Don't Tax The Job Creators...Really?

[Guest]

Before I ask my question let me say that I am a big fan of Apple. I've used their computers almost from the time they started selling them. I own several Apple computers, iPhones, iPads, even an iTouch. I've been an Apple shareholder for a long time and I've made a LOT of money on the investment. In fact, what I'm about to suggest might cost me personally. But yesterday's New York Times article surely should make people who defend current tax policy and even propose lower business taxes think a little bit.

Apple reported that it made almost $25 billon last year, but paid less than $2.5 billion in federal taxes, a 9.8% tax rate. I'd suggest that rate is probably lower than the tax rates paid by most of the people posting on this forum. I know it's a much lower rate than I paid last year, MUCH lower. It was also reported that Apple is joining with a number of other large corporations to fund a major lobbying effort to get Congress to pass a "tax repatriation holiday", a period when those companies doing a large proportion of their business outside the U.S. could bring their profits made overseas back into the U.S. without paying any taxes on them.

Let's briefly review how Apple does business. Almost without exception, not one Apple product is manufactured in the U.S. Almost all their products are produced in China. In fact, if you place an order for an Apple product thru their Apple Online Store, your order will be fulfilled directly from their distribution center in Shanghai. Other than Chinese citizens, no American will touch the product you order other than the FedEx employees who deliver it to your home. If you buy an Apple product at a brick-and-mortar Apple store, the products will be shipped there directly from China and only the Americans working in the store will be part of the supply chain.

Apple's profits doubled between 2010 and 2011. It as become the most valuable company in the world. Like most large multinational companies, Apple employs an army of tax lawyers figuring out ways wherein they can set up subsidiaries to do business in states or countries with low or no income taxes and then allocate income to those subs to minimize taxes. If you want to describe this activity as taking advantage of tax loopholes, that's exactly what it is. Many large corporations paid even lower tax rates than Apple in 2011; more than 30% of the Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income taxes at all last year. (Let's see, that's about half the individuals and 30% of our largest companies not paying any taxes to finance our government? That can't be right, can it? That would result in a big budget deficit, wouldn't it? Oh, I forgot...we have a big deficit!)

So when we hear the GOP mantra that changing tax policy other than further reducing corporate taxes will hurt job creation, it seems to raise the question which is the tag line on the frequently broadcast MSNBC political ad...

"Hurt the job creators? Really? Then where are the jobs?"

Is everyone in the U.S., individuals and businesses, paying their fair share in taxes? If there was ever an argument for a major change in tax policy, this is it.

How about this for a question....which tax change would have a more positive effect on the U.S. economy? Further reductions in corporate income tax rates, or a reduction in personal tax rates, even if corporate taxes were increased to make such change "revenue neutral"?

Wanna call that "income redistribution"? Go ahead. I'd call the current tax code arithmetic that doesn't add up.

[Guest]

great piece. All facts. Apple pays less a percentage than I do and creates zero jobs. Yet the republicans will counter with redistribution of wealth nonsense.

[Guest]

great piece. All facts. Apple pays less a percentage than I do and creates zero jobs. Yet the republicans will counter with redistribution of wealth nonsense.

Do you think there's a reason Apple produces almost all it's products out of country? Liberals never learn.

[Guest]

Do you think there's a reason Apple produces almost all it's products out of country? Liberals never learn.Go ahead and give us the answers, Richie.

How about starting by answering the questions on the table, before you get into the political criticisms and overly general commentary?...
Is the current income tax system fair? Should half the individuals in the U.S. pay no income tax? Should about 30% of our largest corporations pay no income taxes? Should the average corporate tax rate be less than the average personal tax rate?

Would a reduction in personal income tax rates combined with an increase in corporate tax rates, with the objective of revenue neutrality, produce more jobs than further reductions in corporate taxes? (Increased corporate tax revenues might take the form of elimination of special tax benefits, deductions and loopholes and might even permit a reduction in the corporate rate.) Clearly, corporate earnings are dramatically on the upswing, but unemployment is still way too high. Shareholders like me are happy campers, with near record corporate earnings floating the stock market to record levels and permitting generous dividends. But what about the middle class, Richie? About 10% of them can't find a job. The profitable corporations are creating jobs, but not here in the U.S. So what change in tax policy might help them get to work?
I don't know what there is to "learn", Richie, other than that our current system of taxation is both unfair and doesn't produce sufficient revenue to even begin to justify and pay for services, benefits and entitlements provided by the federal government

But let's keep it simple. Just answer the questions. You can skip the quick, cutting, uninformative politically-driven replies.

[Guest]

So how are the Democrats in Congress and Obama administration encouraging job creation here at home, and how can we take them seriously about caring about jobs here.......when Obama appoints Jeffrey Immelt, GE C.E.O as his "Jobs Czar".......while GE has shipped almost all its production to foreign nations like China, and putting thousands out of work here??????

Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas
Gallery

By Peter Whoriskey
Wednesday, September 8, 2010; 9:48 PM

WINCHESTER, VA. - The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s.

The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs......"

Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html?sid=ST2011013003428)

[Guest]

Great post Villages Kahuna.

Wonder what Mitt Romney would do with this kind of question? I am sure he will get to the Villages on his campaign circuits. Maybe someone from TOTV should find out what he would do with this kind of dilemma?

[Guest]

Go ahead and give us the answers, Richie.

How about starting by answering the questions on the table, before you get into the political criticisms and overly general commentary?...
Is the current income tax system fair? Should half the individuals in the U.S. pay no income tax? Should about 30% of our largest corporations pay no income taxes? Should the average corporate tax rate be less than the average personal tax rate?

Would a reduction in personal income tax rates combined with an increase in corporate tax rates, with the objective of revenue neutrality, produce more jobs than further reductions in corporate taxes? (Increased corporate tax revenues might take the form of elimination of special tax benefits, deductions and loopholes and might even permit a reduction in the corporate rate.) Clearly, corporate earnings are dramatically on the upswing, but unemployment is still way too high. Shareholders like me are happy campers, with near record corporate earnings floating the stock market to record levels and permitting generous dividends. But what about the middle class, Richie? About 10% of them can't find a job. The profitable corporations are creating jobs, but not here in the U.S. So what change in tax policy might help them get to work?
I don't know what there is to "learn", Richie, other than that our current system of taxation is both unfair and doesn't produce sufficient revenue to even begin to justify and pay for services, benefits and entitlements provided by the federal government

But let's keep it simple. Just answer the questions. You can skip the quick, cutting, uninformative politically-driven replies.

:bigbow:

[Guest]

Go ahead and give us the answers, Richie.

