I don't think anyone would say that the Obama economy is perfect, but 73 months of unprecedented...

[Iceweasel]

Lots of people, like me, complain about crony capitalism.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Still waiting ot hear how record spending and gov't dependence has helped this economy.
Food stamps are the driver of the Obama economy.

Tax cuts for everybody translates into tax cuts for the rich in libspeak.

Spending goes through the roof when Democrats can get away with it and their base thinks Republicans are responsible, even though they don't support the social spending. It makes no sense but that's what they believe.

Liberals fight any attempt to balance the budget and blame debt on Republicans.

The Democrat party heads lie and their puppets mindlessly gobble it up. It's what they do.

God forbid that people actually earn enough money to actually afford school, medical, housing and all the things the left promises to give to us for free from the government. Boooo! Rich people Booooo!

Yep, the president has an app for running the govt. The wage adjuster is on the same page as jobs and gas.
You should ask employers why they don't pay more, not the president.

View attachment 70259

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The cash - I've seen estimates of $2.5T - is overseas. If they repatriate it they'll pay huge taxes on it, a bad business move.

A corporation's first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, not to provide jobs or anything else.

Corporate officers have a strict fiduciary - read "legal" - responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders include seniors, trusts, charities, universities, 401K plans and pensions.
.

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

 

[Mac1958]

Still waiting ot hear how record spending and gov't dependence has helped this economy.
Food stamps are the driver of the Obama economy.

God forbid that people actually earn enough money to actually afford school, medical, housing and all the things the left promises to give to us for free from the government. Boooo! Rich people Booooo!

Yep, the president has an app for running the govt. The wage adjuster is on the same page as jobs and gas.
You should ask employers why they don't pay more, not the president.

View attachment 70259

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The cash - I've seen estimates of $2.5T - is overseas. If they repatriate it they'll pay huge taxes on it, a bad business move.

A corporation's first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, not to provide jobs or anything else.

Corporate officers have a strict fiduciary - read "legal" - responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders include seniors, trusts, charities, universities, 401K plans and pensions.
.

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yep, the president has an app for running the govt. The wage adjuster is on the same page as jobs and gas.
You should ask employers why they don't pay more, not the president.

View attachment 70259

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The cash - I've seen estimates of $2.5T - is overseas. If they repatriate it they'll pay huge taxes on it, a bad business move.

A corporation's first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, not to provide jobs or anything else.

Corporate officers have a strict fiduciary - read "legal" - responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders include seniors, trusts, charities, universities, 401K plans and pensions.
.

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bush assumed a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to a paid off debt. Guess what the cowboy wannabe did? That's right sport's fans, cut tax rates for rich folks twice, started two wars, one totally unnecessary, never cut spending a dime and doubled the national debt from $5.7 to $11.9 trillion. What a leader!

Idiot.
Bush assumed an economy falling into recession as a result of CLinton's raising taxes and the bust of the dot com boom. Also he inherited Clinton's failed terrorism policy that caused 9/11.
Quit blaming Bush, dumbshit. Obama and the Dems own this economy and this foreign policy and everyone knows they have failed.

And let's not forget that Clinton signed the deregulation that caused the too big to fail fiasco and he signed it in December of his last year in office

George W. Bush screwed things up. Bill Clinton left an unemployment rate of 4.3%, a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to a paid up debt. The first thing Bush did was to cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003. It's what Republicans do.....they've done it ever since Reagan screwed everything up:

The Republicans never have seen a tax cut for corporations and the rich they didn't like but never have quit spending for their pet projects and war machine:

These figures came from the bureau of the debt....they're easily verified:


......................................................Total U S Debt......................................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation to block Democrat objection)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation to block Democrat objection)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton raised tax rates)
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

So Mr. Dumb Ass hole, why no mention of the mini rescission Clinton left Bush Jr and that's why he lowered taxes?

Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

by David Coleman

Unemployment rates are viewed as indicators not just of the health of the overall economy but also in judging the success of a presidency. They tend to go hand-in-hand with economic well-being and presidential job approval.

