# Obama warns people about Rush Limbaugh



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I know a related topic was on this form, but this deserves a second look. Like Rush, or hate Rush, it's clear that Obama wants to keep the public ignorant. That in itself is something to be alarmed about.

For the full story of Obama's statement: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/ne ... 151572.htm



> WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
> 
> "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.


Then for Rush's response see: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... M2MzYxMmI=



> There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.
> 
> Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:
> 
> ...


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Didn't Hitler edit the radio's?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

This is how we expedite the Fairness doctrine


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter and Gun Owner, yes and yes.

The liberals have been trying to shut down the voice of truth (no matter who it comes from) for many years. Even though Rush's program was the most popular with troops they tried to take it away from them. Oh, ya, the respect the troops.

They cry about the first amendment when they think a crucifix in a bottle of urine is art, but heaven forbid someone on the radio says Obama isn't the messiah. There is only one reason to shut down opinion. Look through history at all the tyrannical governments and the first two things they always do it disarm the citizenry and take away their right to speak. Right now the media would like to hang us for sedition if we speak against any of Obama's policies.

Trying to control the communication of this nations citizens is a violation of the constitution and should be punishable as such. That's all the fairness doctrine is. No one wants to listen to their crap, so most of their programs fail. Their solution is to throw the conservatives off the airways. I guess their idea is if they fail it's only fair that everyone else fails too. Liberal policy. :eyeroll:

I tried to catch Rush today, but my router and vac were making to much noise.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The bottom line is that Rush is too far right for any agreement to be made. I agree with some of what Rush says, but I also agree with some of what Olberman says, both of their agendas are too radical.

One thing to remember about Rush and Olberman is that they are after ratings, right now controversy and bad news is what gets ratings. I like to compare it to pro wrestling, entertainment.

The Obama clock is ticking, in less than one year mid-term campaigning will be underway. If Obama doesn't make progress, because we are an impatient civilization, they will no doubt lose seats in congress and then instead of "OBAMA THE GREAT" it will be "OBAMA THE LAME DUCK"

Hence the reason for no gun legislation on the front burner :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The bottom line is that Rush is too far right for any agreement to be made.


He tries to sound that way just to irritate liberals too. I remember one time many years ago he really ticked me off when he said "there is nothing pretty about a tree until you cut it down and make something from it". After hearing him a few more times one learned he didn't really feel this way, he was just having fun ticking off what he calls "wacko environmentalists". Environment is often where my ideas and Rush's part ways.

However, those that think he is so far right that he is wacko, I would ask, is this your idea, or what you have heard. Did you hear it from a friend, a conservative, a liberal, or the media. Also, if you believed it what do you think of the NRA?

I noticed the MO for most liberals includes a first volley of "radical conservatives" accusation. Rational debate isn't the first option. The first option is an attempt to discredit the opposition. Great effort has gone into demonizing the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannnity, and they are turning their sights on Christians. Hence the big fuss over the guy from Saddleback Church (can't remember his name).

Some of my friends get real irritated when Rush says "defeating liberals with half my brain tied behind my back". I told them heck read the political form on nodak and we have some guys who think just like that. I think Rush does that because it's normally liberals that think they are genius (Kerry's Wife, Hillary, etc) and when Rush says it self infatuated liberals are infuriated. He just does it for a jab. It takes a while to catch on to his humor.

I get a kick out of him, but I have not had a chance to listen to him in months. I am either doing something else, or the tools in my shop make to much noise. Maybe I'm on here to much.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Watch out for "burning conservative books" parties. It can't be far off!


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Some of my friends get real irritated when Rush says "defeating liberals with half my brain tied behind my back". I told them heck read the political form on nodak and we have some guys who think just like that. I think Rush does that because it's normally liberals that think they are genius (Kerry's Wife, Hillary, etc) and when Rush says it self infatuated liberals are infuriated. He just does it for a jab. It takes a while to catch on to his humor.


I've always thought it is really easy to argue the conservative mantra. For example, Republicans hate it when it appears that someone is getting a free ride (unless they somehow benefit, then its okay. But that is a different subject). Their answer is simple: close down all welfare programs and get them all workin'! On the surface that sounds great and makes sense. In reality however, there are a lot of people that really need welfare. Then there are some bums mixed in this group that make a bad name for themselves and for the whole program because they are indeed lazy and should be working. It's irritating, but in reality its more effort (i.e. costs more) to differentiate the needy from the lazy so we pay for both. Should we scrap the entire system just to punish the lazy? That would be much easier. But I don't think so. Try your best to weed them out but don't get rid of the system.

This is one of several (hundred) examples where republicans simplify things to the point where on the surface it may seem obvious they are right but in reality things are just not that simple. Seems to me anyway.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass

Well, I guess I am a different animal. I have voted sometimes when financially I know it's cutting my own throat. However, I placed me freedom above my financial gain. Some may think that was stupid of me, but that's the way I placed my priorities. As a federal employee it would always have been to my advantage to vote liberal for more money, more projects, more chance of advancement. However, I also looked at the second amendment, the abortion struggle, the freedom of religion, and many other things.

I hate to give you two shocks in a row. Can your heart take it? I agree with you on the welfare system. There are some that need it, and others that simply exploit it. Some are third generation welfare. We need to find a way to throw the lazy out. Just think of the guy who was in the military, worked 20 years, then was disabled. If we could dump the lazy we could make his or her life better with more money and still the bottom line would be cheaper. I am completely for helping the needy, but also want to somehow get the lazy off their behind and to work. I know a very wealthy man who's girl friend has lived with him for 20 years. Although they live in a $540,000 3500 square foot house she is on welfare. It's all his and she has nothing, so her health care is paid for, she has a monthly check, the three four big screen TV's and hot tubs don't mean anything, they are not hers. They don't get married because of her benefits. That's ridiculous he could support her out of his petty cash.

I did see your point sea bass, and I admit that in some cases your right. I wonder ----- can liberals admit their shortcomings? If we could all man up we might have a serious debate. Leave the ego's behind and talk seriously. I'm not impressed when I am countered by an PM or a phone call and the guy actually tells me he is a genius. If that guys a genius I'm Einstein.  ooooops.  I know I'm not, but I share some of that screwy sense of humor that Rush has when encountered with self infatuation.

I have to tell you a story. After cruises, and travel to south America etc, one of my favorite trips was in the 5th wheel in late April and early May. The kids were not out of school yet, and every campground was retired older people. They had forgotten who was a doctor, a millionaire, or delivery man, a salesman etc. People all treated each others as equals. I noticed that with my parents and older friends also. Life puts us into competition, but retirement takes us out of it. That two week trip down through Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and back was one of my most enjoyable. Everyone dropped the facade they hid behind at home.

