Soooooo why was this shot down?

[saveliberty]

1. The Obama Adminstration has no clue how to create a private sector job.
2. Most legislation this close to the election will be partisan.
3. The Senate may not start a tax bill.
4. Are you actually a big enough fool to believe a company who would send jobs overseas, is going to keep jobs here much past the incentive period?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here's why, their bosses said no:

In a letter to senators this week, the Chamber of Commerce called the bill "misguided" and said it "would hamper American worldwide companies' competitiveness, increase complexity in the Internal Revenue Code, and threaten economic growth."

All good reasons to stop the bill.

Unless of course you can actually prove the bill would do none of those things.

Can you?

No more than you can prove that what the Chamber of Outsourcers say is true. It sure as hell seems like a no brainer to stop giving incentives for moving jobs out of the country. You want to do it, fine, your business, but the US taxpayer shouldn't be subsidizing your move.

As a taxpayer, I'd much prefer those incentives go to people who keep their companies and their jobs here, thanks.

So what better incentive to keep job here than to lower our ridiculously high corporate tax rate?

And my business is mainly a service business so I have no reason to move to a foreign country. And BTW you are free not to buy stuff made in foreign countries you know.

And government shouldn't be giving incentives to any business for any reason.

 

[zeke]

Here's why, their bosses said no:

In a letter to senators this week, the Chamber of Commerce called the bill "misguided" and said it "would hamper American worldwide companies' competitiveness, increase complexity in the Internal Revenue Code, and threaten economic growth."

All good reasons to stop the bill.

Unless of course you can actually prove the bill would do none of those things.

Can you?

Better question. Can you prove the bill would do ANY of the things that the Chamber claimed. Misguided. That's broad. Hamper competitiveness? Prove it. Increase complexity in the tax code. Fuk me. Like that has been a big concern before. Seeing as how complexity is exactly what companies use to avoid taxes. And threaten economic growth. Like having more Americans working would threaten growth.

You full of bull shit. So is the Chamber.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here's why, their bosses said no:

In a letter to senators this week, the Chamber of Commerce called the bill "misguided" and said it "would hamper American worldwide companies' competitiveness, increase complexity in the Internal Revenue Code, and threaten economic growth."

All good reasons to stop the bill.

Unless of course you can actually prove the bill would do none of those things.

Can you?

Better question. Can you prove the bill would do ANY of the things that the Chamber claimed. Misguided. That's broad. Hamper competitiveness? Prove it. Increase complexity in the tax code. Fuk me. Like that has been a big concern before. Seeing as how complexity is exactly what companies use to avoid taxes. And threaten economic growth. Like having more Americans working would threaten growth.

You full of bull shit. So is the Chamber.

Hey it's not my assertion that it would or wouldn't. You people are refuting the Chamber's claims so it's up to you to prove those assertions.

 

[zeke]

And it's actually even worse then that because while the government incents companies to say onshore they punish them with regulations and taxes. Jobs are created by profit. Low, flat, simple taxes create the most wealth and opportunity for everyone. Like it or not, all of economics proves that. kaz

Funny shit right there. Lets see. Taxes are at some of the lowest levels in years.

How's those low tax rates working out for us in the jobs department?

And I know you don't run a business, but jobs are created by demand. Selling your product because of the demand and selling your product for more money than it costs to produce that product, that creates profit.

You rethugs seem really REALLY confused about how business works. Outsourcing jobs good to rethugs, bringing jobs to America bad. Weird shit.

What's the incentive to repatriate profits from foreign subsidiaries only to it to punitive taxes?

Having a hard time making sense of the question. But I'll try. The incentive is Americans at work at jobs that were out of the country.

IF you don't think putting more Americans back to work is a good thing, please come out and say so.

 

[Conservative]

All good reasons to stop the bill.

Unless of course you can actually prove the bill would do none of those things.

Can you?

Better question. Can you prove the bill would do ANY of the things that the Chamber claimed. Misguided. That's broad. Hamper competitiveness? Prove it. Increase complexity in the tax code. Fuk me. Like that has been a big concern before. Seeing as how complexity is exactly what companies use to avoid taxes. And threaten economic growth. Like having more Americans working would threaten growth.

You full of bull shit. So is the Chamber.

Hey it's not my assertion that it would or wouldn't. You people are refuting the Chamber's claims so it's up to you to prove those assertions.

