Bucco,

I've read your last posts about Obama's leadership and your suggested tax revisions. I think it's futile to comment further on the question of leadership. It is so broad as to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. I will however again mention the survey of university professors who placed Obama 15th most effective of all Presidents. Call them anything less than objective - elitists, leftists, etc., but I give some credence to their 200+ year long view.
On the matter of taxes, I could not agree more that some changes should be made to entitlements, including Social Security. But my plan would reduce benefits by income level. I would not change the home mortgage deduction at the present time.
But would you answer these questions: Would you support across the board reductions in corporate income taxes, the current reductions in payroll taxes, an increase in capital gains taxes and making the Bush tax cuts 'permanent' on incomes of less than 500k? An elimination of farm subsidies except in cases of proven crop failure, elimination of other specific tax breaks to corporations, the initiation of more corporate incentives for research and development, and to hire additional workers, especially veterans, and even larger one-time incentives to return to domestic production?

There's more. But if this thread is still about jobs, please agree with me that the money necessary to create them must come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by buggyone

"but i just can't see that he could evolve to that level."

I thought the conservatve Reactionary Republican did not believe in Evolution. Wasn't the Earth created 5,500 years ago with dinosaurs and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden together? Oh my, if that isn't true, Sarah Palin would be W R O N G and she never could be wrong about anything.

Finally someone with some real facts.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Bucco,

I've read your last posts about Obama's leadership and your suggested tax revisions. I think it's futile to comment further on the question of leadership. It is so broad as to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. I will however again mention the survey of university professors who placed Obama 15th most effective of all Presidents. Call them anything less than objective - elitists, leftists, etc., but I give some credence to their 200+ year long view.
On the matter of taxes, I could not agree more that some changes should be made to entitlements, including Social Security. But my plan would reduce benefits by income level. I would not change the home mortgage deduction at the present time.
But would you answer these questions: Would you support across the board reductions in corporate income taxes, the current reductions in payroll taxes, an increase in capital gains taxes and making the Bush tax cuts 'permanent' on incomes of less than 500k? An elimination of farm subsidies except in cases of proven crop failure, elimination of other specific tax breaks to corporations, the initiation of more corporate incentives for research and development, and to hire additional workers, especially veterans, and even larger one-time incentives to return to domestic production?

There's more. But if this thread is still about jobs, please agree with me that the money necessary to create them must come from somewhere.

First of all, I think you for a discussion without the cutsey names and smart cracks. It is nice to have a discussion, albeit disagree on some points, but have it be civil...very refreshing and adult !

On your last point, sure the money needs to come from somewhere and throughout our history it has come from private corporations and I think it should be that way once again. The core of our entire history is private investment. We surely need government involvement in those that are public works, such as the pipe line, but event here much should come from private enterprise.

Thus, we need tax codes and regulations that will allow that to happen. Our growth should not be dependent on the federal government, but should be the free enterpise system.

On your first point, and it appears we disagree on that, but just one comment. To me, and to I think most, one of our single biggest problems is getting our leaders to work together. This always come from the oval office....that job, President, does not allow you to make laws, does not allow you to do a lot.....what you need to do, in my opinion, is be able to LEAD, ie. TALK..LISTEN....sway after you do those two things...compromise. The senate and the house, believe it or not look to the oval office for that leadership and if we do not get it, we are going nowhere very fast. Our growth and success is NOT dependent on one man..never has been....one man is elected to lead...we do not vote for him to make laws...not his job. That is why I mention leadership and will drop it for now as we obviously disagree.

This will sound like a cop out and maybe it is, but those points you raised are vital and I agree, but I thought we would be well on our way through Simpson Bowles in having thos discussions. They, in my opinion, do not stand alone each issue..they are all related to one another and we need to have a serious and adult conversation among our leaders to accomplish it. We need to provide sufficient revenue but also allow corporations to grow and hopefully create jobs. This conversation needs to happen for sure and I hope you read the hopeful link on the 40 senators that are beginning, hopefully, that process.

Back to leadership once again if you dont mind. The differences that we have now are not new, perhaps taking new forms but the issue differences are always there. We just lost our way in resolving them. We need leadership in the WH to make that happen. This is not an endorsement of Romney by the way because I have no idea if he can do it. He does have a track record to go by as does the incumbent.

Again, thanks so much for the back and forth without the juvenile antics. I am open to being told that you or anyone disagree (frankly, when you are as opinionated as me you better be ready for that), and not only can handle it, but on more occassions that I care to admit, I have had my mind changed, but get totally turned off with the shallow, name calling and ridicule that folks think they must engage in.