Seabass, I think you and I could have an interesting conversation. Your last post indicates that although we are slightly liberal, and perhaps slightly more conservative that we have a lot of middle ground. I like to bounce ideas of guys like you, and I miss tailchaser.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Jan. 27: President Obama gives his first formal televised interview from the White House to Al-Arabiya.

Hmm :eyeroll:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> can liberals admit their shortcomings?


Liberals have shortcoming? what? :lol:

I agree with you.  :beer:


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

buckseye said:


> Jan. 27: President Obama gives his first formal televised interview from the White House to Al-Arabiya.
> 
> Hmm :eyeroll:


Did he do it in the native born language or english?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Did he do it in the native born language or english?


I don't know.. it was a headline this morning. I just thought maybe he would talk to the people he got his job from first.. but then he probably did. :sniper: uke:


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

TK33 said:


> The bottom line is that Rush is too far right for any agreement to be made. I agree with some of what Rush says, but I also agree with some of what Olberman says, both of their agendas are too radical.
> 
> One thing to remember about Rush and Olberman is that they are after ratings, right now controversy and bad news is what gets ratings. I like to compare it to pro wrestling, entertainment.
> 
> ...


I agree. Let's face it.

Rush is an idiot.

He's a typical jockey looking for ratings. He's ****** off half this country one time or another and too many guys jump on bandwagons here just cuz someone they don't like got elected.

I'm not sure I like Obama or not but he is the president and I am interested in seeing what is going to happen. I am a registered republican but I can't stand Rush--is far too right for me. I think that is one of the problems in this country. People constantly gripe and complain about things. What if Obama completely righted all the wrongs of this country in less than two years (won't happen-but just pretend) people would still b!tch about something he did when he was 7 years old. I don't understand why we as citizens can't just give things some time? He may end up being a pathetic leader or the best ever but we won't know for at least a year.

There is always hope and that hope doesn't rely on denominations or parties. We need to get rid of the partisanship (sp)-Be bi-partisan. The media (aka rush) is tearing the country apart and driving a wedge between us.

these are just random thoughts and I'm sure many will disagree but I just don't think we should all jump the gun*....yet.*


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i call bull****! the dems have ramrodded this whole package, now projected at *1.3 trillion dollars *right through with precious little conciliation to the republicans, who are being portrayed as standing in the way of the rescue plan, another political ploy to divide the public and cast the minority party in a bad light. there is so much bull**** in this stimulus program, it will do nothing to offer any long term economic impact. this is the saddest piece of #**** to ever come out of Congress.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> i call b#llsh*t! the dems have ramrodded this whole package, now projected at *1.3 trillion dollars *right through with precious little conciliation to the republicans, who are being portrayed as standing in the way of the rescue plan, another political ploy to divide the public and cast the minority party in a bad light. there is so much b#llsh*t in this stimulus program, it will do nothing to offer any long term economic impact. this is the saddest piece of #&$#* to ever come out of Congress.


Heres what the republicans should do.

Go ON RECORD saying they are opposed to the package as it now sits. And stand aside. (Its going to go through, so just let it, dont be the "party standing in the way of the 'rescue plan'").

When it fails to pony up to expectations, they can than say "told you so".

Let the dems "hang themselves with their own rope" so to speak.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I posted this on the other thread, but maybe it is better inserted here...

If the GOP knows that opposing Obama's stimulus package will result in the media reporting that_ Obama _is failing-failing to reach out effectively, failing to lead in a bipartisan fashion-what incentive does the GOP have to do anything other than lie and obstruct *and jerk Obama around?*



> House Republican leaders are urging their rank and file to oppose the economic stimulus bill heading for a vote on Wednesday, delivering their appeal hours before President Obama heads to the Capitol to seek bipartisan support.


Obama shouldn't be faulted for "failing" to work with people who won't work with him. He will be, of course, but he shouldn't be.

Hopefully, he does just enough to impress upon the voting public exactly which side of the congressional aisle is the one doing the foot-dragging.

Clearly, the GOP hasn't learned the lesson of both the 2006 and 2008 elections: the public expects RESULTS. Any attempt on their part to impede getting things done is not going to be viewed as positive, and they're going to suffer the consequences if they don't get that through their thick heads.

We tried it the GOP way for nearly eight years, and given those results, their continued intransigence is not only the height of arrogance, but borders on a political death-wish.

Let's not forget that when Republicans took over, they didn't do it this way. They _shut the Democrats out of the drafting process completely _so there was nothing they could criticise. A completed bill as thick as a phone book would be handed to the Dems for a vote the next day, and its title would be something like "Defend America Act".

I'm still looking at this thinking that many are still misreading Obama's intentions.

I think he would truly like to reach across the aisle and offer an attempt at bi-partisan input. I think the R's are using this opportunity to play politics at a time we need to do SOMETHING.

The Republican leadership is great at B!tching about this stimulus plan.

I haven't heard their solution? *Have you?*

What is their counter solution? Put up or shut up I say..

The answer is they don't. They have nothing.

And you know this is absolutely true.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And you know this is absolutely true.


That's bs, and you should know it. You may think you know that as fact, but I'll bet more disagree than agree with that idea. I guess my thought is there is no way to know it is absolutely true. Absolutely is over confidence. Way over confident.



> If the GOP knows that opposing Obama's stimulus package will result in the media reporting that Obama is failing


How about they don't agree because they don't agree. Not everything is politically motivated. I wouldn't give a dime out to those who don't know how to run a business. Barney Franks may owe the Freddie and Fanny, and the liberals do owe the auto industry for meddling in their business, but it's evident they still have not learned.



> We tried it the GOP way for nearly eight years


Oh, come now, I know you can count better than that. A few years of republicans with Bush, then the democrat congress took over. Remember Bush doesn't pass bills he only signs what the democrat congress passed. His shortcoming was not vetoing enough democrats. He tried to hard to get along. That's one of the things I didn't like about him, he didn't fight enough with democrats, he just let them have their way.



> I think he would truly like to reach across the aisle and offer an attempt at bi-partisan input. I think the R's are using this opportunity to play politics at a time we need to do SOMETHING.


I think he would like to portray that publicly while at the same time being very partisan. I think most politicians are that way, and he is no different. People are hope for that and he is sly enough to make those who want to believe believe.