How about starting by answering the questions on the table, before you get into the political criticisms and overly general commentary?...
Is the current income tax system fair? Should half the individuals in the U.S. pay no income tax? Should about 30% of our largest corporations pay no income taxes? Should the average corporate tax rate be less than the average personal tax rate?

Would a reduction in personal income tax rates combined with an increase in corporate tax rates, with the objective of revenue neutrality, produce more jobs than further reductions in corporate taxes? (Increased corporate tax revenues might take the form of elimination of special tax benefits, deductions and loopholes and might even permit a reduction in the corporate rate.) Clearly, corporate earnings are dramatically on the upswing, but unemployment is still way too high. Shareholders like me are happy campers, with near record corporate earnings floating the stock market to record levels and permitting generous dividends. But what about the middle class, Richie? About 10% of them can't find a job. The profitable corporations are creating jobs, but not here in the U.S. So what change in tax policy might help them get to work?
I don't know what there is to "learn", Richie, other than that our current system of taxation is both unfair and doesn't produce sufficient revenue to even begin to justify and pay for services, benefits and entitlements provided by the federal government

But let's keep it simple. Just answer the questions. You can skip the quick, cutting, uninformative politically-driven replies.

vk - good questions - don't have the answers - but it makes me wonder what obama and his administration has done or is doing to correct the imperfections of our tax policy and lack of revenue production! are there answers to that dilemma? i tend to agree with the bobbleheads who believe those probs should have been addressed BEFORE health care was.

[Guest]

njbchbum

As with any political issue, folks like these will try and make this stand alone, but forget that this President appointed a blue ribbon panel and one of their goals was the tax code....he swished it away.

The Ryan budget, while I certainly do not endorse it totally addresses tax reform...Obama makes fun of it.

I read an article in the Wall St Journal detailing some of the back room work being done to try and get the prep work done on revising many aspects of the tax code and being worked on by both parties.

And while touting the Buffet Rule, this administration, despite EVERYONE saying that it is wrong and unecessary are going ahead and SPENDING 8 BILLION dollars on medicaire advantage expirement that even the CBO opposes but they will do it so that nothing drastic happens before the election.

NONE of these economic issues can be discussed on their own in my opinion.....VK is a smart man and he knows that both parties want tax revision and that the House budget begins that process, but we are about to begin the dirtiest political campaign in history....make that we have begun it already......and this is simply partisan politics pure and simple.

The WH has begun the class warfare stuff already with the Presidents remarks to[I] [B]"The president warned union members that Republicans would rather give "rich folks" more tax breaks, than invest in the American worker.

"Republicans in Congress would rather put fewer of you to work rebuilding America than ask millionaires and billionaires to live without massive new tax cuts on top of the ones they’ve already gotten," Obama declared in a speech to to construction union members at the Hilton hotel in Washington.

Obama added that Republicans' economic plan depended on tax cuts for the rich and "dismantling your unions."

"I mean, if you ask them, what’s their big economic plan in addition to tax cuts for rich folks, it’s dismantling your unions. After all you’ve done to build and protect the middle class, they make the argument you’re responsible for the problems facing the middle class," Obama added.

The president praised the unionized middle class as the for contributing to an economy based on the middle class."


Ahead of May Day, Obama delivers class warfare | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ahead-may-day-obama-delivers-class-warfare/510926)

This thread is part of an attempt to frame the issue and make the Republican party all a bunch of rich guys and the "poor" democrats (who may be even richer) are the only ones covering our butts....also making the unions stronger, bigger and mucho more powerful.

They will frame the President as a hero on this Bin Laden thing...very crass in my opinion as well as most of the world if you read the press and even taken apart and called some really bad names by Huffington who usually loves Obama.

This is what it will be like....this thread ignores the continual spending, the ignoring of attempts to engage in budget talks.....our country has not had a budget in THREE YEARS and nobody cares about that, nor are there any discussions on it. The Buffet rule was nothing but trickery and everyone knows that but again a chance to frame things how they want to. Just think the 8 billion dollars this adminstration is spending despite it being a sham is almost 20% of the entire Buffet rule....it is ludicrious.

DO both parties play the game...yep...for sure and I wait anxiously for the debates.....the cheapness and shallowness of the past few weeks is sort of disappointing to me.

[Guest]

Lots of people would answer that our tax system is 'fair' because they are doing alright financially. This defines many conservatives, because they want to 'conserve' things as they are and keep what they have. There is no motivation to change things, and in fact, a fear of changing things lest they end up with less than they have now. Depending on your orientation, you can label these folks 'desirous of protecting what they have worked so hard to accumulate' or 'greedy' and 'selfish'.
On the other hand, almost no one could logically argue the tax system is fair if you added the qualification '...for the country as a whole'. Our legislators are given the charge of seeing things that way, but few are able to overcome the distractions and pressures which surround them and stick to the job. Until a majority of them are influenced or compelled to change things, nothing will change.

A reduction in personal income taxes for those earning less than one million per year, combined with a corresponding increase on higher incomes which achieves revenue neutrality, will certainly create domestic jobs. Why certainly? Because real increases in incomes for lower, middle and even upper-middle class Americans are immediately poured back into the domestic economy. Yes, some of that is siphoned off to the Chinese manufacturers, but the greater amount is spent on US services and some goods. Increased demand for those goods and services equals instant job creation.
Much larger percentages of higher incomes are diverted to investments and expenditures outside of the domestic market. Direct investments in foreign businesses, Swiss Alps vacations and Canary Islands bank accounts come to mind. And wealthy folks admit they would not be disinclined to invest in the US economy if their tax obligation for capital gains were to be significantly raised from the current low figure of 15%.

The problem with corporate tax rates is not that they are too low. They are too high. Lowering corporate tax rates would also undoubtedly result in domestic job creation. The real problem are the corporate tax loopholes, some the outrageously unfair products of powerful lobbyists and corrupt or stupid congressmen, others, well-intentioned efforts to address economic circumstances which have long since changed, (see farm subsidies and oil company incentives).

We need new loopholes. For example, incentives for returning manufacturing jobs to the US, hiring veterans, and citizens instead of aliens. All loopholes must have expiration dates, long enough for businesses to chart longer term returns on investments, short enough to discontinue rewards to obsolete or unproductive enterprises.

What worries me is that those with the power to do so will continue to lack the courage and motivation to
initiate change, until we experience our next, and necessarily more serious, economic disaster.

[Guest]

This is a subject VK mentioned. I would like to offer an opinion. Sure bring the profits back to the USA and get a tax deal only if you invest the money in construction of plants, hiring and training employees to staff those facturies. Otherwise, no deal.

[Guest]

I don't have all the answers except that I know if you overtax companies they'll take their business elsewhere. It's common sense. With that business leaving, the jobs leave with them.

You can write a thousand more words about how I'm simplifying a complex subject, but I know what I've written is solid thinking.

