seems to be a common practice with conservatives) The USSR collapsed because the military was not willing to support the communist hardliners. What happened was, communist hardliners opposed to Gorbachev's political reforms, tried to stage a coup. Boris Yeltsin led protests against the coup, and instead of putting the protest down, Soviet troops joined the protest. This was broadcast all over the world, so it's pretty common knowledge. If the military supported the communist hardliners, the communists could have easily stayed in power. Cuba and North Korea were in far worse shape financially than the Soviet Union, yet their communist dictators are still in power. How do you explain communists keeping control of these countries?
Conservative revisionists have invented their own story of how the Cold War ended, where Ronald Reagan put on his red cape, flew to the Soviet Union, smashed through the walls of the Kremlin with his fists, flew off with the communist leaders, and dropped them in a jail cell.
The national debt has increased by approximately $4 trillion since Obama became President, not $5 trillion. Most of this debt is the result of Bush's policies, not Obama's. Bush is the one who passed the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription plan, and started two wars, without coming up with a way to pay for any of this. He was also President when we went through our worst economic crisis in 80 years. These are the main reasons why our national debt has increased by $4 trillion over the past three years, not because of anything President Obama did.
Because Bush went so far left the last half of his Presidency. He was a RINO. Clinton was forced to initiate welfare reform by the conservative Congress of the time. He also benefited from the dot-com boom and the foundation Reagan laid for him.
That's nonsense. Bush was a right-wing ideologue. Clinton was never forced to initiate welfare reform. That's something else you made up. Clinton said he was going to "end welfare as we know it" during his campaign. That was President Clinton's decision. Nobody forced him to do it. He refused to sign welfare reform until the Republicans came up with a bill that was acceptable to him. He vetoed two welfare reform bills that he found unacceptable.
The only foundation Reagan laid for Clinton was a national debt of more than $5 trillion, budget deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars and a recession.
Please explain to me how raising the cost of doing business via increased taxes is good for the economy. Bigger government isn't the solution to our problems. Big government is the problem.
Again, if the government raises taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and uses the revenue for public works projects, it would grow the economy and reduce unemployment. This is common sense. If the government spends $2 million to build a bridge that requires 20 workers, then you have 20 more people working that weren't working before.
Unlike you and Melonie, my statement is based on what happens in the real world, not some ideologically driven theory. In 1938-39, there was little economic growth in the US, and unemployment seemed stuck at 15-20%. In 1940, the government increased taxes and greatly increased spending to build up our military. This led to significant economic growth and the unemployment rate falling. If the government did the same thing today, except spend on public works projects instead of armaments, there is no reason to believe the results would be any different.
Businesses/corporations are having record profits. Instead of spending these profits to hire more people, they're just sitting on their cash. If they're not going to use their profits to hire more people, we should tax them and use the money for projects that will increase employment.
Conservatism isn't the solution to our problems. Conservatism is the problem.
JayATee
08-19-2011, 05:10 PM
Look, post 29 you trashed Bush. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he didn't. However, I don't give a fuck what you feel about my entitled opinion regarding Obama. I respect the office, that's why seeing him (or Bush or Clinton ) there is so troubling. He was only elected because of the MSM-generated lack of respect shown to Bush (and the office, by your train of thought) and either the lack of intelligence or presence of white guilt of the electorate. Unless and until he does something (in addition to the UBL thing) that deserves respect, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it. He has approval ratings plummeting despite media allegiance to him. Get used to it.
Lmao is this seriouslythe best you could do? You're more than entitled to your opinion. Telling me that I said something about Bush, who fyi isn't president any longer so disrespect is irrelevant (more so by the fact that I wasn't calling him any names either), isn't a valid response. How old are you? Not to mention genius, I wasn't singling you out. I simply used your post as a point to say something to everyone. No wonder this country is going to hell. Its people like you that are sending it there. SMFH. Utterly pathetic. Grow the fuck up. ::)
Melonie
08-19-2011, 05:25 PM
Once again what you are suggesting is a tax increase
Indeed a flat 15-20% US corporate tax rate WOULD be a de-facto MAJOR tax increase for Microsoft, Apple, GE, GM, Phizer, Citi etc. However, as 'fair' as a flat 15-20% US corporate tax rate might arguably be, it's not going to happen. The arguable reason it won't happen of course is that too many of the people paying $35,000 a plate to attend Obama fundraisers would take a major hit to their wallet !