I think barebackjack has the right idea. The only reason the democrats are reaching across the isle is they want someone to share the blame when this all goes to pot. They don't need the republicans to pass it, so why do they want them? Very easy answer. Share the responsibility for Washington stupidity. If the democrats do it on their own wait until the next election. No doubt it isn't going to work out. The media will try pain rosy pictures though. People were buying vehicles and restaurant lines were an hour wait when the media told us how terrible the economy was. Now if car sales go down and no one goes to restaurants or movies the media in the next couple months will try to tell us it's improving. It's their job to make Obama look like the messiah.

Obama need an old compass with a bubble in it. It want tell him which way is north, but it will tell him which way is up.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > And you know this is absolutely true.
> 
> 
> That's bs, and you should know it. You may think you know that as fact, but I'll bet more disagree than agree with that idea. I guess my thought is there is no way to know it is absolutely true. Absolutely is over confidence. Way over confident.


The Republicans have a completely hashed out read to go alternative plan to the Obama plan?

Really?

I haven't heard of one. Is there a link somewhere to see it?

I'm being serious...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance
Obama to Reiterate Appeal for Bipartisanship

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 23, 2009; A01

Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of "petty grievances," President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.

Republicans accused Democrats of abandoning the new president's pledge, ignoring his call for bipartisan comity and shutting them out of the process by writing the $850 billion legislation. The first drafts of the plan would result in more spending on favored Democratic agenda items, such as federal funding of the arts, they said, but would do little to stimulate the ailing economy.

The GOP's shrunken numbers, particularly in the Senate, will make it difficult for Republicans to stop the stimulus bill, but the growing GOP doubts mean that Obama's first major initiative could be passed on a largely party-line vote -- little different from the past 16 years of partisan sniping in the Clinton and Bush eras.

"Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters yesterday, saying Republicans were not being realistic in their expectations.

Hoping to recapture the bipartisan spirit, Obama will host nine congressional leaders at the White House today for talks about the economic recovery package, which he has asked to be on his desk by Feb. 16, Presidents' Day. He also agreed to talk with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and other GOP lawmakers next week about their proposals for more tax cuts.

Republicans have a long list of grievances.

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who gave Vice President Biden a 17-page list of spending requests, said he opposes the proposed increase in funding for Pell Grants for college students because it would do little to spur short-term economic growth. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said the plan lacks enough "fast-acting tax relief," such as a temporary halt to payroll taxes and more relief for businesses. Sen. John Thune (S.D.) said the nearly $1 trillion price tag would add too much to a federal deficit that is already predicted to top $1.2 trillion for 2009.

"The Republican concerns about what's moving in the House are growing by the day," Thune said. He dismissed as "very, very ambitious" Obama's hope of securing a bipartisan majority of 80 votes for the stimulus plan in the Senate, which could consider its version of the legislation next weekend.

The House plan would devote $303 billion to tax cuts, with two-thirds of that going to individuals, and $550 billion to new federal spending, including more than $300 billion in aid to states and local governments for health-care programs and education.

The House bill also would reverse a controversial change in tax regulations that the Treasury Department made last year at an estimated cost of $140 billion in lost revenue. The change, intended to encourage bank mergers, allows banks to shelter their own profits from taxes based on losses at companies they acquire. Treasury made the switch without public notice or congressional approval.

The proposed language would preserve the benefit for companies that already have announced mergers but eliminate it for new deals, and it also says that Treasury lacked the authority to make the change.

As House panels considered the $850 billion legislation this week, no Republicans from the Appropriations or Ways and Means committees supported it. Pelosi said she would bring the bill to the full House by Wednesday, regardless of whether the Cantor group has met with Obama by then.

Some senators remain hopeful that they can find a more bipartisan approach than the House, particularly in the traditionally accommodating Finance Committee, which will consider its tax package Tuesday.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the finance panel, said he could "buy into 90 percent" of the emerging plan but opposes the nearly $90 billion in aid to states for Medicaid because some governors would use the money to mask poor decisions in other portions of their budgets.

"Right now, that's kind of an impediment to bipartisanship on the whole package," Grassley said.

Republicans hold 41 Senate seats, requiring total unity to block the stimulus plan by a filibuster. Democrats and Republicans have said that at least a few GOP senators will probably back the economic recovery plan because the financial crisis has become so grave.

But some key Democrats are pushing to add pieces that would result in fewer Republican votes. Pelosi and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democratic leader in the Senate, support including changes to bankruptcy laws that would allow judges to modify loans on primary residences, which they say would help alleviate the housing crisis.

Republicans and the banking industry have vehemently opposed this because it might cause mortgage interest rates to rise.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans accused Democrats of leaving them out of the process of crafting the spending side of the plan, prompting the Senate Appropriations Committee to delay taking it up.

Republicans said they believe Obama's commitment to changing the tone in Washington but question whether he can control congressional Democrats. "I don't know how much he's driving it," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.).

Obama would not be the first president to promise a bipartisan tone and find a much different attitude on Capitol Hill. Democrats chafed under the iron-fist rule of Republicans for most of 1995 to 2007, during which the toughest tactics were deployed after George W. Bush took office promising to be a "uniter, not a divider."

Some Democrats said the goal should be passing legislation that deals with the largest financial crisis in 70 years, with or without much Republican support.

"If it's passed with 63 votes or 73 votes, history won't remember it," Durbin said.

i* don't think the republicans are totally against the entire package, but some of it, you just have to admit, is pure wasteful bull$**** spending which the dems are also famous for.........*


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Should we scrap the entire system just to punish the lazy? That would be much easier. But I don't think so. Try your best to weed them out but don't get rid of the system.
> 
> This is one of several (hundred) examples where republicans simplify things to the point where on the surface it may seem obvious they are right but in reality things are just not that simple. Seems to me anyway


You have just unveiled the republican strategy for the last several years. Oversimplify, tell people who is to blame, do absolutely nothing about it for six years while you control all of DC, and sit back and see what happens on election night. This time they got burned and everyone is up in arms asking what happened.

As far as scrapping the entire system goes then where does the money go? It always goes somewhere, the answer would more than likely be in the corrections system. Cut welfare and crime skyrockets, cut welfare and your local schools go in the tank, healthcare costs skyrocket, and on and on. The only feasible method I can see is to limit the time and amount one can get from welfare, a graduated scale or curve or something that is somewhat tangible so the person knows that in a matter of time the free ride stops.