I don't need a thousand words to make my point.

[Guest]

I don't have all the answers except that I know if you overtax companies they'll take their business elsewhere. It's common sense. With that business leaving, the jobs leave with them.

You can write a thousand more words about how I'm simplifying a complex subject, but I know what I've written is solid thinking.

I don't need a thousand words to make my point.OK, Richie, apply a little "solid thinking" to the situation with General Electric. GE didn't pay any taxes on their income in the U.S. at all last year. In fact, GE got a tax refund of $3.2 billion on taxes paid on prior years' income. This company should love doing business in the U.S.

So how many jobs has GE created in the U.S.? Sadly, even though GE can't get a better tax deal than paying nothing, they also haven't created any jobs in the U.S. since 2004. In 2004 GE employed 165,000 people in its U.S. operations. That employment declined steadily each year until the end of 2011, when GE's U.S. employment totaled only about 131,000 people.

So with maybe the most favorable tax deal of any large company--no taxes at all--GE cut it's U.S. employees by 34,000 jobs, a 21% cut in American employment. So in spite of enjoying a tremendously favorable tax deal, GE didn't create any jobs at all. In fact it cut jobs!

I don't know how you can cut GE's taxes to less than nothing, Richie. So again, like the MSNBC ad says, "Don't tax the job creators?...where are the jobs?"

Go ahead, apply a little solid thinking to this one Richie and tell us your findings and conclusions.

Then maybe you can take a crack at my original two questions. Your answers won't take a lot of words, but they will require a little "solid thinking".

[Guest]

Yet the one simple fact gets glossed over time and time again. It's not the governments money and they didn't earn it. The government some of you so fondly love and adore are nothing but parasites that feed off of other peoples success, takes money, creates programs, creates dependants, and buys votes.

It sickens me to watch people squabble over percentages and how much the government should confiscate from other people. Nothing more than thieves and some of you gleefully support them... In the name of fairness of course. barf

[Guest]

Before I ask my question let me say that I am a big fan of Apple. I've used their computers almost from the time they started selling them. I own several Apple computers, iPhones, iPads, even an iTouch. I've been an Apple shareholder for a long time and I've made a LOT of money on the investment. In fact, what I'm about to suggest might cost me personally. But yesterday's New York Times article surely should make people who defend current tax policy and even propose lower business taxes think a little bit.

Apple reported that it made almost $25 billon last year, but paid less than $2.5 billion in federal taxes, a 9.8% tax rate. I'd suggest that rate is probably lower than the tax rates paid by most of the people posting on this forum. I know it's a much lower rate than I paid last year, MUCH lower. It was also reported that Apple is joining with a number of other large corporations to fund a major lobbying effort to get Congress to pass a "tax repatriation holiday", a period when those companies doing a large proportion of their business outside the U.S. could bring their profits made overseas back into the U.S. without paying any taxes on them.

Let's briefly review how Apple does business. Almost without exception, not one Apple product is manufactured in the U.S. Almost all their products are produced in China. In fact, if you place an order for an Apple product thru their Apple Online Store, your order will be fulfilled directly from their distribution center in Shanghai. Other than Chinese citizens, no American will touch the product you order other than the FedEx employees who deliver it to your home. If you buy an Apple product at a brick-and-mortar Apple store, the products will be shipped there directly from China and only the Americans working in the store will be part of the supply chain.

Apple's profits doubled between 2010 and 2011. It as become the most valuable company in the world. Like most large multinational companies, Apple employs an army of tax lawyers figuring out ways wherein they can set up subsidiaries to do business in states or countries with low or no income taxes and then allocate income to those subs to minimize taxes. If you want to describe this activity as taking advantage of tax loopholes, that's exactly what it is. Many large corporations paid even lower tax rates than Apple in 2011; more than 30% of the Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income taxes at all last year. (Let's see, that's about half the individuals and 30% of our largest companies not paying any taxes to finance our government? That can't be right, can it? That would result in a big budget deficit, wouldn't it? Oh, I forgot...we have a big deficit!)

So when we hear the GOP mantra that changing tax policy other than further reducing corporate taxes will hurt job creation, it seems to raise the question which is the tag line on the frequently broadcast MSNBC political ad...

"Hurt the job creators? Really? Then where are the jobs?"

Is everyone in the U.S., individuals and businesses, paying their fair share in taxes? If there was ever an argument for a major change in tax policy, this is it.

How about this for a question....which tax change would have a more positive effect on the U.S. economy? Further reductions in corporate income tax rates, or a reduction in personal tax rates, even if corporate taxes were increased to make such change "revenue neutral"?

Wanna call that "income redistribution"? Go ahead. I'd call the current tax code arithmetic that doesn't add up.

Unfortunately you have bought in to the bs printed by the NY Times. During FY 2011 Apple was required to pay estimated taxes equal to their taxes in the corresponding quarter of FY 2010. Apple did so. Their earnings, however, had more than doubled. Apple's actual tax rate for FY 2011 was 24%, the same as it was for FY 2010.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1350897464x0x444195/E7A8FE5F-8835-46AB-ACC2-6FA28DFB546D/Three_Yr_Financial_History.pdf

It is worth noting that approximately 60% of Apple's sales were outside the US and the profit on those sales paid in the countries in which the profits occurred.

Apple is under pressure to distribute part of its $100 billion cash holdings and is expected to pay out approximate $40 billion over the next few years. The problem for the US, generated by our tax code, is that only about one third of that $100 billion is in the US. Apple would have to pay an additional 30% tax to bring back home profits that they have already been taxed upon.

Consequently Apple will distribute the cash it has in the US and use the cash accumulated outside the US to expand business internationally, build more plants, contract new labs ,etc. Until we change our tax code to allow companies to repatriate profits without penalty, we will be deliberately shoving work to other countries.

[Guest]

OK, Richie, apply a little "solid thinking" to the situation with General Electric. GE didn't pay any taxes on their income in the U.S. at all last year. In fact, GE got a tax refund of $3.2 billion on taxes paid on prior years' income. This company should love doing business in the U.S.

So how many jobs has GE created in the U.S.? Sadly, even though GE can't get a better tax deal than paying nothing, they also haven't created any jobs in the U.S. since 2004. In 2004 GE employed 165,000 people in its U.S. operations. That employment declined steadily each year until the end of 2011, when GE's U.S. employment totaled only about 131,000 people.

So with maybe the most favorable tax deal of any large company--no taxes at all--GE cut it's U.S. employees by 34,000 jobs, a 21% cut in American employment. So in spite of enjoying a tremendously favorable tax deal, GE didn't create any jobs at all. In fact it cut jobs!

