• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to propose 'grand bargain' on corporate tax rate, infrastructure

Sisyphus said:
Drive on roads? Get electricity off the grid? Live safely within our borders? Use the Internet? Government buys a lot, and unless you're single and paying ~$13 grand in FIT annually, you're getting a lot without having to pay for it.
Click to expand...


Drive on roads, Yes, and you pay for it when you buy gasoline.
Get electricity, yes, and you pay for it.
Live safely within our borders is a responsibility defined in the Constitution.
Use the internet, Yes, and you pay for it

I pay for everything I get from the govt. and so do you. I pay Federal, state, and local taxes on everything I purchase, don't you?
 
Henrin said:
Why would I use idiot in place of douchebag? Calling obama an idiot does nothing to describe his over inflated sense of self worth nor does it describe his complete lack of self awareness. All it does is describe his lack of intelligence and while it's true he isn't all that bright, it does nothing to describe his other shortcomings. Sorry, but idiot does not work as a substitute for douchebag.

You're free to think whatever you want on why people oppose Obama, but it's probably wise to take note of the sharp differences between people like Obama and his opposition.
Click to expand...

not much here to respond to, as usual, but you're right, he's not very bright, is he? If he was, he'd be doing what you do all day.
 
Sisyphus said:
RepContrl. Note the reference credit.
Click to expand...

I am waiting for your definition of Congressional control and the periods covered. There was no Republican Control of Congress until 1994
 
Sisyphus said:
Meanwhile, the source referenced for the MJ commentary is here: The Politics of Social Policy in America: The Causes and Effects of Indirect Versus Direct Social Spending by Christopher G. Faricy :: SSRN
Click to expand...

The sources that matter are the U.S. Treasury Data and I don't see that referenced. Someone has tried to prove that a Democrat controlled Congress is more fiscally responsible than a Republican controlled Congress and that has yet to be proven because the data is questionable at best.
 
VanceMack said:
Does ANYONE here have a reason to be 'for' or 'against' what is about to be proposed, beyond who is proposing it? And you are calling out politicians for being suck up political hacks?
Click to expand...

Yes; it's a supply-side bit of foolishness that seems to think we can pay for infrastructure (vital to business too) by lowering taxes business pay. So as a Democrat and an economics-realist, I'd have to ask why Obama is channeling Jack Kemp.

The President need to stop sucking Geithners dick and listen to economists like Reich and Steiglitz, who Clinton listened too, even if only half the time.
 
VanceMack said:
Does ANYONE here have a reason to be 'for' or 'against' what is about to be proposed, beyond who is proposing it? And you are calling out politicians for being suck up political hacks?
Click to expand...

It cuts deductions. Thats why I oppose it. This bill will hurt small business.
 
windowdressing said:
not much here to respond to, as usual, but you're right, he's not very bright, is he? If he was, he'd be doing what you do all day.
Click to expand...

Do you know what I do all day?
 
Sisyphus said:
Yes; it's a supply-side bit of foolishness that seems to think we can pay for infrastructure (vital to business too) by lowering taxes business pay. So as a Democrat and an economics-realist, I'd have to ask why Obama is channeling Jack Kemp.

The President need to stop sucking Geithners dick and listen to economists like Reich and Steiglitz, who Clinton listened too, even if only half the time.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is talking about lowering taxes on business. He is talking about lowering rates and then attacking tax incentives and deductions. I'm sure it is a tax increase overall.
 
Sisyphus said:
Drive on roads? Get electricity off the grid? Live safely within our borders? Use the Internet? Government buys a lot, and unless you're single and paying ~$13 grand in FIT annually, you're getting a lot without having to pay for it.
Click to expand...

It's kind of humorous how that entire list is not the job of the government.
 
Conservative said:
The sources that matter are the U.S. Treasury Data and I don't see that referenced. Someone has tried to prove that a Democrat controlled Congress is more fiscally responsible than a Republican controlled Congress and that has yet to be proven because the data is questionable at best.
Click to expand...

Do a PhD thesis on it and publish your own paper if you think it's wrong. Go hog wild.

Meanwhile, it should be obvious why Dems spend less the Reps. For Dems it's political suicide, often. Next election the Rep opposition will say he's a spender and added trillions in debt -- and it'll stick. No one will question it since the visceral sense (wrong it seems) is Dems are tax and spenders.

Meanwhile if a Dem hopeful say the Rep running for re-election spent Billions, he'll just say he had to because those scheming Dem spend-aholics forced him with riders that would have banned motherhood and apple pie if he did not vote Yay in contrast to every fiber of his being, and the GOP voter base will buy-in to it at "hello."

In short, Dems are held accountable for spending increases. Reps do it with impunity.
 
Henrin said:
It's kind of humorous how that entire list is not the job of the government.
Click to expand...

Correct. They hire the private sector to do the job, which it's giddy to get. Government merely buys it for us, even if we're not paying enough in. Pretty sweet deal.
 
Tigger said:
Why bother waiting? It IS NOT and never has been the role of the Government to create jobs. Even when they've tried over the years, they generally fail miserably.
Click to expand...

You are right if you are talking about Republican administrations. They have failed miserably at job creation during their terms.

The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.
Click to expand...
Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House - Bloomberg
 
Sisyphus said:
Correct. They hire the private sector to do the job, which it's giddy to get. Government merely buy it for us, even if we're not paying enough in. Pretty sweet deal.
Click to expand...

Lol! That is obviously not what I meant.