Overview
This chart shows the official U.S. unemployment rates since the beginning of 1948.1


Average Unemployment Rates by Presidency
Johnson had the lowest average unemployment rate across his presidency at 4.2 percent. Of the presidencies that have concluded, Ford’s saw the highest average unemployment rate at over 7.8 percent, followed closely by Reagan at over 7.5 percent.

NB. The Truman average includes figures only after January 1948. The Obama average is for a presidency in progress.


This chart shows the same data sorted by lowest average unemployment rate (Johnson) through the highest (Obama).


But averages across a presidency only tell part of the story. Here’s a more detailed breakdown within each presidency.

Unemployment Rates Under President Truman
Unemployment figures prior to January 1948 aren’t readily available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This chart begins January 1948, nearly 3 years into Truman’s presidency.

The effects of World War II demobilization were still being felt as the economy shifted from a war footing to peacetime and then started recalibrating for the Cold War and the growth of the national security state.

Overall, unemployment rates during most of Truman’s presidency were low. A notable exception was the fall of 1949 when the effects of postwar demobilization were being fully felt and the economy went into recession. Unemployment peaked at 7.9 percent in October 1949 and then fell steadily, hovering under 3 percent by the time he left office.


Unemployment Rates Under President Eisenhower
Eisenhower inherited low unemployment rates when he took office, but they rose sharply with the recession of 1953. They recovered somewhat during the mid-1950s but climbed rapidly again in the recession of 1958. They dropped somewhat before climbing even higher at the end of his presidency in the recession of 1960-61.

When Eisenhower left office, unemployment rates were much higher (6.6 percent) than they were when he first moved into the Oval Office (2.6 percent).


Unemployment Rates Under President Kennedy
JFK came to office in the midst of a recession. The economy did recover a little, but it was unconvincing and remained underperforming well into 1963. That was reflected in an unemployment rate that remained relatively high, hovering around 5.6 percent through much of 1962 and 1963.


Unemployment Rates Under President Johnson
The unemployment rate trends of LBJ and Clinton are the only two since World War II that feature a steady decline and don’t feature an uptick. The unemployment rate at the end of Johnson’s presidency (3.4 percent) was considerably less than when his presidency started (5.5 percent). The period also coincided with a spike in government hiring with the Vietnam War abroad and massive new government initiatives at home like the War on Poverty, Medicare, and Medicaid. Johnson’s presidency also saw a long period without recession.


Unemployment Rates Under President Nixon
The first year of Nixon’s presidency saw relatively low unemployment (around 3.5 percent), but by 1970, in the midst of a mild recession, they were climbing back up to similar levels to much of Kennedy’s era (around 5.5+ percent).


Unemployment Rates Under President Ford
Another recession starting in 1973 that dragged on into 1975 saw unemployment reach a new post-World War II record of 9 percent in May 1975. The lowest it recovered to during Ford’s presidency was 7.4 percent in May 1976.


Unemployment Rates Under President Carter
The first two-and-a-half years of Carter’s presidency saw slow by steady improvement in the unemployment rate, but the 1979 energy crisis, along with spiking oil prices that came with it, push unemployment back up to just under 8 percent.


Unemployment Rates Under President Reagan
When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was back down around 5.5 percent. But things got a lot worse before they got better. For the first time since World War II, unemployment broke 10 percent in November 1982 (reaching 10.8 percent). By the time Reagan left office in January 1989, it was back down to half that.


Unemployment Rates Under President Bush (41)
The first 18 months of Bush’s presidency saw unemployment steady at just over 5 percent. But in July 1990 they began a climb that peaked at 7.8 percent in June 1992.


Unemployment Rates Under President Clinton
Like Johnson, Clinton was in office during a period when the unemployment rate declined steadily for the duration of his presidency, reflecting a strong economy. It started around 7 percent and ended around 4 percent.


Unemployment Rates Under President Bush (43)
The economic instability after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks helped fuel a rise in the unemployment rate. It declined in June 2003 through the summer and fall of 2007 before rising sharply in 2008, peaking at 7.8 percent at the time Bush left office.


Unemployment Rates Under President Obama
When Obama assumed office, the unemployment rate was still rising sharply. It topped out at 10 percent in October 2009, hovering just below that level for the next year, before beginning a steady decline at the end of 2010 that has persisted into early-2016 and breaking through the 5 percent mark at the beginning of 2016.