I don't know how you can cut GE's taxes to less than nothing, Richie. So again, like the MSNBC ad says, "Don't tax the job creators?...where are the jobs?"

Go ahead, apply a little solid thinking to this one Richie and tell us your findings and conclusions.

Then maybe you can take a crack at my original two questions. Your answers won't take a lot of words, but they will require a little "solid thinking".

Common sense tells me you're missing something important, whatever it is. If the business climate was the most favorable in the U.S. the jobs would be here. There's can be no other explanation.

If you want to take it personally that I think there's something not quite right with something you've written, that's you problem.

You can get into all the minutia if you want, I've got my own style and it's served me well.

[Guest]

OK, Richie, apply a little "solid thinking" to the situation with General Electric. GE didn't pay any taxes on their income in the U.S. at all last year. In fact, GE got a tax refund of $3.2 billion on taxes paid on prior years' income. This company should love doing business in the U.S.

So how many jobs has GE created in the U.S.? Sadly, even though GE can't get a better tax deal than paying nothing, they also haven't created any jobs in the U.S. since 2004. In 2004 GE employed 165,000 people in its U.S. operations. That employment declined steadily each year until the end of 2011, when GE's U.S. employment totaled only about 131,000 people.

So with maybe the most favorable tax deal of any large company--no taxes at all--GE cut it's U.S. employees by 34,000 jobs, a 21% cut in American employment. So in spite of enjoying a tremendously favorable tax deal, GE didn't create any jobs at all. In fact it cut jobs!

I don't know how you can cut GE's taxes to less than nothing, Richie. So again, like the MSNBC ad says, "Don't tax the job creators?...where are the jobs?"

Go ahead, apply a little solid thinking to this one Richie and tell us your findings and conclusions.

Then maybe you can take a crack at my original two questions. Your answers won't take a lot of words, but they will require a little "solid thinking".

You take on only one party on this issue. I find fault with two and wonder why you choose only one GE has been doing the same thing for years and years...INCLUDING THOSE WHEN DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES and to my knowledge they put forth no tax code changes. NONE. So, how did this become a Republican issue only ?

This issue is being presented now as a one sided deal and clothed in class warfare language in the last few years. This tax code was not invented by Republicans.

This President appointed what he called a blue ribbon committee and they came up with some ideas, all rejected by this president....the Ryan budget, while certainly not very specific is simply pushed aside and the call goes out to the house Republicans as not doing anything, meanwhile the Dem Senate will not even discuss a budget and have not for three years.

I really have a problem with the presentation for sure. This kind of rhetoric is class warfare and will allow us to join the European countries in total upheaval. We do not even talk about spending cuts any longer.....all that is done is to bash the tax code and try things like the Buffet Rule, and I know VK that you are smart enough to know that was a political ploy entirely.

My opinion, this President has done a simply fantastic job in tying us all up in our shorts fighting over who makes more...instead of talking about cuts...it is NOT EVEN TALKED ABOUT ANY LONGER. He is a master at all of this, including the show he is putting on in other arenas.

I surely may get him re-elected and then we can all fight in the streets to even everything out and see who will get the most.

GE and APPLE did not just begin what they are doing..this is not new.....if you think the Dems are non complicit in whatever you are charging the Republicans with (and I am not sure what that is actually) then I submit to you with all respect, you are ignoring facts.

Both parties in congress are guilty...BOTH...and our current President, at this stage, has won the battle of the media to convince all that only one party is watching the store and the other is robbing it.

The class rhetoric you may pooh pooh, but spend most of the day in Tampa today, and spoke directly with about 5/6 of the Occupy group out there protesting today.

NONE of them worked...ALL of them were collecting some form of subsidy from the Government and a number of them told me it was the Republicans fault they dont get more.....because they put into place tax breaks for the rich only. Now, that is what is happening in this country.


I suppose all I can say is somehow someone better insure that this man is not reelected.....he did this kind of thing in Chicago when a young man and he has it perfected. Even his new motto...FORWARD...is steeped in history in Europe relative to the socialist movement there.

There will now be a few posters who will come on and make two or three sentence smart cracks and then leave...but if you people actually think that the Apple and GE thing just now began...if you really believe all of this, and ignore things like NAFTA....power of unions, etc.....and you believe our economic woes can be laid at the feet of just corporations then so be it. I am not the economic thinker you are VK and do not pretend to be, but not only my gut but also the rhetoric that is going on right now in this country is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. THAT I know is right...maybe I dont understand the numbers as you do but the language being used by this WH is simply hateful and dangerous from someone who is supposed to LEAD.

Your original two questions by the way spoke ONLY to tax code and not to any reduction in spending...it mentioned the unemployment rate which is higher than 8% and NOW is accepted as normal......the rhetoric is NOT about creating jobs but about how much APPLE OR GE paid or didnt pay in taxes. The rhetoric does not mention that we, as a country, have not even tried to make a budget for THREE YEARS.

Why does not this President talk about Simpson Bowles...why does not this President have both sides of the aisle discussing anything good from the house budget ?

PS....just to add.....the Presidents recent remarks about what he will do relative to corporate taxes, he ALSO SAID IN 2008 but that will be forgotten I fear with our media.....he is resaying what he said in 2008, well most of it.....but he had complete and total control over everything for two years and put forward NOTHING. I will give him credit..he is a master at this politicing but I would rather have a president who is not ALWAYS politicing.....he is spending BILLIONS of our money to fund something that he can find not even one organization to back and the CBO said publicly that it was a mistake, but he is doing it anyway....know why ? It will cover the first pubic show of his health care bill right before the election...NO other reason but that kind of thing seems to be accepted just like the current unemployment rate.

[Guest]

You take on only one party on this issue. I find fault with two and wonder why you choose only one ...Bucco, that's the second time in this thread that you've accused me of finding fault with only one party and favoring the other guys. In fact, in an earlier post in this thread, you accused me of saying something that supported the growth and re-energization of unions. How you somehow morphed unions into this discussion of tax policy is beyond me. Perhaps you were comiserating on Saul Alinsky and his favorite student Barack Obama again.

Yes, I have accused the Republicans of droning on and on about further reducing the taxes on the richest individuals and businesses because such action would hamper job growth. I'm critical because I believe it's baloney! If they want to argue that they don't want to increase taxes because the oft-agreed upon matching spending cuts never happen, then they should do so. Or if they wish to argue the details of a broad-based reform of tax policy including the elimination of benefits and loopholes placed in the IRS Code by special interests, they'd get a big hurrah from me.

The problem with their arguments and accusations of the Democrats is that they demonstrate that they're not only bad negotiators and drafters of legislation, but probably are in favor of maintaining the spending at current levels or even greater for personal political purposes, just like their bitter enemies, the Dems. Are you telling me that 535 people, a majority of whom are lawyers, can't draft legislation that documents the agreements they reach with their political opponents in the smoke-filled rooms of the Congress? If they can't do that, they're a whole lot more incompetent than I've given them credit for.