Anyway, they are effectively the worthless middleman doing a job anyone can do. Who the hell can't take money from people by force and then throw it at other people?
 
Sisyphus said:
Yes; it's a supply-side bit of foolishness that seems to think we can pay for infrastructure (vital to business too) by lowering taxes business pay. So as a Democrat and an economics-realist, I'd have to ask why Obama is channeling Jack Kemp.

The President need to stop sucking Geithners dick and listen to economists like Reich and Steiglitz, who Clinton listened too, even if only half the time.
Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong about the proposal. Obama would eliminate loopholes along with lowering rates so revenue would be increased for a few years. It is that extra revenue that he wants earmarked for infrastructure. Of course that is why Republicans are against it too.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually you are wrong about the proposal. Obama would eliminate loopholes along with lowering rates so revenue would be increased for a few years. It is that extra revenue that he wants earmarked for infrastructure. Of course that is why Republicans are against it too.
Click to expand...

How is OMB scoring it?
 
Henrin said:
Lol! That is obviously not what I meant.

Anyway, they are effectively the worthless middleman doing a job anyone can do. Who the hell can't take money from people by force and then throw it at other people?
Click to expand...

Ok Who would have built the interstate highway system then? You have no understanding of the purpose of govt. at all.
 
iguanaman said:
Ok Who would have built the interstate highway system then? You have no understanding of the purpose of govt. at all.
Click to expand...

The same people that did build the interstate highway system. :doh
 
It is a fee for overseas earnings brought back to the U.S. that will pay for he spending. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Let those hidden foreign earnings do some good here in America.

To pay for the infrastructure investments and other spending, Obama proposed that companies be able to repatriate foreign earnings back to the U.S., subject to a one-time “transition fee.”
Click to expand...
Read more: Obama proposal would cut corporate taxes, boost spending - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 
Sisyphus said:
Yes; it's a supply-side bit of foolishness that seems to think we can pay for infrastructure (vital to business too) by lowering taxes business pay. So as a Democrat and an economics-realist, I'd have to ask why Obama is channeling Jack Kemp.

The President need to stop sucking Geithners dick and listen to economists like Reich and Steiglitz, who Clinton listened too, even if only half the time.
Click to expand...


Spoken by someone who obviously has no concept of the line items in the budget and what your taxes fund. We don't need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with most of that money going to social programs. SS and Medicare along with the Payroll taxes that fund them should go off budget immediately. Excise taxes which come from gasoline purchases also need to come off budget and used for their direct purpose.

Then shift all unemployment benefits, healthcare costs, and other social engineering programs back to the states where they belong. There would be plenty of money for the programs needed if the money was allocated properly and spent as required by the taxes established.
 
Henrin said:
The same people that did build the interstate highway system. :doh
Click to expand...

You mean the U.S. govt. of course, the project could not have been done without their money and direction.
 
Sisyphus said:
Do a PhD thesis on it and publish your own paper if you think it's wrong. Go hog wild.

Meanwhile, it should be obvious why Dems spend less the Reps. For Dems it's political suicide, often. Next election the Rep opposition will say he's a spender and added trillions in debt -- and it'll stick. No one will question it since the visceral sense (wrong it seems) is Dems are tax and spenders.

Meanwhile if a Dem hopeful say the Rep running for re-election spent Billions, he'll just say he had to because those scheming Dem spend-aholics forced him with riders that would have banned motherhood and apple pie if he did not vote Yay in contrast to every fiber of his being, and the GOP voter base will buy-in to it at "hello."

In short, Dems are held accountable for spending increases. Reps do it with impunity.
Click to expand...

The paper you posted doesn't do that and if that is what you are holding up as an example of Democrats being better on spending, you are showing your true colors and fooling yourself.

The problem with Democrats is they don't understand economic activity and growth which is your basic problem. Democrats don't spend less. Republicans controlled the Congress from 1994-2000 and you and others claimed Clinton had a balanced budget. Who actually cut those Clinton budgets and spending? Check out the deficits in years 2004-2006 vs. 2007-2009 and see who spent less.

Dems and other liberals are never held accountable for spending because it is spending in the name of compassion and that just makes people like you feel good.
 
Sisyphus said:
How is OMB scoring it?
Click to expand...

Meanwhile iguanaman, that was a bit glib. Obviously OMB has no scored it, or if it has, Obama ain't saying. The only number yet said, is $50 Billion on infrastructure.

And here's the supply-side foolishness in it: lower corporate tax rate; lower still for manufacturing sector enterprises. Pure supply-side idiocy.

Let's say you're Columbia Sportswear and buy in China, or the like. Will you raise your cost-to-produce, lowering your profit, merely to save some points on your taxes on profit? NO!! It would be idiotic.

We are not competitive in unskilled manufacture. But we have companies who make products that can be manufactured here and be competitive, and will, since close-in manufacture has myriad efficiencies, not to mention stricter oversight and QC. Everyone who can make a buck manufacturing here is already here or will come here. Those who cannot will manufacture elsewhere, since the name of the game is more and not less profit. So these cuts are merely gifts in the form of more after-tax profit, at a time that profits are already at a record and companies are rife with retained earnings and cash-on-hand, which they have not and will not pay to employees they do not have to, nor hire employees they do not need, even if they can afford them. And they will not invest in an opportunity that is not there!!! It's just more money, which will be hoarded by a few, and not invested back into the economy by being spent.

IT'S STUPID!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom