What do you think of this proposed legislation?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Yeah that unwritten one calling for 450 billion of spending since 900 billion didn't work. Reduction in corporate tax rates and corporate tax breaks is a good idea along with extending the payroll-tax cut. Larger tax credit for companies hiring people who have been unemployed for six months or longer is ok, too, but limiting it the incentive seems rather counterproductive. Beyond that it was a lot of same we've heard from Obama.
It honestly looks like a bigged up version of our stimulus package.
Skeptical, tbh. A bit of a half measure which probably won't achieve anything like what it needs to and will use up a lot of money in the process. Money that the US doesn't really have.
Skeptical, tbh. A bit of a half measure which probably won't achieve anything like what it needs to and will use up a lot of money in the process. Money that the US doesn't really have.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
it's political maneuvering, designed to eitherSpark wrote:
It honestly looks like a bigged up version of our stimulus package.
Skeptical, tbh. A bit of a half measure which probably won't achieve anything like what it needs to and will use up a lot of money in the process. Money that the US doesn't really have.
a) get Republicans to vote on something they don't want to, or
b) get Republicans to take an indefensible (according to democratic strategist) position come election time.
it's bullshit either way, not really in traditional Democratic ideal or destined to pass.
I am sure the idea could have gotten through congress had Obama not pissed away all of his political capital on healthcare reform.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-09-11 18:48:50)
Could say that about a lot of things he's tried to do since then tbhMacbeth wrote:
I am sure the idea could have gotten this through congress had Obama not pissed away all of his political capital on healthcare reform.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Like?
fucking Obama's a sheep in wolves clothing. i don't know why republicans recoil at every word that comes out of his mouth, he's not changed any policy from the bush era. republican's are pussies, and obama's just like them.Spark wrote:
Could say that about a lot of things he's tried to do since then tbhMacbeth wrote:
I am sure the idea could have gotten this through congress had Obama not pissed away all of his political capital on healthcare reform.
what this country needs is a swift kick in the ass, and the labels removed from their politicians - so the American electorate can see them for what they are.
Let's be real here. If this bill ever gets written it will undoubtedly look a lot like the last stimulus bill i.e. the lions share of the money will go to states so they can keep their ponzi schemed teachers union employees at work instead of facing the massive layoffs and reductions in pay and benefits they truly deserve. They had their cake during the boom years and have been acting like we're still in boom times every time they go to the trough to feed at the public's expense. "Teachers are underpaid" blah blah blah. Teachers in my neck of the woods make six figure salaries. The administrators make upwards of a quarter mil a year. Crying poverty went out the window years ago.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He has to be one of the worst negotiators I've ever seen in a position of executive power, yeah.13urnzz wrote:
fucking Obama's a sheep in wolves clothing. i don't know why republicans recoil at every word that comes out of his mouth, he's not changed any policy from the bush era. republican's are pussies, and obama's just like them.Spark wrote:
Could say that about a lot of things he's tried to do since then tbhMacbeth wrote:
I am sure the idea could have gotten this through congress had Obama not pissed away all of his political capital on healthcare reform.
what this country needs is a swift kick in the ass, and the labels removed from their politicians - so the American electorate can see them for what they are.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Primary school administrators make well above median income here, secondary school heads make more than most managers in real companies.Jay wrote:
Let's be real here. If this bill ever gets written it will undoubtedly look a lot like the last stimulus bill i.e. the lions share of the money will go to states so they can keep their ponzi schemed teachers union employees at work instead of facing the massive layoffs and reductions in pay and benefits they truly deserve. They had their cake during the boom years and have been acting like we're still in boom times every time they go to the trough to feed at the public's expense. "Teachers are underpaid" blah blah blah. Teachers in my neck of the woods make six figure salaries. The administrators make upwards of a quarter mil a year. Crying poverty went out the window years ago.
Jobs act will no doubt be another debt powered spending plurge.
Structural changes are needed, like letting people renegotiate onto floating mortgages, putting a sensible tax on fuel, etc.
Fuck Israel
48 cents a gallon isn't enough?
I agree that federal spending does need to change at a structural level. Our current commitments are not sustainable without some sort of change. I'm just wondering why you picked those items.
I agree that federal spending does need to change at a structural level. Our current commitments are not sustainable without some sort of change. I'm just wondering why you picked those items.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-09-12 16:50:59)
To troll.RAIMIUS wrote:
48 cents a gallon isn't enough?
I agree that federal spending does need to change at a structural level. Our current commitments are not sustainable without some sort of change. I'm just wondering why you picked those items.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
require any company bidding on jobs for the US government to be incorporated and headquartered in the US
reduce payroll and profit tax rates on small to medium businesses (businesses that have <$500 million revenue)
reduce government spending and pensions, both at state and federal level
What good is it to 'reduce corporate tax rates' if the companies with the most revenue in the US don't actually pay the going rates? I haven't looked at the raw numbers in a year or two, but historically it's not the top revenue/profit generating companies that pay the going rates, it's the small-to-medium sized businesses that pay the comparably high corporate tax rates.
There are far too many companies incorporated overseas or in tax havens who benefit from US government contracts. It would be an interesting study to see the top contract recipients by overall dollar value and the taxes they paid.
reduce payroll and profit tax rates on small to medium businesses (businesses that have <$500 million revenue)
reduce government spending and pensions, both at state and federal level
What good is it to 'reduce corporate tax rates' if the companies with the most revenue in the US don't actually pay the going rates? I haven't looked at the raw numbers in a year or two, but historically it's not the top revenue/profit generating companies that pay the going rates, it's the small-to-medium sized businesses that pay the comparably high corporate tax rates.
There are far too many companies incorporated overseas or in tax havens who benefit from US government contracts. It would be an interesting study to see the top contract recipients by overall dollar value and the taxes they paid.
I'm pretty sure that you have to be incorporated and headquartered in the US in order to do any business with the feds already. It's why every government vehicle in the country is a Ford or a Chevy.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
require any company bidding on jobs for the US government to be incorporated and headquartered in the US
reduce payroll and profit tax rates on small to medium businesses (businesses that have <$500 million revenue)
reduce government spending and pensions, both at state and federal level
What good is it to 'reduce corporate tax rates' if the companies with the most revenue in the US don't actually pay the going rates? I haven't looked at the raw numbers in a year or two, but historically it's not the top revenue/profit generating companies that pay the going rates, it's the small-to-medium sized businesses that pay the comparably high corporate tax rates.
There are far too many companies incorporated overseas or in tax havens who benefit from US government contracts. It would be an interesting study to see the top contract recipients by overall dollar value and the taxes they paid.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I agree. A better move would be to lower the rates but also remove almost all of the deductions and credits. Broaden the tax base in other words.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
require any company bidding on jobs for the US government to be incorporated and headquartered in the US
reduce payroll and profit tax rates on small to medium businesses (businesses that have <$500 million revenue)
reduce government spending and pensions, both at state and federal level
What good is it to 'reduce corporate tax rates' if the companies with the most revenue in the US don't actually pay the going rates? I haven't looked at the raw numbers in a year or two, but historically it's not the top revenue/profit generating companies that pay the going rates, it's the small-to-medium sized businesses that pay the comparably high corporate tax rates.
There are far too many companies incorporated overseas or in tax havens who benefit from US government contracts. It would be an interesting study to see the top contract recipients by overall dollar value and the taxes they paid.