If the GOP wants to argue that they believe that the taxation of companies that actually increase the employment of Americans should be reduced, that's fine. But somewhere along the line, they need to explain how such proposals are either "revenue neutral" or actually begin to cut into the deficit. If the taxes are cut for one group of taxpayers, what spending cuts will occur or what other groups will have their taxes increased or loopholes eliminated? But do they ever say those things in a serious way? No. They never get beyond the "don't tax the job creators" soundbite, even though the aritmetic of our fiscal problem is compelling.

I know you're going to say that the Republicans put forth the Ryan budget proposal. The problem with that proposal is that politically it's DOA in the Congress because it attacks all the things dear to the Democrats and none important to the Republicans. Sooner or later, if there is to be bi-partisan support for any fiscal legislation, both parties will have to agree that their oxen will be gored, just like the other guy's.

If not in this thread, in many others, I've been critical of both parties and all their elected members in Congress as being ineffective and self-serving. I've said that I won't vote for any of them. I haven't taken sides except to discuss specific issues.

So just read what I write and try not to read hidden meanings into it. I say what I think and argue the points I think are important to the country, trying to keep the politics out of the discussion. I sure wish everyone would do the same.

[Guest]

Richie: One of the things you might be 'missing', and I certainly don't mean that as a slam, is something that has been occurring in ALL business - worker productivity. Whether it's a robot replacing an assembly line worker or software on a PC that allows one person to do a job that used to take two people, it's been on the increase for a long time in the US.

As I recall when I saw some statistics a ways back, the US *is* number one in the world when it comes to this. Part of it is the squeeze put on labor, but automation has had a huge hand in this.

This can easily explain some of the "bigger profits from fewer workers" equation.

[Guest]

Richie: One of the things you might be 'missing', and I certainly don't mean that as a slam, is something that has been occurring in ALL business - worker productivity. Whether it's a robot replacing an assembly line worker or software on a PC that allows one person to do a job that used to take two people, it's been on the increase for a long time in the US.

As I recall when I saw some statistics a ways back, the US *is* number one in the world when it comes to this. Part of it is the squeeze put on labor, but automation has had a huge hand in this.

This can easily explain some of the "bigger profits from fewer workers" equation.

This is why many incorrectly assume we don't manufacture much in this country anymore, when in fact, we one of the largest manufacturers in the world. We just do it with less labor who work longer hours for more days a year than comparable workers in the other top manufacturing nations.

I'm just saying if the business atmosphere were more attractive, businesses would blossom and grow and employment would expand exponentially.

Higher and higher taxes in the form of business, corporate, capital gains, etc., coupled with high fees attached to all the rest of business start-up minutia is stifling business creation and expansion.

To me, this is pure common sense. Higher costs stifle business from the creation of it to the consumption of it's products.

[Guest]

Bucco, that's the second time in this thread that you've accused me of finding fault with only one party and favoring the other guys. In fact, in an earlier post in this thread, you accused me of saying something that supported the growth and re-energization of unions. How you somehow morphed unions into this discussion of tax policy is beyond me. Perhaps you were comiserating on Saul Alinsky and his favorite student Barack Obama again.

Yes, I have accused the Republicans of droning on and on about further reducing the taxes on the richest individuals and businesses because such action would hamper job growth. I'm critical because I believe it's baloney! If they want to argue that they don't want to increase taxes because the oft-agreed upon matching spending cuts never happen, then they should do so. Or if they wish to argue the details of a broad-based reform of tax policy including the elimination of benefits and loopholes placed in the IRS Code by special interests, they'd get a big hurrah from me.

The problem with their arguments and accusations of the Democrats is that they demonstrate that they're not only bad negotiators and drafters of legislation, but probably are in favor of maintaining the spending at current levels or even greater for personal political purposes, just like their bitter enemies, the Dems. Are you telling me that 535 people, a majority of whom are lawyers, can't draft legislation that documents the agreements they reach with their political opponents in the smoke-filled rooms of the Congress? If they can't do that, they're a whole lot more incompetent than I've given them credit for.

If the GOP wants to argue that they believe that the taxation of companies that actually increase the employment of Americans should be reduced, that's fine. But somewhere along the line, they need to explain how such proposals are either "revenue neutral" or actually begin to cut into the deficit. If the taxes are cut for one group of taxpayers, what spending cuts will occur or what other groups will have their taxes increased or loopholes eliminated? But do they ever say those things in a serious way? No. They never get beyond the "don't tax the job creators" soundbite, even though the aritmetic of our fiscal problem is compelling.

I know you're going to say that the Republicans put forth the Ryan budget proposal. The problem with that proposal is that politically it's DOA in the Congress because it attacks all the things dear to the Democrats and none important to the Republicans. Sooner or later, if there is to be bi-partisan support for any fiscal legislation, both parties will have to agree that their oxen will be gored, just like the other guy's.

If not in this thread, in many others, I've been critical of both parties and all their elected members in Congress as being ineffective and self-serving. I've said that I won't vote for any of them. I haven't taken sides except to discuss specific issues.

So just read what I write and try not to read hidden meanings into it. I say what I think and argue the points I think are important to the country, trying to keep the politics out of the discussion. I sure wish everyone would do the same.

VK...I cannot write as eloquently as you, nor do I have your financial background.

Here is what I know....the Republican party has put forth at least two proposals to change the tax code. While I do not agree with them in total, nobody will even discuss them. To my knowledge the Democrats have put forth only the Buffet Rule, which is easily the most shallow and transparent political ploy in years, while the President is spending 8 BILLION dollars to fund an experiment that NOBODY, including the CBO who issued warnings about the expenditure, says one single positive thing about.

I also know that the Democratic senate will not even try to pass a budget nor even discuss it. THREE years and no budget in this country.

So from my perspective, one party has made serious proposals and the other has offered only Buffet.

I also know that what you talk about cannot be taken and discussed as if it were an "island".

I also know that we now accept 8% as an unemployment figure and that we have stopped talking about spending as a problem., and only seem to discuss rich versus poor, etc.

I know the President appointed a blue ribbon group to look at tax policy and we all know it simply pushed them aside. And you can criticize them all you want and I will join you, but NEVER even a discussion.