Jay12
08-19-2011, 05:25 PM
This statistic is complete bullshit.
I don't think so; the US is pretty damn religious!!!!
safado
08-20-2011, 07:42 AM
Here is an interesting article on how Rick Perry would like to change the constitution.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html
mikef
08-20-2011, 08:27 AM
Bill Clinton raised taxes, which eventually led to a balanced budget.
You seem like a nice guy...... I just wish you would stop saying this..... The national debt never stayed the same or decreased under President Clinton.
bem401
08-20-2011, 08:58 AM
You seem like a nice guy...... I just wish you would stop saying this..... The national debt never stayed the same or decreased under President Clinton.
Mike, you're better off avoiding debating politics with the Obamatrons. The election next year will be a referendum on him and it appears he will be toast. Its too early to make the call but the day to say "Stick a fork in him, he's done" gets closer and closer as the country continues to sink under his mishandling. His supporters' only way to defend the calamity his presidency has been is to just attack anyone and everyone who isn't drinking their Kool-Aid. That's the whole aim of this thread ... to trash W, Reagan, the Tea Party, Romney, Palin, Bachmann, or now, Perry, because they can't defend either Obama's ideology or incompetence.
It's going to be hilarious when whatever buffoon gets elected by the Tea Party to represent the republicans gets utterly crushed in the election.
bem401
08-20-2011, 09:19 AM
It's going to be hilarious when whatever buffoon gets elected by the Tea Party to represent the republicans gets utterly crushed in the election.
I admit that none of the candidates has yet impressed me to any significant extent. However, there could not be a candidate worse for this country than Obamageddon. He is either incredibly incompetent or simply out to destroy what was once a great country, as both his father and other influences in his life were advocates of.
And like I said in my prior post, rather than justify what Obama's done and intends to do as being in our best interests, all you can do is resort to name calling of those who potentially might oppose him.
I don't have to justify saving the country from impending financial doom, i don't have to justify reforming our fucked up health care system, i don't have to justify abolishing don't ask don't tell, financial reform or the myriad other accomplishments hes had.
mikef
08-20-2011, 09:34 AM
Mike, you're better off avoiding debating politics with the Obamatrons. The election next year will be a referendum on him and it appears he will be toast. Its too early to make the call but the day to say "Stick a fork in him, he's done" gets closer and closer as the country continues to sink under his mishandling. His supporters' only way to defend the calamity his presidency has been is to just attack anyone and everyone who isn't drinking their Kool-Aid. That's the whole aim of this thread ... to trash W, Reagan, the Tea Party, Romney, Palin, Bachmann, or now, Perry, because they can't defend either Obama's ideology or incompetence.
Terms like Obamatrons do little to add to the debate..... I was only pointiing out that Bill Clinton never actually had a year where revenue matched expenditures....... And you're right about it being too early to really know anything.... At this time in 2007..... The conventional wisdom had a Hillary vs Rudy final...... A far cry from the actual outcome
That's not what he said.
Eagle2 said what is often repeated by many....... It is factually incorrect.
If you were not reponding to my post..... I apologize. ;)
bem401
08-20-2011, 09:38 AM
I don't have to justify saving the country from impending financial doom, i don't have to justify reforming our fucked up health care system, i don't have to justify abolishing don't ask don't tell, financial reform or the myriad other accomplishments hes had.
Saving us from impending financial doom? How did he do that? We just got downgraded last week on our creditworthiness. The market is plunging, unemployment is rising as is inflation. The dollar continues to plunge in value as we sink deeper and deeper into debt. We appear to be on the verge of a double-dip recession. Reforming health care? So the government can mismanage that at taxpayer expense they way they mismanage virtually everything else? Financial reform? Businesses are failing as rapidly now as ever and and the housing market is as bad as its ever been. The first 2 years in office he had two houses of Congress controlled by his party yet we still find ourselves here?
So while we all struggle, he's off to the uber-elite Marths's Vineyard to chop up some gold courses with his cronies. On top of that, in these tough fiscal times, he and his wife found it necessary to fly out there on separate government jets only a few hours apart. I just saw some clips of his weekly address about the ineffectiveness and partisanship of Washington. The most appropriate place for him to give that speech (and by no means am I defending Congress) is to a mirror.
bem401
08-20-2011, 09:41 AM
Terms like Obamatrons do little to add to the debate.
What else can you call them when they blindly support the guy without evaluating his performance (or lack thereof)? They're nothing but drones.
