I'm all for that, we can start with Ag subsidies, green energy subsidies (that's one GE has taken good advantage of) and oil subsidies. We should also do something about the 48% of US households that pay zero or negative income tax.
OTB
The Tea Party's First Victory
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
OTB
I agree, I would attack each of those budgets, I'd also lay off 10% of federal workers (as the budget commission recommended) and I'd issue a 10% pay cut to the 90% who kept their job. For those receiving a public sector pension I'd stop all COLAs from now on.
OTB
There are a few points that should be considered.
These companies are playing by the rules that Congress wrote.
Many of the nanny state initiatives that the POTUS talks about (green jobs) are really tax breaks, see GE as an example making wind turbines.
Our corporate tax rates are comparatively high against other countries.
Most job creation (70%) is in small companies that file their taxes as individuals (those rich people that the POTUS and the left want to soak with more tax)
Many global firms (like the one I work for) have piles of cash over seas (billions) that they can't repatriate because they'd have to pay US taxes on it. If you can't move the money here you can't invest here, so you invest overseas.
OTB
Most are in that position because you globalist Jackwagons took their jobs away! They are now living in POVERTY and this is part of the 'safety net' that you non-christians want to now eliminate!
You can't pay taxes bottie, when you lost your job. Didn't they teach you that in business school???....
Nice! More Fuzzy Math from bottie.....
So you rob Peter to pay Paul.
All that does is move them to UI and welfare because you sent all the jobs to your commie pals in RED China!
So you would figure that even at minimum wage a person on welfare would do better?
Keep in mind that includes loosing the Medicaid benefit too.
Welfare is $400 +$133 for food stamps a month by my book is a lot less than minimum wage, so your question doesn't make sense. Your still suggesting taking $100 from someone who lives well below the poverty line; cold PS, very cold.
OTB you and I agree on many issues, and to a certain extent, i do accept the premise that the POTUS definitely has an agenda when it comes to green jobs and tax breaks to companies that the dems favor, same thing with the repubs. But, I think the corporate elite have become content with the status quo, only way for the economy to get back is if companies, small or big start hiring. Then maybe housing will recover.
I agree that small companies, are the backbone of job creation, but why would they hire when the multi-nationals are still laying off people even with historic profits? What would give them confidence and the moxy to wager the limited amounts of cash they have when the signals they get from the street is to stay put and invest overseas, as you have said.
My point is, whats the point of government lowering corporate tax for companies to reinvest here, when they are already enjoying record profits while the country is experiencing 10% or 9% unemployment. Its not like they aren't profitable already, so why hire? what's the incentive?
What does corporate America have to gain right now to hire more people and help the economy if they are making good money at this point? Right now i think its in their best interest to just have the status quo.
As I said im no lib or left of center person, but after TARP, and all the stabilizing monetary policies that has happend that have led to a more stable market and banking system, where are the jobs? Im getting cynical of it all, would a corporate tax of 0% really lead to more jobs at this point?
I agree that small companies, are the backbone of job creation, but why would they hire when the multi-nationals are still laying off people even with historic profits? What would give them confidence and the moxy to wager the limited amounts of cash they have when the signals they get from the street is to stay put and invest overseas, as you have said.
My point is, whats the point of government lowering corporate tax for companies to reinvest here, when they are already enjoying record profits while the country is experiencing 10% or 9% unemployment. Its not like they aren't profitable already, so why hire? what's the incentive?
What does corporate America have to gain right now to hire more people and help the economy if they are making good money at this point? Right now i think its in their best interest to just have the status quo.
As I said im no lib or left of center person, but after TARP, and all the stabilizing monetary policies that has happend that have led to a more stable market and banking system, where are the jobs? Im getting cynical of it all, would a corporate tax of 0% really lead to more jobs at this point?
No
I am suggesting cutting federal support of extraneous expenditures.
I would also favor private sector jobs as a way to collect more taxes.
the real problem here is that the conservatives are not the least interested in balancing the budget. They are simply trying to embarass Obama.
That plus stall any economic recovery!
GOPers will fark it up, then blame Obama and their weak if mine lemmings will believe it....
JOBS are the problem!!!!
Where are all them JOBS your corporate clowns promised?....
This 'trying to cut spending' is all GOPer 'smoke & mirrors'....
What drives a business to hire workers:
Expanded demand (there isn't much of that, but it's starting)
Known costs (there isn't much of that given the healthcare law and all the talk of tax policy changes)
Businesses are risk adverse, if they are making money now (and they are) they are going to be careful about picking up more expense. Many firms have become much more productive using technology and need less workers, they also have the option of hiring part time workers or outsource functions to other firms / countries to keep the fixed costs down.
OTB
Gee bottie you really make the 'Race to the Bottom' look nice the way you polish that turd!....
Whatever happened to what we were taught in school about making things better for the next generations??? You are going backwards....
Whatever happened to what we were taught in school about making things better for the next generations??? You are going backwards....
Yet you were the one that said a $100 off Welfare payment was a consideration back in post #16, albeit from a household. Although, that means only 10 million households x100 x12=peanuts. So you're going to claw back $1200/yr from a family/person is living below the poverty. Not good.
That 1200 a year you are talking about is being spent on cable and internet access.
I would not be affecting their income at all.
Remember I said limit to those with cable and internet.
Cable only would be about 60 bucks a month
IPHONE is close to 100 a month
Taking that money away would not affect income, in that the money spent goes to unnecessary things
And how many people below the poverty line and receivng meager welfare checks and food stamps do you suppose have IPHONES?
Are you trying to tell me that someone who's living under the poverty line has internet and cable service in their shack. Reality check time PS. I
I'll bet the farm you can't live on 12G's a year. If you say yes, I'll call BS and I bet I'm not alone.
Maybe in the US but up here my cable is $65 for more channels than I can watch and my IPhin( yes wodrow I have an iPhone) cost $60.