This problem exists locally also with our lovely immigrant population. There are plenty of jobs in Fargo but when Lutheran Social Services trains them on how to milk the system (Cass County) why work?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You have just unveiled the republican strategy for the last several years. Oversimplify, tell people who is to blame, do absolutely nothing about it for six years while you control all of DC,


TK, I always thought you were sort of middle of the road, but the above statement make you look like a political hack. How many people on here don't know the democrats have been in power for the last few years and in control of DC? 
Rethink that above statement and see if you want to stick with it. That statement along with another thread about Dorgan and guns is going to make me think long and hard if your independent or party loyal.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

My comments about Dorgan are only to prove that all dems are not against guns, I am tired of all this non-sense about how all dems are going to take guns away and I have been crystal clear about the fact that dems have a heavy load to bear for the economic crisis. I was also trying to make a point that everyone on here should be contacting their reps to get their message across on gun control.

I do like Byron Dorgan, take a look at his record on guns, energy, economics, trade policy, and armed services and you will find that he is not afraid to buck his own party and do what he thinks is best for his constituency. That is why we elect him. Nobody is going to agree with everything he does but all and all he does a good job. You conservatives should love this democrat because he does more for you than your own party :lol:

As far as the republican comments go prove me wrong. The dems have stalled the last 2-3 years of progress no doubt, but the repubs had 6 years, 6 YEARS to push across some serious legislation and instead they peed their pants. All you heard this past election was who to blame, who to be afraid of, and the worst part-nothing about solutions to any of this. Why? who knows. I honestly think that repubs didn't have a clue themselves. This whole forum is a shining example of that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You conservatives should love this democrat because he does more for you than your own party


That wouldn't take much, they have been dismal.



> 6 YEARS to push across some serious legislation and instead they peed their pants.


I think they were to busy kissing up to the democrats and letting guys like Barney Franks screw things up with no opposition.



> All you heard this past election was who to blame, who to be afraid of, and the worst part-nothing about solutions to any of this. Why? who knows.


I don't think any of them have the foggiest idea what to do. It's a cinch we shouldn't be looking to Washington for any common sense. In the past couple of days the republicans look like they remember who they are supposed to represent, but that might be just another act from professional deceivers. At least they have wised up enough not to sign onto the stimulus package simply to share the blame. Maybe the first smart thing anyone in Washington has done for a long time.

I don't think the republicans are to be held up as brilliant. I think Washington is a case of dumb and dumber. The republicans when it comes to politics may be the dumber. The democrats know how to play the game, but they are on the wrong side. I'll take stupid and honest over brilliant and deceptive. One of my old psych proffs once said "it's a thin wall indeed that separates genius and madness".


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

The problem here is "Conservatives" have no party right now.

You can't look at what the Republicans have done and tell me that was my party.

We are headed into an abyss.

The Country was founded on the principle that the Federal Government exists at the pleasure of the States.

That founding principle has been stood on it's head ... The States and all the People now exist at the pleasure of the Federal Government.

Or so it seems to me.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I can't disagree with that.

I also think that conservatives could modernize a lot without sacrificing their core principles. Namely on education, some economics, and apparently immigration


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33 said:


> I can't disagree with that.
> 
> I also think that conservatives could modernize a lot without sacrificing their core principles. Namely on education, some economics, and apparently immigration


I'm not so old that I can't change, but like the Obama slogan I want to know first what that change will be.
I am all for changing education. I think we have dumbed down America, and it's the fault of the parents not the teachers. Let me start the education thing with a story: I was a Cub Scout Master for eight years. One evening after the Pine Wood Derby one mother told me she didn't think we should have trophies. She thought we shouldn't have first place either, because only one boy won and a couple dozen lost and they might feel bad. What????? I told her loosing is something we all experience and it's better to learn early over something minor than as an adult with something major. Anyway, that is the attitude that is destroying our education system. No one wants little Johny to fail, so the dumb down the system so everyone can pass. 
When I was growing up we spent money on the gifted. Now we spend it on the handicapped. Don't get me wrong I have great sympathy for those with learning problems. They need an education to live life comfortably, but does it make sense to lower the standards and cheat the intelligent people of a good education? 
Economics? I don't know, I think the conservatives have a better idea here too. Perhaps it isn't that they are great economists, perhaps it's not that democrats are bad economist, I think it's that one group favors free enterprise while the other group is socialist. I'll drag my feet on that one to the grave.  
Immigration? Our ancestors died for the freedom of this nation. They built it, and the established laws, including laws on immigration. Someone who comes across the border as an illegal is a criminal, and the liberals want to forget that part of it. They are illegal = criminal, not undocumented. :eyeroll: The legals contribute, the illegals are a drag on the economic system. I don't like cheats of any kind and if the can't follow the rules they don't deserve to be here. It's not only immigration either, it's security. I would mine the darn border. If people are to stupid to respect a mine oh well. 
I don't think it's that democrats have more sympathy for illegal aliens. I think it's that because they are socialist they are more likely to give them things, hence the liberals think the illegals will vote for them. The democrats are willing to risk our economic stability and our security for those votes. Nope, I will not change on that one either.

Education, I want change, but in the right direction.
Economics, we sure could use change, but in the right direction.
Immigration, we need to follow the laws we have in place. If you want change make sure it's in the right direction.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

some far lefties may want to help all the illegals but there are just as many or more corporate whores in DC mainly on the right that view illegals as cheap and tax free labor. I say put up the fence and make people go through the process to get in. I know we are a country of immigrants but times have changed. We need a high set of standards for future immigrants to help us with crime, taxes, and wage suppression.

On economics the a lot of repubs still seem to think that the trickle down theory will still work, and maybe it would if there wasn't so much greed and a lack of business ethics. The trickle down theory seems to have failed in the last administration, along with driving down the value of the dollar to try to boost our economy and then continuously cutting the fed interest rate to keep our economy on life support. That kind of ties into education, I would like it if my taxes went down but with the economic crisis, infrastructure crisis, homeland security, and education the only way to do all this is through taxes or drastically cutting other areas of gov't funding. Take a look at the mess Minnesota is in.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ahhhh........how about we take a look at the mess (liberal) California is in!

as for illegals, the dems love them, most of the Washingtonites and some others have illegal housekeepers......can you say Caroline Kennedy??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I would like it if my taxes went down but with the economic crisis, infrastructure crisis, homeland security, and education the only way to do all this is through taxes or drastically cutting other areas of gov't funding.


The democrats hero J. Kennedy proved that wrong and so did Reagan. Cutting taxes induces business to invest and the government actually brings in more revenue.



> some far lefties may want to help all the illegals but there are just as many or more corporate whores in DC mainly on the right that view illegals as cheap and tax free labor.