I'm guessing they will invoke the Axelrod Principle, and claim they don't have to prove their comments.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because the GOP hates america. If it was passed, the unemployment rate would drop, causing Obama's approval ratings to soar.

The GOP has been deliberately trying to destroy america at all costs to make Obama look bad.

If it was passed, the unemployment rate would drop

Obviously. Just like the Obama stimulus. Passed when unemployment was under 8%, it caused the unemployment rate to drop all the way to 10%.

 

[Conservative]

How do we know which one is better? Let's see....incentives to ship jobs overseas or incentives to bring jobs to the U.S. Which one could possibly be "better"... gee, I wonder. Really?

perhaps you misunderstood. This bill takes away existing incentives for that, and replaces them with different ones. Tell me, which is better? The existing incentives, or the new ones?

Um...when the existing incentives are for moving jobs out of the country and the new incentives are to bring jobs back, it's not really difficult to suss out which one is better. Even if the "old" incentive weren't replaced at all, getting rid of it is better no matter what.

You can prove there are no existing incentives for moving jobs back into the country? Be my guest.

 

[RDD_1210]

and the 20 or so jobs bills Reid is sitting on.. that isn't partisan? Where's your fauxrage there???

Such as?

don't even try that. You know as well as I do there are about 25 threads and thousands of posts on this subject... and the demtards constantly say none of the bills that are jobs realted are 'really' jobs related. Even the ones with JOBS in the title. I'll give you a list, you'll tow the party line... it's a waste of effort.

That's because defunding planned parenthood and repealing the ACA aren't jobs bills.

 

[saveliberty]

Better question. Can you prove the bill would do ANY of the things that the Chamber claimed. Misguided. That's broad. Hamper competitiveness? Prove it. Increase complexity in the tax code. Fuk me. Like that has been a big concern before. Seeing as how complexity is exactly what companies use to avoid taxes. And threaten economic growth. Like having more Americans working would threaten growth.

You full of bull shit. So is the Chamber.

Its called the US Chamber of Commerce dimwit. It is comprised of US business, most of them smaller businesses. They have a good grasp of what a US business needs to be healthy. Clearly you are just being a hack.

 

[Seawytch]

All good reasons to stop the bill.

Unless of course you can actually prove the bill would do none of those things.

Can you?

No more than you can prove that what the Chamber of Outsourcers say is true. It sure as hell seems like a no brainer to stop giving incentives for moving jobs out of the country. You want to do it, fine, your business, but the US taxpayer shouldn't be subsidizing your move.

As a taxpayer, I'd much prefer those incentives go to people who keep their companies and their jobs here, thanks.

So what better incentive to keep job here than to lower our ridiculously high corporate tax rate?

And my business is mainly a service business so I have no reason to move to a foreign country. And BTW you are free not to buy stuff made in foreign countries you know.

And government shouldn't be giving incentives to any business for any reason.

Oh please...Our ridiculously high corporate tax rate that due to tax breaks, incentives (like the one to MOVE jobs overseas) and loopholes, that most corporations don't pay?

Manufacturers leery of losing breaks for tax rate cut

 

[Conservative]

because the GOP hates america. If it was passed, the unemployment rate would drop, causing Obama's approval ratings to soar.

The GOP has been deliberately trying to destroy america at all costs to make Obama look bad.

If it was passed, the unemployment rate would drop

Obviously. Just like the Obama stimulus. Passed when unemployment was under 8%, it caused the unemployment rate to drop all the way to 10%.

Don't go asking him to actually prove that statement, he'll just whine and cry, and say it's common knowledge or some such bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can someone please give me an honest answer about what is wrong with this legislation and why it wasn't even allowed to come to a vote?

GOP senators block top Obama jobs initiative - CNN.com

This looks to be a good bill to promote bringing back jobs, private business jobs, to American soil. But the majority of the GOP in the senate blocked it from even being allowed to be voted on. Why?

This screams of partisan politics and again placing priority on blocking anything that the president does as priority #1 even when it comes at the cost of creating American jobs.

So, can someone please explain it to me.

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the No.1 item on the president's congressional "to-do-list," refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would give tax breaks for companies that "insource" jobs to the U.S. from overseas while eliminating tax deductions for companies that move jobs abroad.

Well, first of all, there is no tax deduction for moving jobs overseas.
Second, if you want companies to hire here, you need to cut our highest in the world corporate tax rate. Reducing idiotic regulations would be helpful as well.