I think the President has thus far done an outstanding job in framing the issues. He no longer has to defend spending....as with the 8 Billion he is spending. He no longer has to defend having no budget and has made it matter not to anyone. I mention the union because he now can take the rich versus poor fight to the unions and they love it. He has the Republicans framed now as the only party that can fix the tax code. He has convinced everyone that anything done with the tax code will mean raising taxes, but IN HIS WORDS, only on the "rich"

I give the President a lot of credit. We no longer in any media circles discuss spending...we no longer discuss deficits...we now discuss rich versus poor as if that will solve all the problems. He has framed the topic so that he does not have to show any leadership whatsoever....he just needs to keep the pressure on with the voters about how he will punish the "rich" and take care of the "poor".

Democrats have done a great job with this framing. He is using the media very well and deserves credit for that !!!

[Guest]

Big news today. The Dow is up highest levels in 4 years!........wow!!!

I'm sure all the people who've given up on finding appropriate employment, and the record number of people on the public dole are quite exited about this.

[Guest]

Big news today. The Dow is up highest levels in 4 years!........wow!!!

I'm sure all the people who've given up on finding appropriate employment, and the record number of people on the public dole are quite exited about this.

Our current unemployment rate seems to have suddenly become the accepted norm !!!

[Guest]

Our current unemployment rate seems to have suddenly become the accepted norm !!!

That's because the sheeple haven't been riled up to view it as unacceptable, as they are when lower unemployment numbers are decried by the lame-stream media only when the Administration is Republican.

[Guest]

You (or was it FOX News "bashing of the day") consider it insignificant when the Dow is at it's highest point in 4 years? Look at your stock portfolio and tell me you would rather see it as of today or when the Dow was at 6000? I am pretty happy to see mine where it is now.

More investors equal more consumer confidence which means the economy is going in the right direction. More consumer confidence means more spending, more manufacturing, and more jobs.

[Guest]

GE closed its incandecent bulb manufacturing plant in US because the Greens banned incandecent light bulbs. Stock up on the few remaining when you can. It was not GE management it was Enviromental whackos. They mandated these curlly top CFL's with Mercury and low light output, so that it is hard to read by. When one is broken, per US EPA, you need a HAZMAT team to dispose of them.

What is trully unfair is that close to 50% of the people in the US do not pay any Federal Income Taxes. You can dance around and say they pay sales taxes, etc. But so does everyone else. When the majority don't pay Federal Income Taxes they will vote to raise them and get more handouts. We need the Flat Tax where everyone pays.

Raising taxes on Dividends, which were already taxed at the Corporate level and Capital Gains will hurt retired people who are using their dividends and capital gains to live on. Saved the money while working, no need to start withdrawing it.

[Guest]

Richie,I didn't realize your hatred of Obama would wish me financial ruin. We should all be happy the market is doing well.....it's good for America not just me. Take your hatred somewhere else.

[Guest]

...So from my perspective, one party has made serious proposals and the other has offered only Buffet.

I also know that what you talk about cannot be taken and discussed as if it were an "island"....I'll differ with you on which party has put forth the most thoughtful, logical and actionable proposals....neither one of them. The GOP made proposals that included no changes in personal tax rates at all, the Democrats' hottest button. The Democrats only put forth a proposal to increase the taxes on the wealthiest Americans (the Buffett Rule), knowing full well that such an idea would be an anathema to the Republicans. Neither party has made proposals that have a chance of being acted upon.

When the parties, either one of them, put forth proposals that include things they want as well as things they don't like but would be willing to put on the table, then there will be the possibility of progress negotiating the resolution of our fiscal problems. Until that happens, forget it. No amount of trying to say one party has better, or more ideas than the other is at all valid. They both can and should be blamed for negotiating in extremely bad faith.

Frankly, the only politicians who put any sort of balanced proposals "on he table" in recent memory were John Boehner and President Obama, at the outset of trying to negotiate a $5 billion "grand bargain". That whole negotiation fell apart when neither Obama or Boehner coud deliver their own parties to support what they said they'd be willing to discuss. Then when the grand bargain negotiations fell apart so publicly, all the discussions turned to finger-pointing on who was at fault for causing the negotiations to ail.

Nothing is going to happen, Bucco, until both parties put some things in the table that will demonstrate their willingness to compromise. There appears little chance that's going to happen anytime soon.

[Guest]

I'll differ with you on which party has put forth the most thoughtful, logical and actionable proposals....neither one of them. The GOP made proposals that included no changes in personal tax rates at all, the Democrats' hottest button. The Democrats only put forth a proposal to increase the taxes on the wealthiest Americans (the Buffett Rule), knowing full well that such an idea would be an anathema to the Republicans. Neither party has made proposals that have a chance of being acted upon.

When the parties, either one of them, put forth proposals that include things they want as well as things they don't like but would be willing to put on the table, then there will be the possibility of progress negotiating the resolution of our fiscal problems. Until that happens, forget it. No amount of trying to say one party has better, or more ideas than the other is at all valid. They both can and should be blamed for negotiating in extremely bad faith.

Frankly, the only politicians who put any sort of balanced proposals "on he table" in recent memory were John Boehner and President Obama, at the outset of trying to negotiate a $5 billion "grand bargain". That whole negotiation fell apart when neither Obama or Boehner coud deliver their own parties to support what they said they'd be willing to discuss. Then when the grand bargain negotiations fell apart so publicly, all the discussions turned to finger-pointing on who was at fault for causing the negotiations to ail.

Nothing is going to happen, Bucco, until both parties put some things in the table that will demonstrate their willingness to compromise. There appears little chance that's going to happen anytime soon.

Now, we can agree 100% on what you say here !

I apologize if I misread your presentation, because the Buffet rule is almost funny if it was not real life.

NOBODY talks about spending...all tax the rich guy. Again, hope I am wrong but in my opinion, the rhetoric points dangerously close to a situation that is not something I would have ever imagined and there is NO leader !

[Guest]

You (or was it FOX News "bashing of the day") consider it insignificant when the Dow is at it's highest point in 4 years? Look at your stock portfolio and tell me you would rather see it as of today or when the Dow was at 6000? I am pretty happy to see mine where it is now.

More investors equal more consumer confidence which means the economy is going in the right direction. More consumer confidence means more spending, more manufacturing, and more jobs.

I wasn't being selfish.

[Guest]

Big news today. The Dow is up highest levels in 4 years!........wow!!!

I'm sure all the people who've given up on finding appropriate employment, and the record number of people on the public dole are quite exited about this.No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

[Guest]

No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

Hope I can interrupt a bit....

Is the current tax code fair ? NO...but not restricted to those items that you, the media and the WH seem to feel that it is. We are heading for mucho serious problems with the language being used and constant bombardment of rich versus poor..nothing good can come from that.

I dont think Obama had much if anything to do with stocks going up...that is not a criticism but you asked. Most ups and downs, IF stemming from political is pretty much legislation. This country does not do that any longer, ie. budget or much of anything.