You have made me think, read and examine which is the whole idea..thanks

Originally Posted by Bucco

First of all, I think you for a discussion without the cutsey names and smart cracks. It is nice to have a discussion, albeit disagree on some points, but have it be civil...very refreshing and adult !

On your last point, sure the money needs to come from somewhere and throughout our history it has come from private corporations and I think it should be that way once again. The core of our entire history is private investment. We surely need government involvement in those that are public works, such as the pipe line, but event here much should come from private enterprise.

Thus, we need tax codes and regulations that will allow that to happen. Our growth should not be dependent on the federal government, but should be the free enterpise system.

On your first point, and it appears we disagree on that, but just one comment. To me, and to I think most, one of our single biggest problems is getting our leaders to work together. This always come from the oval office....that job, President, does not allow you to make laws, does not allow you to do a lot.....what you need to do, in my opinion, is be able to LEAD, ie. TALK..LISTEN....sway after you do those two things...compromise. The senate and the house, believe it or not look to the oval office for that leadership and if we do not get it, we are going nowhere very fast. Our growth and success is NOT dependent on one man..never has been....one man is elected to lead...we do not vote for him to make laws...not his job. That is why I mention leadership and will drop it for now as we obviously disagree.

This will sound like a cop out and maybe it is, but those points you raised are vital and I agree, but I thought we would be well on our way through Simpson Bowles in having thos discussions. They, in my opinion, do not stand alone each issue..they are all related to one another and we need to have a serious and adult conversation among our leaders to accomplish it. We need to provide sufficient revenue but also allow corporations to grow and hopefully create jobs. This conversation needs to happen for sure and I hope you read the hopeful link on the 40 senators that are beginning, hopefully, that process.

Back to leadership once again if you dont mind. The differences that we have now are not new, perhaps taking new forms but the issue differences are always there. We just lost our way in resolving them. We need leadership in the WH to make that happen. This is not an endorsement of Romney by the way because I have no idea if he can do it. He does have a track record to go by as does the incumbent.

Again, thanks so much for the back and forth without the juvenile antics. I am open to being told that you or anyone disagree (frankly, when you are as opinionated as me you better be ready for that), and not only can handle it, but on more occassions that I care to admit, I have had my mind changed, but get totally turned off with the shallow, name calling and ridicule that folks think they must engage in.

You have made me think, read and examine which is the whole idea..thanks

Hey, we agree again - on the adult discussion part. I'll just add one comment about private enterprise. I believe the two largest single factors in not realizing a substantial economic turnaround are 1) the choice business and private investors are currently making to sit on TRILLIONS, and 2) the continuing pattern of outsourcing jobs and production. Private enterprise is wonderful, and ideally the far greater source of economic growth, but we are confounded by the fact that investors can freely choose not to invest, or to invest overseas. Romneylovers and conservatives revere the sacred job creators while folks like Warren Buffet actually are more correct when they characterize current actions of the job creators as harmful and unpatriotic.

More on taxes later.

creating more job opportunities is good....I do believe we can all agree on that, I think!

Cutting corporate taxes is good? or bad? It depends on some basic information which is normally not given consideration.

How about stating one aspect of reducing corporate taxes, that would result in an increase of tax revenues for the federal government? How about that specific corporate tax rate reduction resulting in many more millions of dollars being spent on manufacturing in America? Again from that same specific reduction in tax rate hundreds of thousands of new jobs in manufacturing would result?

That is the potential that could be realized if the corporate tax rate on earnings from overseas operations were reduced. Instead the rate is sufficiently high enough for American companies to keep up to trillions of dollars over seas and not repatriating any of the earnings.

It has been going on for years. Does it make sense?
Now how many Democrats in Washington will ever stand and be counted to reduce the corporate tax rate on repatriated funds? The past would suggest none or not enough.

Yup it makes much more sense to have as an example a 20% tax rate times nothing yielding nothing to add to the desperately need tax revenues. And again strictly to highlight the same example.....let's REDUCE that tax rate to 10 % (and for those who like to trumpet bigger numbers.....a 50% reduction!!!!!!!!!!!!)....now we could have 10% times hundreds of thousands up to trillions of dollars new tax revenues to add.....hundreds of thousands of dollars to now be spent here in the USA.