Reducing payroll taxes just exacerbates the SS problem. Need to leave those alone, unless it's combined with SS overhaul.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
If you want to do business in the states you got to incorporate yo shit. Also, it doesn't do the CEO any good if he incorporates overseas, nigga still gotta pay taxes back home anyway.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
require any company bidding on jobs for the US government to be incorporated and headquartered in the US
reduce payroll and profit tax rates on small to medium businesses (businesses that have <$500 million revenue)
reduce government spending and pensions, both at state and federal level
What good is it to 'reduce corporate tax rates' if the companies with the most revenue in the US don't actually pay the going rates? I haven't looked at the raw numbers in a year or two, but historically it's not the top revenue/profit generating companies that pay the going rates, it's the small-to-medium sized businesses that pay the comparably high corporate tax rates.
There are far too many companies incorporated overseas or in tax havens who benefit from US government contracts. It would be an interesting study to see the top contract recipients by overall dollar value and the taxes they paid.
The only real loss is income tax that comes from the amount of employees a company. Most companies can outsource or subcontract their production anyway.
Besides you know any americans that want to work 12 hours a day making clothes in a sweatshop?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 60654.htmlHurricane2k9 wrote:
I agree. A better move would be to lower the rates but also remove almost all of the deductions and credits. Broaden the tax base in other words.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
require any company bidding on jobs for the US government to be incorporated and headquartered in the US
reduce payroll and profit tax rates on small to medium businesses (businesses that have <$500 million revenue)
reduce government spending and pensions, both at state and federal level
What good is it to 'reduce corporate tax rates' if the companies with the most revenue in the US don't actually pay the going rates? I haven't looked at the raw numbers in a year or two, but historically it's not the top revenue/profit generating companies that pay the going rates, it's the small-to-medium sized businesses that pay the comparably high corporate tax rates.
There are far too many companies incorporated overseas or in tax havens who benefit from US government contracts. It would be an interesting study to see the top contract recipients by overall dollar value and the taxes they paid.
The path to higher economic growth and higher tax revenue is to lower tax rates, broaden the tax base by eliminating deductions and breaks, simplify the obscenely complex tax code, and remove growth-suffocating regulation.
Everyone recognizes that middle-class entitlements are the government's long-term spending problem. Means-testing and voucherizing are the obvious solutions. Voucherizing is the only hope to put some competition back in the health market and lower costs. The vast bulk of federal spending does not go to poor people. We do not have to be a heartless society to have a solvent government.
If only government would listen to me... hell all I'd ask for is to have my name be on the bill that reforms the tax code!Cybargs wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 60654.htmlHurricane2k9 wrote:
I agree. A better move would be to lower the rates but also remove almost all of the deductions and credits. Broaden the tax base in other words.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
require any company bidding on jobs for the US government to be incorporated and headquartered in the US
reduce payroll and profit tax rates on small to medium businesses (businesses that have <$500 million revenue)
reduce government spending and pensions, both at state and federal level
What good is it to 'reduce corporate tax rates' if the companies with the most revenue in the US don't actually pay the going rates? I haven't looked at the raw numbers in a year or two, but historically it's not the top revenue/profit generating companies that pay the going rates, it's the small-to-medium sized businesses that pay the comparably high corporate tax rates.
There are far too many companies incorporated overseas or in tax havens who benefit from US government contracts. It would be an interesting study to see the top contract recipients by overall dollar value and the taxes they paid.The path to higher economic growth and higher tax revenue is to lower tax rates, broaden the tax base by eliminating deductions and breaks, simplify the obscenely complex tax code, and remove growth-suffocating regulation.
Everyone recognizes that middle-class entitlements are the government's long-term spending problem. Means-testing and voucherizing are the obvious solutions. Voucherizing is the only hope to put some competition back in the health market and lower costs. The vast bulk of federal spending does not go to poor people. We do not have to be a heartless society to have a solvent government.
you'll be lucky if you*re not deportedHurricane2k9 wrote:
If only government would listen to me... hell all I'd ask for is to have my name be on the bill that reforms the tax code!
i deported your mom
my mom is dead.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
i deported your mom
damn you're an asshole hurricane.13urnzz wrote:
my mom is dead.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
i deported your mom