[Guest]

...I dont think Obama had much if anything to do with stocks going up...If you truly believe that the economic policies of political administrations have little or no effect on the health of the economy and one of it's key measures, the value of the equity of publicly owned companies, then there's not much purpose in continuing much debate here on subjects having to do with economic decisions made in Washington.

If a POTUS has little or no effect on the good things that happen economically, then it seems appropriate that he not be blamed for the bad things that happen either.

If we want to write off any effect that the policies of the Obama administration have had on economic recovery, that's OK with me. I don't agree, but for the purpose of this forum, it might help frame the discussion.

That being the case, why don't we quit blaming Obama for the high unemployment rate, for the decline in tax revenues needed to fund the government, for the skyrocketing imbalance of payments, and for other economic things that a POTUS often gets tagged with.

All that's OK with me. Don't give the POTUS any credit for good things that happen. But don't blame him for things that don't go so well economically either. That surely will simplify this forum.

[Guest]

No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

I'm not at all sure where you stand on all you've said.

The stock market going up isn't bad for me. I've retired and my worth and security is enhanced by rising stock prices, generally.

But I don't view the world selfishly. I think of my children and the others of their generation who are struggling to get by in a world of increasing prices and taxes, coupled with deflating wages and careers and incalculable national debt, in a world devoid of the dreams of future security, as we had.

Do I think Obama has done well for my progeny? I think he's done miserably.

[Guest]

...Do I think Obama has done well for my progeny? I think he's done miserably.I'm not defending Obama. I'm not going to vote for him in November.

You can criticize the POTUS for being a lousy political leader, a poor communicator with the public so as to frame their understanding of the issues. That's fair and in my opinion accurate. But again I'll point out that the POTUS hasn't negotiated or compromised or passed one single bill that might affect your progeny. But Congress has. The same Congress that is so split ideologically that they can hardly agree on anything. A Congress who spends more time on trying to get re-elected or coming up with arcane rules and procedures to throw sand in the gears of anything their political opponents want than actually representing their constituents.

That always leaves me wondering why all the bitterness, vitriol and hatred directed against the POTUS, who has had little or no effect on the legislative process? (Other than not vetoing some bills that almost everyone knows are fatally defective.)

[Guest]

If you truly believe that the economic policies of political administrations have little or no effect on the health of the economy and one of it's key measures, the value of the equity of publicly owned companies, then there's not much purpose in continuing much debate here on subjects having to do with economic decisions made in Washington.

If a POTUS has little or no effect on the good things that happen economically, then it seems appropriate that he not be blamed for the bad things that happen either.

If we want to write off any effect that the policies of the Obama administration have had on economic recovery, that's OK with me. I don't agree, but for the purpose of this forum, it might help frame the discussion.

That being the case, why don't we quit blaming Obama for the high unemployment rate, for the decline in tax revenues needed to fund the government, for the skyrocketing imbalance of payments, and for other economic things that a POTUS often gets tagged with.

All that's OK with me. Don't give the POTUS any credit for good things that happen. But don't blame him for things that don't go so well economically either. That surely will simplify this forum.


I have never ever blamed a president for the market nor lauded one for success. We have 8% unemployment and of course you and most will blame Bush for that UNTIL it lowers....we have 50% of people who pay NO taxes, we have no US budget for three years.....you can laud him all the way...I know you blame all those bad Republicans for all of that, and they certainly need to shoulder a lot of the blame but you even make light of the healthcare bill while saying it was a mess but poor Obama just didnt know...well, he is president...he is supposed to know...and now poor Obama tried but even thought he lied, and cheated to get the bill passed all those poor folks who will suffer if it is overturned should never get angry at him.....no, lets give him yet another pass and off he goes.

Sorry.....while I have tried to be fair with him, these love affairs for him are going to come back to bite all of us. He can get a pass from you, but the direction he wants to take this country and the method he uses to get there is something that I do not and cannot condone. He is not honest...not at all and I suppose we just have to pay the circumstances in the future.

I sure do not envy those who will need to live with what he is doing.

[Guest]

I'm not defending Obama. I'm not going to vote for him in November.

You can criticize the POTUS for being a lousy political leader, a poor communicator with the public so as to frame their understanding of the issues. That's fair and in my opinion accurate. But again I'll point out that the POTUS hasn't negotiated or compromised or passed one single bill that might affect your progeny. But Congress has. The same Congress that is so split ideologically that they can hardly agree on anything. A Congress who spends more time on trying to get re-elected or coming up with arcane rules and procedures to throw sand in the gears of anything their political opponents want than actually representing their constituents.

That always leaves me wondering why all the bitterness, vitriol and hatred directed against the POTUS, who has had little or no effect on the legislative process? (Other than not vetoing some bills that almost everyone knows are fatally defective.)


"That always leaves me wondering why all the bitterness, vitriol and hatred directed against the POTUS, who has had little or no effect on the legislative process?"

Because as President of the United States he has lied. Because, and on this you clearly give him a break, because of him totally he has put many people on the line to not have insurance if the court overturns it without some kind of remedy for them...and he did it by lying, coercing and IGNORING what he promised to do relative to health care costs.

Because as leader of the country his words are meant to be political instead of statesman like. He has said so many things over the first three years that CAUSED problems instead of solving them.

I have always thought he was deceitful as you know from my posts in 2008 and reading today about how he even lied in his autobiography (he DID lie you see....other writers have used a composite although never saw it in an autobiography and never straight about it until caught) I feel a bit justified.

That is my short answer. If you feel so strongly about how well he has done why not vote for him ?

AS far as congress, that is accurate EXCEPT FOR TWO years he could have done anything he wanted.....he could have insured that the Senate passed a budget...he could have made sure the country had a public open debate on the budget....he could have don so much but he doesnt and you guys just keep giving him a pass.

I promise my last mention of the 8 BILLION dollars he is spending of our money for HIS political gain, but please allow me to add that attitude of arrogance to the list.

[Guest]

No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

VK, In starting this thread you asserted that Apple had paid only 9.8% in taxes on their profits in 2011. In post 15, I showed where you were incorrect. Apple paid 24% in taxes on their profits. I hope this starts to address your question on the 'fairness' of taxes. I also showed why US multinationals are not creating jobs in this country - our system of taxing again profits made in other countries if they bring these profits back to the USA.

Unless and until we address this double taxation system, multinationals will continue to have large sums of money outside the US that can be put to use in expanding in a much more financially responsible manner there than they can here.

[Guest]

Arrogance and lying? President Obama does not have arrogance at all. I believe he is honest and a genuine good person.

However - for arrogance and lying - George W. "Junior" Bush was the overall champion.

[Guest]

Arrogance and lying? President Obama does not have arrogance at all. I believe he is honest and a genuine good person.

However - for arrogance and lying - George W. "Junior" Bush was the overall champion.