  Over the past couple of years I think I have said about the same thing a half dozen times or more. I would liked to have stood outside that Home Depot in Phoenix and asked the guys in pickups pulling up to hire illegals if they were democrat or republican. If there is a free meal in town my liberal friends are the first in line. In that light I think I will revamp my old statement to say: liberals love illegals because they think they will get their vote, while conservatives and liberals alike see them as cheap labor. You never see a liberal miss a free lunch.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> The democrats hero J. Kennedy proved that wrong and so did Reagan. Cutting taxes induces business to invest and the government actually brings in more revenue.


I agree raising taxes now would be foolish but in the future, who knows how long, there will have to be a day of reckoning for all this spending. All of these corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthy have done nothing for the current economy.

That is part that is really sickening about this economic crisis, these corps got nice little tax breaks and still went into the tank. The taxpayer loses twice.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

tk33 said,

I agree raising taxes now would be foolish but in the future, who knows how long, there will have to be a day of reckoning for all this spending.

I agree paying back the giveaways and pork in the stimulant bill as it is now will be a burden on my kids and their kids in the future. But if we keep taxes at the current level or lower them to get the economy going, why would we want to raise taxes in the future to slow down the economy in the future? if a person pays 30% in taxes it would make sense to encourage them to make more money to be able to collect more tax dollars. 30% of $150k is $45k and 30% of 200k is $60k. You don't need to increase the percentage of tax, just the $$ amount that you tax.

The same with capital gains, when the rate was lowered it promoted the selling of properties effectively generating more tax $$.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

the first problem is that much of american wealth is owned by foreigners. The second problem is the division of wealth in our country is very high. I may be wrong on this but we can't continue to borrow money from countries like saudi arabia and china eventually they will need their cash and we will have to come up with it, or maybe they will take paper IOU's like on dumb and dumber, which would also perfectly describe the economic and trade policies of the last two presidents.

We will ultimately end up paying the price for all this with taxes unless the gov't finds a way to bring back our wealth and to build an economy that includes jobs for all sectors, ie manufacturing. No more rewards and tax loopholes for outsourcing and other idiotic trade agreements.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The second problem is the division of wealth in our country is very high.


That's a Marxist statement. That's radical liberal. It's not up to the government to take away from one and give to another. Not directly, or by any other means such as taxation. It's up to the individuals to better themselves or be satisfied with what they have. America gives that opportunity like no other nation. That in itself is great advantage. If you want to sit on the couch, watch Oprah, and let the world pass you by while your neighbor busts his behind oh well.



> the first problem is that much of american wealth is owned by foreigners.


I'm lost. What does that have to do with keeping taxes lower for citizens which produces more tax revenue?????



> I may be wrong on this but we can't continue to borrow money from countries like saudi arabia and china


 :eyeroll: So lowering taxes which increases revenue increases this problem? I'm afraid that doesn't compute.



> We will ultimately end up paying the price for all this with taxes unless the gov't finds a way to bring back our wealth


So I guess against historical evidence (some by a democrat hero) your going to stay pro tax. If less taxes produce more revenue what is it you really want to do, punish the rich because your not one?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

When did I become pro-tax?

I don't like paying taxes anymore than anyone. The point is where is all this money going to come from? I am thinking that we are all screwed when it comes to taxes, we will eventually be paying more.

I have no problem with wealthy people who earn their cash. What I have a problem with is these corporate types, tax cheats, and wall street/money manager types who have gotten rich scamming retirement funds and other investors. I also have a huge problem with the tax loopholes that these corporations get from moving money overseas. This in turn allows them to hide money, cook their books, and get these executives and managers bigger bonuses than they ever should have got. Now we are seeing the fruits of their crooked labors. :sniper:



> Quote:
> the first problem is that much of american wealth is owned by foreigners.
> 
> I'm lost. What does that have to do with keeping taxes lower for citizens which produces more tax revenue?????


Less money in the american economy is less money in the tax pool.



> Quote:
> The second problem is the division of wealth in our country is very high.
> 
> That's a Marxist statement. That's radical liberal. It's not up to the government to take away from one and give to another. Not directly, or by any other means such as taxation. It's up to the individuals to better themselves or be satisfied with what they have. America gives that opportunity like no other nation. That in itself is great advantage. If you want to sit on the couch, watch Oprah, and let the world pass you by while your neighbor busts his behind oh well.


If you want to call it a marxist statement that is your right, it is very easy to call everything that looks bad marxist or socialistic but at some point in time you have to acknowledge the problem. This problem is also a fact. When the division gets too high, there is an inherent problem of welfare, higher crime, and downward pressure wages. Once again less money in the tax pool and more money being spent by the gov't.

As I stated above taxing now is really bad, taxing later will also be bad. I am just thinking that all these issues being addressed by congress and the white house now, and I have not heard one plan addressing how to pay for it. Not one word about closing corporate tax loopholes, getting jobs back stateside, and how to get people off welfare.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If you want to call it a marxist statement that is your right


,

Stricktly by political definition it is marxist. Anytime you want to interfear through taxes or by any means take away from one income group and give it to another, or simply take it from one group to bring incomes into more near equal it is marxist. That's why Obama is taking heat on his statement of spread the wealth around.



> When did I become pro-tax?


When you say we are going to have to raise taxes. If lower taxes increases revenue why would we raise them. If raising taxes lowers production why would we raise them. A couple of us have explained that a couple of times, but you still say we will have to raise them. Why? Is it simply because you want to get those rich blankety blanks.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

not all blankety blanks, just the ones who fleeced the system. I have two close relatives who are well to do, they earned it. You are stereotyping me, I want to see a fix to a screwed up system. A system that currently rewards shady at best, unethical, and irresponsible business practices. The statistics are just that, statistics, it is not marxism when it is factual not philosophical.

Once again I am not in favor of higher taxes, the numbers just don't add up. Who is going to foot the bill for this one? My generation or my children's? Thanks again, baby boomers!


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > If you want to call it a marxist statement that is your right
> 
> 
> ,
> ...


Plainsman, we have a progressive tax system in place in the U.S. right now where the wealthy pay more than do the poor. It appears that a progressive tax system is marxist by your definition. Do you think we need to get away from this system because it is unfair to the wealthy?



> If lower taxes increases revenue why would we raise them. If raising taxes lowers production why would we raise them. A couple of us have explained that a couple of times, but you still say we will have to raise them.


Wow, I love how republicans simplify things. As if it were really that simple.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> not all blankety blanks, just the ones who fleeced the system.


Oh, I'm with you on that. I just have not figured out a way to get at them without damaging the capitalist system. I wish someone would figure that out and take these slobs to the cleaners. They should confiscate every article worth a dime that Bernard Madoff has, sell it, throw him in where he never sees the sun again for life.



> Once again I am not in favor of higher taxes, the numbers just don't add up. Who is going to foot the bill for this one? My generation or my children's? Thanks again, baby boomers!


So if your not for higher taxes why do you keep saying we will have to raise them to pay for all these blunders. We keep telling you that every president who has lowered taxes has produced more revenue not less, and you have continued to say we will have to raise taxes. Now you have gone from promoting higher taxes to asking who is going to pay for all this. Unfortunately us and generations to come. Not just our children, but us. We begin paying for this the moment we start correcting the disaster. It would appear that even Obama has gotten the lower tax generating revenue through his head. Why would anyone raise it. Only one answer, to punish who they perceive as rich because they are jealous. I don't begrudge the rich their success, I just wish I had more. Good for them if they earned it honestly.

Bill Gates is the richest guy I can think of. I think Microsoft still has a bunch of employees in Fargo. Do you suppose the liberals that work there want to tax the heck out of Bill Gates? Only if they are total fools.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

The way I read it, TK33 is warning us that to pay for the spending the government will need to raise taxes. And he states that he is not for increasing taxes, just like a lot of us. Then each of us have to decide if we are 1) ok with a tax increase in the future 2) want to cut spending and eliminate or reduce worthless programs 3) cut taxes to increase the economy(like Kennedy, Reagan and GW) or 4) a combination of these and other proposals to increase income and reduce expenses. I'm for reducing taxes and cutting spending, its worked in the past. And a increase in certain taxes, not necessarily income taxes, might have to be part of the formula.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

After further thought I guess we made the decision I talked about in Nov 08. Everyone will have to live with the decisions of our elected officials, its what 53% of the voters(not Americans) wanted. The Blue Dog Dems might be the only chance to prevent the biggest "Gift Wrapped" spending bill in history.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Thank you Bowstring.

The only solution that I can think of to fix the crooked business system in our country has two words, prison and forfeiture. If these white collar crooks were locked up with hardened criminals and lost everything they owned to the shirts off of their back they would think twice. No more moving assets to your buddies and 1-3 years in a federal resort/spa and these a-holes would get the message real quick. The laws must be wrote so clear that no lawyers and accountants can circumvent them. If the laws applied to conduct and reporting it could be done without effecting captalism.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The way I read it, TK33 is warning us that to pay for the spending the government will need to raise taxes.


First off TK I agree with you about throwing these misfits in prison.

Bowstring: I understand what TK is saying, but this is what I am thinking.

If lower taxes means more revenue now why does more taxes mean more revenue in the future?

Low taxes = more revenue in 2009
We have economic problems so we all agree to lower taxes.
Look ahead to 2015. TK says we will have to pay back so raise taxes.

Well if lower taxes means more revenue then higher taxes means less revenue. So your telling me that by raising taxes and producing less revenue we can pay off the national debt faster? I think perhaps were hung up on terminology. We will have to raise revenue, but raising taxes will only do that temporarily for one or two years, then the revenue heads for the gutter again.

No, you lower taxes again. I understand that you can't lower them until you have to little revenue. Perhaps they can not be lowered a second time. However if the government finds the right level of taxes to produce the maximum sustainable revenue then that's where it should always stay. Cutting spending will allow for further reduction of taxes and when the country is back on it's feet that can be revisited. Perhaps then infrastructure will demand attention.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Bowstring said earlier in this topic,

I agree paying back the giveaways and pork in the stimulant bill as it is now will be a burden on my kids and their kids in the future. But if we keep taxes at the current level or lower them to get the economy going, why would we want to raise taxes in the future to slow down the economy in the future? if a person pays 30% in taxes it would make sense to encourage them to make more money to be able to collect more tax dollars. 30% of $150k is $45k and 30% of 200k is $60k. You don't need to increase the percentage of tax, just the $$ amount that you tax.

The same with capital gains, when the rate was lowered it promoted the selling of properties effectively generating more tax $$.

*Everyone that wants to prosper, let them and they will contribute more tax dollars.
*


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

All of this is fine and dandy but if jobs, corportations, and trade deals keep moving out of this country there will be less money in this country. You don't want taxes raised in say 2015, than the gov't had better close corporate tax loopholes, especially now since tax dollars are supposedly going to bail them out and get rid of these lame brain trade agreements.

Otherwise it doesn't matter which party is in control we all be paying more taxes and have less to show for it from the gov't. Take a look at the pickle that the state of MN has gotten their schools into.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> All of this is fine and dandy but if jobs, corportations, and trade deals keep moving out of this country there will be less money in this country.


 :huh: Corporations were moving out because taxes were to high. Raise the taxes and more will leave.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

That is not the reason, that is what they say. Think of this as corporate kool-aid

My dad has worked for a few of these corporations, mainly electronics, they are not leaving because of taxes. My dad has managed projects for 25 years, the last 15 overseas. The main reason that they leave is because they can get cheap labor (lower qc standards of course), they can use the corporate tax loopholes, and they are allowed to move money around overseas and can make their balance sheets look better than they should. All of this together makes their stocks go up, and in turn exec pay and bonuses go up.

A fair share of these companies actually make less money than they would if their jobs were here but it doesn't matter, they just run them down and sell out to another company. Many americans lose their jobs, a few execs get beyond rich. One example was some fuses for circuit boards, when made in the US failure was less than .1%, mexico it was like 3%, now china the failure rate is about 75%. Most of which they have to warranty, and then factor the logistics and liability of getting the product here it not cost effective at the end, but it looks good in the now, cook the books, stocks go up and screw whatever happens in the future because the idiots in DC will bail us out and give us more tax breaks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No doubt labor is cheaper, but don't underestimate the pressure taxes put on companies. It would be cheaper anywhere that you can get away from the unions. As to them cooking the books there is little we can do about that. We also can't stop them from moving if they want to.

Any ideas on how to keep companies here? Do you think they are all bad? If you dislike them maybe it's good riddance.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I wish I had the answers, the best solutions I have heard from the people in the know are to get rid of loopholes (we basically reward them) and write laws to control reporting of profits.

The other thing that really bothers the hell out of me is that the warranties on consumer goods, like appliances, were written out of existence 2-3 years ago. So now not only are the jobs gone but so is the quality that we have come to expect and should expect for the prices on some of these.

I don't hate all corporations and execs, just the crooked ones, I do however hate the politicians that have allowed this crap to happen


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Part the weeds for a closer look, and were close to the same position.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Are we the problem? I think so at least part of it. Not long ago the buzz was the consumer would buy products if the price was enticing (cheap). Still holds true today. The only way to sell a car was 0% interest for 60 months and/or rebates. Sure the cars and trucks were overpriced anyway and the deal might have made it more price competitive, since at least 1987. Then the consumer products "blue light specials" K-Mart "everyday low prices"Wal-Mart, etc. got the shoppers attention. Big competition for the American consumer dollar and remember Wal-Mart is or was 10% of our entire economy. The pressure to keep prices lower mostly from Wal-Mart was a major factor in business decision to move manufacturing to emerging countries with nonunion cheap labor, little or no corporate tax or environmental regulations. The other "Big Box" retailers also benefited from it. And guess what? We all run to the Big Box stores to buy the bargains, with out any thought about why there are fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs in the U.S.A.

I am not a expert on "loop holes" but I do own a corporation in Minnesota and I don't see any loop holes available to my business. I do know that if my corporation does business (construction) in North Dakota that I pay tax on the profit and income tax on any income earned on that project in North Dakota. The same for the portion made in Minnesota. Its very similar if I do business over seas. I wouldn't pay tax on the amount of profit to the USA if the profit is made outside the USA. Also I wouldn't be allowed to bring those profits back to the USA unless taxes are paid to the USA. So there is a incentive to make the profit in the cheap countries and a incentive to keep the profits outside the USA too! So the profits from the products you buy stay overseas and gets invested in foreign countries, see how this is going? An example that I can relate to is that in the mid 70's you could buy a 25 inch console color TV(remember those?) for $700 to $1000 made in the USA by Zenith, Philco, Motorola or RCA. Sony table top T V's were smaller and more expensive due mostly to import tariffs. It didn't take long and the USA manufactures moved production to emerging countries and assembled the product in the USA, only required to pay import tax on the portion produced in a foreign country in effect reducing the total production costs and hopefully selling their finished product to the USA consumer at a lower price plus maximizing profits. $300 TV's!!
Clothing and other consumer products followed.

The USA corporations soon found that in order to expand their markets over seas that producing the product in the USA and exporting it to Europe and other over seas markets were too costly. So the next thing is to manufacture the product in emerging countries of South and Central America reducing costs and taxes. Now they could be competitive in price to foreign markets and import the cheaper products to the USA, pay the Import tax and we the consumer went crazy over lower prices. While the price of cars and homes have increased by 10 times the things easy to manufacture and put in shipping containers to send to Wall Mart, etc. have gone down in price or increased very little prohibiting USA manufacturers to be competitive and pay taxes and a fair wage. Until the cost of living and government in China, India, etc. increases close to ours and we continue to have a open trade agreement with other countries, those jobs are gone. Johnny Carson years ago on the "Late Night Show" said we drive home from work in out Toyota's, turn on the Sony TV listen to the news and wonder why there are no jobs. It turns out it's not so funny.

Income tax increases on workers and capital gains on share holders increase the cost too.

If we implement import taxes on products from over seas, foreign countries will tax all imports from our country like agriculture products we export now.

This is just my observation and view.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It sounds like if we need a better economy we try to influence the acceptance of unions in third world nations and ditch out unions over here. One big huge step to recover the American economy. 

Next, don't look at profits as evil, and don't look at the rich as scoundrels. Nothing is more confusing that a worker *****ing about his rich boss. You better hope your boss keeps making money.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

I agree :beer: but the emerging economies aren't letting organized crime (mafia) to get a strangle hold on biz like it started in the USA to form unions. I think they have organized government(not much different than organized crime), maybe they skipped that part.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

It is not real difficult to figure out how to keep the unions from taking over your company, take care of your employees.

In order to take advantage of tax loopholes you would need to business farther away than ND.



> Next, don't look at profits as evil, and don't look at the rich as scoundrels. Nothing is more confusing that a worker b*tching about his rich boss. You better hope your boss keeps making money.


No kidding, the problem is not profits unless they are rigged. We already have laws for that. The problem is how these some of these publicly traded companies report their profits to shareholders and brokers. There were more than likely very few in on the cut from madoff, tyco, enron, and etc. The problem is how they were able to move and hide their losses to keep the public buying their junk stocks. There were laws against this at one time, but they were removed.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

TK33 said:


> It is not real difficult to figure out how to keep the unions from taking over your company, take care of your employees.
> 
> In order to take advantage of tax loopholes you would need to business farther away than ND.
> 
> ...


Good post TK

You really shouldn't try to dazzle them with facts and logic... ya know?

It gets in the way of their convenient conspiracy theories :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The problem is how they were able to move and hide their losses to keep the public buying their junk stocks.


That's a problem we have to keep at through the legal system. Trying to control it through government tears us away from capitalism and makes us more socialist. The answer isn't always government. I think there are laws in place to take care of these things they just need to be pursued.



> There were laws against this at one time, but they were removed.


I am not that familiar with specific laws. Since you know this, could you tell me which laws were removed. I'm not sure that's not just a liberal conspiracy theory. Sort of like the ones that Cheney was still working for Haliburton and Palin was going to burn all of our books. I know there is some debate about the housing crisis being caused by the removal of regulations by republicans vs the regulations required by liberals to lower qualifications for loans. Do you have a credible source for that information?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> That's a problem we have to keep at through the legal system. Trying to control it through government tears us away from capitalism and makes us more socialist. The answer isn't always government


That is why the laws need to apply to reporting and conduct not to profits. If a company does well their stocks should go up and their execs compensated well, if they are loisng then they should have to report it as such. If there is no faith in the market from investors it is going to be very hard to get the economy back to where it was, if not impossible. No investment is a safe investment you have to expect to lose sometimes but when you are just plain lied to, that is bad for everyone except the few people who have the ability to walk away with a fistful of pesos or yen or whatever. It is not socialism, it is the way that things used to be done when capitalism actually worked. Business ethics, values, and responsibility went down the toilet and now the gov't has to step in. It needs to better than the SEC, they are a joke at best.



> I am not that familiar with specific laws. Since you know this, could you tell me which laws were removed. I'm not sure that's not just a liberal conspiracy theory


I don't know what the exact names of the laws are but they went away or "de-regulated" under clinton. Hence Arthur Anderson and Enron. This was a big factor in the dot com collapse. It is basically self-regulation, when the accounting firms and corps are self auditing with no oversight and no governing body or ethical standards it is a recipe for disaster. This type of disaster could also happen accidentally or by mistake, and there are no protections in place to prevent it.