Makes sense doesn't it? Of course it does just like all the other issues that could be fixed in the EXISTING tax laws........but just like all the other fraud, cheating, stealing continuing and smart things to do to help fix America being ignored because of politics.......very specifically voter protection....special interest protection, lobbyists protection and most importantly self re-election protection.

By the way this subject may not be of interest to some as it does not require an R or a D to determine if it is OK or not......really....try it.

btk

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Hey, we agree again - on the adult discussion part. I'll just add one comment about private enterprise. I believe the two largest single factors in not realizing a substantial economic turnaround are 1) the choice business and private investors are currently making to sit on TRILLIONS, and 2) the continuing pattern of outsourcing jobs and production. Private enterprise is wonderful, and ideally the far greater source of economic growth, but we are confounded by the fact that investors can freely choose not to invest, or to invest overseas. Romneylovers and conservatives revere the sacred job creators while folks like Warren Buffet actually are more correct when they characterize current actions of the job creators as harmful and unpatriotic.

More on taxes later.

Think tax revisions ! A corporation, imagine your own business, will go where ever they can turn the largest profit and will expand when the environment is friendly for that expansion.

Like it or not, you would do the same exact thing if you owned a business...right or wrong..they will not be enticed to grow and create jobs if the Federal Government is going to put the money in. It may not be the perfect solution but it IS how we grew to this point and we cannot afford to do anything except what has served us well in the past.

The outsourcing was made worse by NAFTA....I personally was involved in closing a facility and moving it to Mexico when that happened, and the savings were huge for the corporation I worked for. Again, not saying what is right or wrong but just stating facts. When Clinton did NAFTA I think he really believed we needed to be more global. It still is....corporations will establish growth and hire people in the environment that is the most friendly to them. If you are going to invest, millions or billions, THAT is just a fact and anyone who says they would do it differently is just flat no telling the truth. In our system, they are responsible to the stockholders to turn a profit !

Originally Posted by Bucco

Think tax revisions ! A corporation, imagine your own business, will go where ever they can turn the largest profit and will expand when the environment is friendly for that expansion.

Like it or not, you would do the same exact thing if you owned a business...right or wrong..they will not be enticed to grow and create jobs if the Federal Government is going to put the money in. It may not be the perfect solution but it IS how we grew to this point and we cannot afford to do anything except what has served us well in the past.

The outsourcing was made worse by NAFTA....I personally was involved in closing a facility and moving it to Mexico when that happened, and the savings were huge for the corporation I worked for. Again, not saying what is right or wrong but just stating facts. When Clinton did NAFTA I think he really believed we needed to be more global. It still is....corporations will establish growth and hire people in the environment that is the most friendly to them. If you are going to invest, millions or billions, THAT is just a fact and anyone who says they would do it differently is just flat no telling the truth. In our system, they are responsible to the stockholders to turn a profit !

What did your company pay the Mexican workers compared to US workers?

Originally Posted by Posh 08

What did your company pay the Mexican workers compared to US workers?

First to make sure you understand, my company closed two facilities and a number of operations within others. As I recall, the difference with pay was about 25% + (a significant plus in some cases) less in Mexico, however that was not the largest savings. Not an accountant so be gentle....but the biggest savings was with incentives from the community, not the Mexican government now but local communities,, Also, the environmental rules were getting really heavy duty in Illinois and Pennsylvania where they were located. The company faced the situation.....either raise prices and cease to be competitive or make a move like this.

I also have to add. It was a different time and much has changed since then relative to the economics of that kind of move. Also, for my company it worked well logistically because they had facilities in Texas and it saved greatly on transportation costs.

Not a great comparison because of the time, HOWEVER, the general premise is they went to the friendliest environment they could find to satisfy stockholders. Having sat in on many meetings, the decision was made with great turmoil but they had very little in options.

All you Obama guys are drinking a really strong Kool-Aid here being handed out by the lamestream media affiliates of the Democrat Party.

195,000 Fewer Americans Had Jobs in July; 150,000 Dropped Out of Labor Force.

Unemployment hover above 8% for a record 42nd month.

Recovery????.................sheesh!!


195,000 Fewer Americans Had Jobs in July; 150,000 Dropped Out of Labor Force | CNSNews.com

Did you build that? Blow to Obama as unemployment rises to 8.3 PER CENT | Mail Online

And richielion Obama's tax proposals will cost this country the loss of an additional 700,000 jobs if the taxes are implemented. Less is more when keep your golf score but I do not believe less works well when you are trying to create more jobs