Eagle2 said what is often repeated by many....... It is factually incorrect.
If you were not reponding to my post..... I apologize. ;)
Eagle2 said Clinton left a balanced budget, you responded with something about the deficit.
bem401
08-20-2011, 09:53 AM
Eagle2 said Clinton left a balanced budget, you responded with something about the deficit.
The 2 main reasons for balanced budgets at the end of his term were the Republican Congress and the internet bubble. Once the bubble burst and 9/11 occurred (planned mostly on his watch), things got ugly.
Melonie
08-20-2011, 09:54 AM
It's going to be hilarious when whatever buffoon gets elected by the Tea Party to represent the republicans gets utterly crushed in the election.
I will readily concede that this is a distinct possibility. After all, when 47% of US 'taxpayers' aren't actually required to pay income taxes, when one out of every seven working Americans works directly for a government entity ( see ) , and where additional millions of Americans now derive their 'income' from social welfare checks, extended unemployment checks etc., there's little reason to believe that America's economic state will actually be a personal factor in their 2012 presidential voting decision.
Tack on the fact that another 12.5% of registered voters is more than 95% likely to vote for Obama no matter what he has or hasn't done ( i.e. one out of every 8 Americans is black), and throw in Obama's recent 'executive fiat' establishing de-facto amnesty for younger illegal immigrants ( i.e. selective 'prosecutions' of those already on the deportation list - see ) garnering some additional hispanic votes ( particularly so in states where citizenship isn't verified before people are allowed into the voting booths ), and indeed Obama may be impossible to defeat in 2012.
This distinct possibility is the reason that I'm planning an extended stay down here way south of the border ... to escape the increasingly likely situation of 'Tyranny of the Majority' ...
(snip)"The main danger that worried Aristotle, Madison, and Mill alike was that the majority poor citizenry would vote for confiscatory legislation at the expense of the rich minority. For whatever reason, this has never happened. At least we can be confident that the majority will not expropriate the median voter.(snip) from
In point of fact, this sort of Tyranny of the Majority HAS happened in the past in other countries ... and is arguably dangerously close to happening in 2012 in the USA !!! It should also probably be kept in mind by dancers that the 'median voter' referred to above now means a HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL OF LESS THAN $50,000 per year, and that virtually every 'full time' dancer earns far more than that !
~
The 2 main reasons for balanced budgets at the end of his term were the Republican Congress and the internet bubble. Once the bubble burst and 9/11 occurred (planned mostly on his watch), things got ugly.
You mean the Republicans NOT A SINGLE ONE of which voted for his budget in either the house or senate are the ones responsible for it passing? gotcha.
bem401
08-20-2011, 10:34 AM
You mean the Republicans NOT A SINGLE ONE of which voted for his budget in either the house or senate are the ones responsible for it passing? gotcha.
Gotcha? You really are a drone. LOL. The 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses ( the last 6 years Bubba was in office) all had Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House. Budgets (like the ones that generated surpluses) couldn't have passed without their support. Clinton made a habit out of reading the tea leaves to see what bills were going to end up on his desk and then rather cleverly co-opted them to seem like they were his initiatives. He was quite the sex offender, but an even better politician. I'll give him that much credit
eagle2
08-20-2011, 11:15 AM
You're such a disgusting liar. Bill Clinton is not a sex offender. You're the one who belongs to a church that is run by sex offenders and their protectors. I can't express how happy I am that same-sex couples can now practice your church's "sacrament" of marriage in New York.
bem401
08-20-2011, 12:38 PM
You're such a disgusting liar. Bill Clinton is not a sex offender. You're the one who belongs to a church that is run by sex offenders and their protectors. I can't express how happy I am that same-sex couples can now practice your church's "sacrament" of marriage in New York.
I guess I must have been mistaken when I thought I heard that he made a practice out of groping female visitors in his office as either Governor or President and he didn't get oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office (essentially a student/teacher relationship and subsequently lie about all of this under oath. Any school employee or corporate officer engaging in such activity would be summarily dismissed. But I guess there was no merit to the accusations made by the several women who supposedly fended him off.
Mind you, any officials of the church I belong to (but am no longer actively involved in) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and removed from positions affording them the opportunity to re-offend.
Kellydancer
08-20-2011, 12:49 PM
I am not an Obamatron but do not think the Republicans stand a chance unless their candidate is sane and most of them are not.