1. All unemployment data are drawn from the official figures put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

So that was a non answer on the mini recession Clinton handed Bush Jr.

Check

 

[The Rabbi]

And yes Campbell I notice you haven't addressed my post.
It takes a better person to deal with information that is contrary to what you want to believe.
Like most, apparently, you just want to ignore it and keeping posting up what you want to believe.

Bush assumed a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to a paid off debt. Guess what the cowboy wannabe did? That's right sport's fans, cut tax rates for rich folks twice, started two wars, one totally unnecessary, never cut spending a dime and doubled the national debt from $5.7 to $11.9 trillion. What a leader!

Idiot.
Bush assumed an economy falling into recession as a result of CLinton's raising taxes and the bust of the dot com boom. Also he inherited Clinton's failed terrorism policy that caused 9/11.
Quit blaming Bush, dumbshit. Obama and the Dems own this economy and this foreign policy and everyone knows they have failed.

What an idiot!! Bill Clinton raised taxes in early 1993 while he still had a Democrat congress. He then proceeded to have eight of the most successful years this country has had since the 2nd WW. If you're gonna argue with me get your shit straight.

Yeah thats a fail.
The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

 

[The Rabbi]

Still waiting ot hear how record spending and gov't dependence has helped this economy.
Food stamps are the driver of the Obama economy.

Three things Republicans are good for:

Tax cuts for the rich

Increased spending

Increasing the national debt

It's what they do

Tax cuts for everybody translates into tax cuts for the rich in libspeak.

Spending goes through the roof when Democrats can get away with it and their base thinks Republicans are responsible, even though they don't support the social spending. It makes no sense but that's what they believe.

Liberals fight any attempt to balance the budget and blame debt on Republicans.

The Democrat party heads lie and their puppets mindlessly gobble it up. It's what they do.

God forbid that people actually earn enough money to actually afford school, medical, housing and all the things the left promises to give to us for free from the government. Boooo! Rich people Booooo!

Yep, the president has an app for running the govt. The wage adjuster is on the same page as jobs and gas.
You should ask employers why they don't pay more, not the president.

View attachment 70259

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The lack of logi and coherence in that post ought to be obvious.

 

[Mac1958]

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The cash - I've seen estimates of $2.5T - is overseas. If they repatriate it they'll pay huge taxes on it, a bad business move.

A corporation's first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, not to provide jobs or anything else.

Corporate officers have a strict fiduciary - read "legal" - responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders include seniors, trusts, charities, universities, 401K plans and pensions.
.

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

If you want to change the rules going forward, that's fine, but businesses have done what they had to do to maximize shareholder value, their mandate.

We can punish them for doing their jobs, or we can better incentivize them, and I much prefer the latter.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Still waiting ot hear how record spending and gov't dependence has helped this economy.
Food stamps are the driver of the Obama economy.

Tax cuts for everybody translates into tax cuts for the rich in libspeak.

Spending goes through the roof when Democrats can get away with it and their base thinks Republicans are responsible, even though they don't support the social spending. It makes no sense but that's what they believe.

Liberals fight any attempt to balance the budget and blame debt on Republicans.

The Democrat party heads lie and their puppets mindlessly gobble it up. It's what they do.

God forbid that people actually earn enough money to actually afford school, medical, housing and all the things the left promises to give to us for free from the government. Boooo! Rich people Booooo!

Yep, the president has an app for running the govt. The wage adjuster is on the same page as jobs and gas.
You should ask employers why they don't pay more, not the president.

View attachment 70259

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The lack of logi and coherence in that post ought to be obvious.

Way to point out the "obvious" with ambiguity.

 

[Fang]

...job growth is anything but a "bad economy ".

I mean okay, the labor participation rate is pretty low and that does matter, but for republicans to pretend that means the economy is shit is just disingenuous bullshit. I mean, Christ the Great Recession began under Bush and ended 6 months into Obama's presidency. Most of that can be directly attributed to Obama's stimulus package. According to the CBO, the stimulus created 3 million private jobs. Since then, we have had NON STOP Jon growth. That is unheard of.

And sure, wages are low under Obama. However, like the labor participation rate, they began to decline BEFORE obama's presidency. Obama tried to fix this by raising the minimum wage to a very reasonable 10.10 per hour.