Drive-by commentary.

[Guest]

as long as the current tax code allows only half the eligible tax payers to actually pay taxes, it is not fair. The code is dated and needs to be brought into the 21st century and address the current needs of the country.

That would mean upsetting those who currently enjoy tax free benefit, which in turn means an upset voting block, which means true to form to date, nothing will change and continue to remain unfair.

As far as measuring Obama against when "things" go good or go bad, I prefer to measure him against the promises he made. How is he doing against that which he promised the masses to get elected? The last tally I saw indicated 35% promises kept. One would not keep a job in the private sector for very long with that number.

I also look for Obama (or who ever else is POTUS) to create initiatives that provide for this countries future and well being. For example, like his predecessors Obama has failed to deliver on the basics of energy independence. He has not created any emphasis or programs to move the USA away from foreign oil. He has not created any emphasis or programs for alternative energy sources.

Raising the CAFE regulations to 35 miles per gallon does not do it. The potential reduced consumption will only be offset by volume in the future as the population grows.

To push and pass a land mark health care program with cost impacts on the future that are not understood leaves the majority of us who were against it with more concerns than before the new law was passed. There is no drive by Obama or the lawmakers who passed the bill to understand, state the impacts and how it will be paid for.

The real issue is to bring "change" as promised to some of these things requires stepping on political toes whether elected or constituents.

As long as it remains business as usual in Washington, there will be no real change to the things that matter...like fair taxation...health care costs...energy independence....to name a few.

btk

[Guest]

as long as the current tax code allows only half the eligible tax payers to actually pay taxes, it is not fair. The code is dated and needs to be brought into the 21st century and address the current needs of the country.

That would mean upsetting those who currently enjoy tax free benefit, which in turn means an upset voting block, which means true to form to date, nothing will change and continue to remain unfair.

As far as measuring Obama against when "things" go good or go bad, I prefer to measure him against the promises he made. How is he doing against that which he promised the masses to get elected? The last tally I saw indicated 35% promises kept. One would not keep a job in the private sector for very long with that number.

I also look for Obama (or who ever else is POTUS) to create initiatives that provide for this countries future and well being. For example, like his predecessors Obama has failed to deliver on the basics of energy independence. He has not created any emphasis or programs to move the USA away from foreign oil. He has not created any emphasis or programs for alternative energy sources.

Raising the CAFE regulations to 35 miles per gallon does not do it. The potential reduced consumption will only be offset by volume in the future as the population grows.

To push and pass a land mark health care program with cost impacts on the future that are not understood leaves the majority of us who were against it with more concerns than before the new law was passed. There is no drive by Obama or the lawmakers who passed the bill to understand, state the impacts and how it will be paid for.

The real issue is to bring "change" as promised to some of these things requires stepping on political toes whether elected or constituents.

As long as it remains business as usual in Washington, there will be no real change to the things that matter...like fair taxation...health care costs...energy independence....to name a few.

btk

According to the Pulitzer Prize winning Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact, President Obama's promises kept are 35% plus 27% in the works, which comes to 62% which is good considering the do-nothing congress he has to work with. Another 11% were compromises, 12% are stalled and 13% were broken.

The biggest promises were killing Bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, and passing the health care bill - done, done, and done.


PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/)

[Guest]

Sounds pretty successful to me, considering the do-nothing Congress.

I wonder what Junior Bush's record was?

[Guest]

Sounds pretty successful to me, considering the do-nothing Congress.

I wonder what Junior Bush's record was?

Bush's record was pretty good if his promises were; get US into two unfunded wars, pass unpaid for Medicare prescription drug plan, give tax cuts costing the treasury 4.4 trillion, lose 4.4 million jobs, and take the economy right to the brink of destruction with fewer regulations. And BTW, take a surplus and turn it into a deficit. Done, done, done, done, done, done and done.

[Guest]

Bush's record was pretty good if his promises were; get US into two unfunded wars, pass unpaid for Medicare prescription drug plan, give tax cuts costing the treasury 4.4 trillion, lose 4.4 million jobs, and take the economy right to the brink of destruction with fewer regulations. And BTW, take a surplus and turn it into a deficit. Done, done, done, done, done, done and done.


OK, OK, these are the facts, but did you have to make it sound so negative? There are some folks here who thought Mr. W Bush was a nice guy who's now getting a bad rap, and suffering by inappropriate comparison to Mr Obama. I'm not sure it's polite to keep reminding them of things they are determined to minimize or ignore. I'm sure you've read their many posts and it's obvious how sensitive they are about this. Now somebody's even asked about numerically comparing Presidents' kept promises. Talk about deliberately hurting peoples' feelings!!

[Guest]

According to the Pulitzer Prize winning Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact, President Obama's promises kept are 35% plus 27% in the works, which comes to 62% which is good considering the do-nothing congress he has to work with. Another 11% were compromises, 12% are stalled and 13% were broken.

The biggest promises were killing Bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, and passing the health care bill - done, done, and done.


PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/)
That record of accomplishment is kind of amazing actually, given the obstruction and consistent resistance practiced by his political opponents.

[Guest]

OK, OK, these are the facts, but did you have to make it sound so negative? There are some folks here who thought Mr. W Bush was a nice guy who's now getting a bad rap, and suffering by inappropriate comparison to Mr Obama. I'm not sure it's polite to keep reminding them of things they are determined to minimize or ignore. I'm sure you've read their many posts and it's obvious how sensitive they are about this. Now somebody's even asked about numerically comparing Presidents' kept promises. Talk about deliberately hurting peoples' feelings!!

The people that liked George W Bush are going to love President Romney. His plans for the economy are identical to Bush's; more and bigger tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires (additional $265,000 per year) and less or zero regulations for Wall Street, the exact same policies that got us in this ditch in the first place.

Nearly a dozen Romney advisers have urged the US to consider an attack on Iran. Judging by his advisers, Romney would embrace Bush's unilateral interventionism and massive military budgets.


Mitt Romney's Neocon War Cabinet | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet)

[Guest]

I suggest rather than getting into one of those debates on here that simply become name calling exercises that those who have a interest in this kind of stuff...visit the site.....go through each of what the Times calls promises kept....and see how impressed you are.

I live in Tampa....I know the Times quite well...I am a subscriber...they have these meters for locals as well. Great gimmick....very subjective is how I will leave it.

One of his accomplishments listed is the extension of the Bush tax cuts....and most are part of the Health care bill...codification of Economic Substance Doctrine which may or may not be good but it gives the US a bit more say in disputed tax returns....been that way for centuries but the Health care bill codifies it.

If it makes you feel good...great.

Just read them.....I certainly never said he did nothing but the Times meter is surely no way to measure anything.

But you read them and be your own judge