Calling everything socialism is an easy cop out to addressing real problems, both parties have mastered this over the last 15 years. The gov't is the only group that can handle this because they are the only ones capable of making people culpable for their actions. These problems also have to be dealt with very quickly to regain investor faith in the markets and to get REAL CASH moving in our economy.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The incentive to move jobs overseas exists because the US taxes corporations at rates higher than most other countries.

According to the Institute for International Economics, the effective rate for US corporations was just over 30% in 2002, while mainland China's effective corporate rate was only 11.3%, Britain's 18.2%, Mexico's 15.1% and Indonesia's a miniscule 0.2%.

Furthermore, the US also attempts to tax money that US-based companies earn in other countries, but only after those profits are brought back to the US. *That means profits that remain overseas, perhaps invested in new factories in low-tax countries, never get taxed at the higher US rates. *

And that's been true through both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Corporations are not charity organzations, not job fares, and not responsible to employ anyone in any specific country. Their only goal is to maximize profit for the shareholders THATS THE WAY CAPITALISM WORKS.

If we eliminated the corporate tax (which infact is paid by consumers employees and shareholdrs anyway in the big picture thru higher prices) they will come here.

Its that simple.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

it will be worse under Obama....soon all US oil companies will be have hq off shore......the government is literally killing jobs in the US, except for the new shovel-ready ones.... :lol:


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

It seems to me that alot of this is the fault of the american people. They want everything cheaper, and when these corparations make it cheaper overseas they ***** because they lost their job. It's pretty much the same thing that has happened to small town North Dakota. People went to the bigger cities for groceries, clothes and other products instead of patronizing their hometown business and they closed up. Then they whine because they lost their job, there's nowhere in town to get this or that. Basically it's their fault, they want their cake and eat it too. Until the consumer decides to look at the big picture and not just their little world it has nowhere to go but down. If they would insist it was made in the usa these companies would have no choice, but that will never happen because it would cost more and they wouldn't be able to buy 2 of them, even though it may keep their job here. The unions have the "I don't care I got mine attitude" that's gonna bitem in the butt eventually too. People look no farther ahead then tomorrow.

Just my $.02 (with the economy it's more like $.0133)


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

If this is true why are some corporations still moving these factories overseas since Bush cut their taxes? The effective tax rates do not include deductions and write-offs that could be taken advantage of here.

I agree that corporations are not charities but they cannot expect to do business here and take advantage of the perks of america without paying taxes in america. Using our infrastructure, gov't, military, security, and gov't funded research are examples of why these corporations should have to pay taxes just like the rest of us.



> Its that simple.


It is not all that simple, the tax issue is there but it is more about hiding money. The money they generate they put most of that money in a phony offshore company (ugland house). Put the little money left in the US parent company, pay taxes on that, then move the rest of the money somehow out of the foreign subsidiary to the parent company. The same can be done with losses to inflate stock values and get investors to keep funneling money in. The companies collapse, who cares? They all got their bonuses so they don't care, neither do the politicians who got their contributions.

I have drastically oversimplified this, but it is the basics on how to cheat taxes and scam investors, if I knew how to do all this I would be either very rich or very imprisoned. It should also be duly noted that local and state gov'ts also give these corps property tax breaks and the like. So in reality the taxpayer is a three time loser if you count the bailout. The blame goes to both parties and the SEC.

The republican answer to the economic crisis is to cut taxes, this goes deeper than cutting taxes. Cutting taxes may help but we need everyone paying their fair share of taxes and playing by rules to get confidence back in the markets.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ok TK33 explain two things to me

1) define fair, and then fair share

2)if there is no corporate tax what would they have to hide???

WHAT NO CORPORATE TAX!!!! How could that be?????????

When you hear Obama and the Dems or even some republican fool politician ranting about corporate taxes he is really telling you that he thinks you're stupid. Obama ( well maybe not him hes stupid also) *but congress knows that corporations don't pay taxes. *
They know that corporations collect taxes from customers, employees and shareholders and pass them off to the federal government. When Obama says that he is going to close corporate tax loopholes he is really saying that he is going to raise taxes on corporate employees, consumers and shareholders. A tax is a tax whether it is paid directly to the IRS or handed to a corporation or business to be passed on to the IRS.

The whole corparate tax issue is a sham that congress uses to screw all of us because they know the economic education levels in this country are so pi$$ poor that wealth envy can be used to demonize those rich evil corporations and get them to collect invisible (to the stupid) taxes from all of us.

Its discouraging so many fall for it


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> 1) define fair, and then fair share


million dollar question, I honestly have no answer to that. Everybody has to pay some tax, at least to fund civil service, schools, military, etc. You want to reap the rewards of america, pay the price like all other americans.



> 2)if there is no corporate tax what would they have to hide???


I agree that politicians make this too simple and use the corps as somewhat of a scapegoat. The problem I am attempting to point out is the hiding of profits and losses. Obviously you don't get taxed when you can show a loss but when you can also falsify losses and keep investors pumping money into your company that is wrong and very dangerous. We are seeing what happens when everyone demonizes these corporations. Consumers, some corporations and DC have all contributed to this mess. The best solution may be to give everyone a tax break and set up new, less complicated reporting laws that cannot be circumvented and carry severe punishments.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I can't define it either not in this context thats why I dont use or acccept it
I do sense that nothing about the current tax system is fair to the productive in our society. Unless ofcourse one considers taxes not a means to pay for government but a means to reward people who make bad decisions and screw people that make good ones like the current admistration does. Marxist principles are at their core.



> The best solution may be to give everyone a tax break and set up new, less complicated reporting laws that cannot be circumvented and carry severe punishments.


I agree but thats the exact opposite of what they are trying to do, and coporate taxes are really hidden taxes on all of us. As I stated previously , according to some of the most respected economic schools in the nation like Harvard Yale ect they are somehere around 22% but hidden so when somethinks they pay say a 18% federal tax rate ( I just made that rate up for discussions sake) the actual federal rate is probably 35% if the person spends all the money he makes ( common in our low saving rate society), The hurts low income people the worst yet these dirtbags in Washington DC use the poors' ignorance and wealth envy to whip up support for "Screwing these evil corporations".

IF we eliminated coporate taxes entirely then the crooked pols both Feds and States would have to bring the true tax rates we pay *into the light of day*.

If that ever happened and people realized what they actaully pay in taxes they would then hopefully start examining who,what and how that money is spent. These beaureaucrats have become a elite class of professional politicians that believe we are too stupid to make the decisions on how to run our lives and that they should be paid millions to make these decions for us.


----------