Face it repubs. Your party is a joke.

I thought I'd seen delusion and denial until I read this post. Good Lord. You're out in left field big time. I'm not even going to debate this.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The cash - I've seen estimates of $2.5T - is overseas. If they repatriate it they'll pay huge taxes on it, a bad business move.

A corporation's first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, not to provide jobs or anything else.

Corporate officers have a strict fiduciary - read "legal" - responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders include seniors, trusts, charities, universities, 401K plans and pensions.
.

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

If you want to change the rules going forward, that's fine, but businesses have done what they had to do to maximize shareholder value, their mandate.

We can punish them for doing their jobs, or we can better incentivize them, and I much prefer the latter.
.

I agree. I don't think anyone should be punished at all. Paying their share of taxes is not punishment. Incentives as well as penalties should be structured to benefit everyone.

 

[Mac1958]

The cash - I've seen estimates of $2.5T - is overseas. If they repatriate it they'll pay huge taxes on it, a bad business move.

A corporation's first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, not to provide jobs or anything else.

Corporate officers have a strict fiduciary - read "legal" - responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders include seniors, trusts, charities, universities, 401K plans and pensions.
.

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

If you want to change the rules going forward, that's fine, but businesses have done what they had to do to maximize shareholder value, their mandate.

We can punish them for doing their jobs, or we can better incentivize them, and I much prefer the latter.
.

I agree. I don't think anyone should be punished at all. Paying their share of taxes is not punishment. Incentives as well as penalties should be structured to benefit everyone.

If you're going to leave taxes where they are, and then in any way force businesses to bring money back against their best interests, you'll be punishing them.
.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still waiting ot hear how record spending and gov't dependence has helped this economy.
Food stamps are the driver of the Obama economy.

God forbid that people actually earn enough money to actually afford school, medical, housing and all the things the left promises to give to us for free from the government. Boooo! Rich people Booooo!

Yep, the president has an app for running the govt. The wage adjuster is on the same page as jobs and gas.
You should ask employers why they don't pay more, not the president.

View attachment 70259

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The lack of logi and coherence in that post ought to be obvious.

Way to point out the "obvious" with ambiguity.

It's obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells. That's why you miss it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The cash - I've seen estimates of $2.5T - is overseas. If they repatriate it they'll pay huge taxes on it, a bad business move.

A corporation's first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, not to provide jobs or anything else.

Corporate officers have a strict fiduciary - read "legal" - responsibility to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders include seniors, trusts, charities, universities, 401K plans and pensions.
.

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

If you want to change the rules going forward, that's fine, but businesses have done what they had to do to maximize shareholder value, their mandate.

We can punish them for doing their jobs, or we can better incentivize them, and I much prefer the latter.
.

I agree. I don't think anyone should be punished at all. Paying their share of taxes is not punishment. Incentives as well as penalties should be structured to benefit everyone.

What is "their share of taxes"? Why is it greed to want to keep more of what you've earned but not greed to demand what someone else has earned?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

If you want to change the rules going forward, that's fine, but businesses have done what they had to do to maximize shareholder value, their mandate.

We can punish them for doing their jobs, or we can better incentivize them, and I much prefer the latter.
.

I agree. I don't think anyone should be punished at all. Paying their share of taxes is not punishment. Incentives as well as penalties should be structured to benefit everyone.

If you're going to leave taxes where they are, and then in any way force businesses to bring money back against their best interests, you'll be punishing them.
.

I simply disagree.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yep, the president has an app for running the govt. The wage adjuster is on the same page as jobs and gas.
You should ask employers why they don't pay more, not the president.

View attachment 70259

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The lack of logi and coherence in that post ought to be obvious.

Way to point out the "obvious" with ambiguity.

It's obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells. That's why you miss it.

Tell us all specifically what you find repugnant.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No doubt. So who raises wages and when?
How do we repatriate the cash currently held hostage overseas? A one time waiver or lower taxes?
What prevents them from continuing the practice even with relaxed regulation or lower taxes? At what point does a company who maintains operations and capital abroad cease being an American company?
I understand business just fine. I don't agree with their practices.