 

[zeke]

Hey it's not my assertion that it would or wouldn't.

Seeing as how there are no Chamber reps posting here (that I know of) ans seeing as how you seem to think their objections are valid, I thought I would ask you for evidence that what they claim would happen. I am willing to see the bill passed and find out. Seems like the Rethugs would like that. After the failure of bill was known, the Rethugs could bash away at the Dems.

I am sure you can understand the reluctance to accept anything that a right wing supporting organization says at face value. Proof is needed. Not their opinion.

 

[P@triot]

because the GOP hates america. If it was passed, the unemployment rate would drop, causing Obama's approval ratings to soar.

The GOP has been deliberately trying to destroy america at all costs to make Obama look bad.

Obama does that all by himself...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does the GOP have against incentives that would bring jobs to our country?

As it stands NOW, we actually give incentives FOR outsourcing. This bill would have ended that and given breaks to companies that moved back here.

Someone PLEASE explain why the GOP would oppose such a bill.

please see my previous post. It also takes away existing credits to replace them with these. How do you know which is better?

How do we know which one is better? Let's see....incentives to ship jobs overseas or incentives to bring jobs to the U.S. Which one could possibly be "better"... gee, I wonder. Really?

Yes, our highest in the world corporate tax rate is a big incentive to ship jobs overseas.

 

[Seawytch]

perhaps you misunderstood. This bill takes away existing incentives for that, and replaces them with different ones. Tell me, which is better? The existing incentives, or the new ones?

Um...when the existing incentives are for moving jobs out of the country and the new incentives are to bring jobs back, it's not really difficult to suss out which one is better. Even if the "old" incentive weren't replaced at all, getting rid of it is better no matter what.

You can prove there are no existing incentives for moving jobs back into the country? Be my guest.

Prove there are. This bill would have. Why oppose it? Can you answer that simple question? There ARE currently incentives to move jobs overseas. Do you or do you not support ending those incentives? Why is this so difficult?

 

[Seawytch]

Better question. Can you prove the bill would do ANY of the things that the Chamber claimed. Misguided. That's broad. Hamper competitiveness? Prove it. Increase complexity in the tax code. Fuk me. Like that has been a big concern before. Seeing as how complexity is exactly what companies use to avoid taxes. And threaten economic growth. Like having more Americans working would threaten growth.

You full of bull shit. So is the Chamber.

Its called the US Chamber of Commerce dimwit. It is comprised of US business, most of them smaller businesses. They have a good grasp of what a US business needs to be healthy. Clearly you are just being a hack.

You are confusing the US Chamber of Commerce with your local Chambers. They aren't the same. The US Chamber of Commerce is huge corporate money trying to do as much to make more corporate money with no thought to what it does to the US.

 

[zeke]

Better question. Can you prove the bill would do ANY of the things that the Chamber claimed. Misguided. That's broad. Hamper competitiveness? Prove it. Increase complexity in the tax code. Fuk me. Like that has been a big concern before. Seeing as how complexity is exactly what companies use to avoid taxes. And threaten economic growth. Like having more Americans working would threaten growth.

You full of bull shit. So is the Chamber.

Its called the US Chamber of Commerce dimwit. It is comprised of US business, most of them smaller businesses. They have a good grasp of what a US business needs to be healthy. Clearly you are just being a hack.

The chamber is a sham organization full of Rehtug bull shit. My local chamber does absolutely nothing to promote job growth in my area. You know why? Cause their ain't no fuking jobs so that consumers can spend money and help a business grow.

Amazing isn't it. No jobs, no consumers spending money, no growth.

Why do you rethugs have such a hard time understanding that?

Hey but go ahead and PROVE what the chamber claims is true. Should be a piece of cake for you.

 

[RDD_1210]

because the GOP hates america. If it was passed, the unemployment rate would drop, causing Obama's approval ratings to soar.

The GOP has been deliberately trying to destroy america at all costs to make Obama look bad.

If it was passed, the unemployment rate would drop

Obviously. Just like the Obama stimulus. Passed when unemployment was under 8%, it caused the unemployment rate to drop all the way to 10%.

Don't go asking him to actually prove that statement, he'll just whine and cry, and say it's common knowledge or some such bullshit.

You mean sort of like the exact response you gave me when I asked for you to prove something just one page ago? Like that?