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

If you want to change the rules going forward, that's fine, but businesses have done what they had to do to maximize shareholder value, their mandate.

We can punish them for doing their jobs, or we can better incentivize them, and I much prefer the latter.
.

I agree. I don't think anyone should be punished at all. Paying their share of taxes is not punishment. Incentives as well as penalties should be structured to benefit everyone.

What is "their share of taxes"? Why is it greed to want to keep more of what you've earned but not greed to demand what someone else has earned?

The share that the tax law states they owe but are circumventing. It's obvious what was meant.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont have to ask, I already know. They dont pay more because they dont have to. Because Obama's policies have been such crap there is a surplus of unemployed and underemployed labor keeping wages down. With some decent pro business policies and a stable regulatory environment busineses would begin investing their hordes of cash and employment would improve. But not gioing to happen under the worst president in modern history.

Total BS.
If American business has " hordes of cash" , then by definition the business policy and regulatory environment is already great for business. It's kind of hard to argue otherwise. Employers have gotten over on wage increases for decades. It's time to hold their feet to the fire.

The lack of logi and coherence in that post ought to be obvious.

Way to point out the "obvious" with ambiguity.

It's obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells. That's why you miss it.

Tell us all specifically what you find repugnant.

I find your posts repugnant. But so what?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd like to see a two-year tax amnesty period for just that, along with a drop to 12% corporate tax rates with a 5% minimum. We'd see not only a flood of repatriated dollars from American companies, but a flood of new international money because it would be so attractive. There's not just a ton of American dollars sitting out there.

Then on the personal income tax side, I could live with Bernie's numbers. Actually, I'd go to 59.9% on the top margins.
.

I don't like the idea of any type of amnesty at all.That IMO is a reward for bad practices.I see it as a shakedown much like N Korea doing missile tests to get some concessions from it's neighbors for halting their sabre rattling. I could lower taxes but not for free. Tax cuts should be given to offset the costs of best practices.Practices that benefit the American economy. Expand operations at home, pay more than min wage indexed to the cost of living, 40 hr work weeks, health and retirement benefits, etc. I don't care if they pay nothing at all in taxes as long as that break I'm giving you is reinvested at home in your operations and employees. I'd rather the employer take care of it's employees than the govt trying to do it after the fact with taxes.

There is quite a lot of cash stashed abroad. Cash that should be circulating through our economy.

U.S. Companies Are Stashing $2.1 Trillion Overseas to Avoid Taxes

What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history's biggest data leak

If you want to change the rules going forward, that's fine, but businesses have done what they had to do to maximize shareholder value, their mandate.

We can punish them for doing their jobs, or we can better incentivize them, and I much prefer the latter.
.

I agree. I don't think anyone should be punished at all. Paying their share of taxes is not punishment. Incentives as well as penalties should be structured to benefit everyone.

What is "their share of taxes"? Why is it greed to want to keep more of what you've earned but not greed to demand what someone else has earned?

The share that the tax law states they owe but are circumventing. It's obvious what was meant.

If they are circumventing taxes then they need to be charged and brought to court. But no one is doing that.
So how are they circumventing taxes they owe?

 

[Londoner]

If a president Romney had only 5% unemployment and the most sustained job growth since the 90s - and he did this after inheriting the greatest fiscal crisis in our lifetime - than Romney would be heralded as the 2nd coming of Reagan. Republicans would tirelessly brag about the Romney economy.

But when the opposite happens...

When a GOP president destroys the economy and a Democrat turns it around, then Republican Think Tanks go into overdrive highlighting any statistic that paints a different picture.

AS FOR THIS ELECTION...
If a Republican wins the White House, we will see a return to the Bush years - with "Wild West" lending into every asset bubble imaginable. Financial regulations will be suppressed so that Wall Street - the engine of private sector wealth creation - can sell all manner of bogus securities and derivatives to unsuspecting morons.

AND THERE WILL BE DISTRACTIONS ...
There will be color coded fear games, with nonstop talk about terrorism. Every time someone lights a firecracker behind the Safeway, FOX News will be dispatched.

The only way for a narrow group of wealthy people to take over a nation is to lie. They have to lie about the Obama economy. What else do they have? The Bush years - when, according to Trump, they destroyed the Middle East and the American Economy.