Soooooo why was this shot down?

[Toddsterpatriot]

At the same time why don't you show us how reducing the corporate tax rate will result in companies hiring more American workers.
Your failure will prove my point.

Ireland cut their corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
I'm pretty sure that increased Irish employment.
We could raise rates, like Obama wants.
I'm sure that will increase American employment.

Oh you're pretty sure. That should be all we need to hear, case closed. Right?

I could find the actual stats, but I know liberals have a hard time with numbers.

 

[saveliberty]

I love that you post as if you know what you're talking about.

Perhaps you could show everyone the tax deduction for moving jobs overseas?
Your failure will prove my point.

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

You're welcome.

From your source:

In this case, the bill, which would also have given companies two years of payroll tax relief for jobs they brought back to the U.S. from overseas, was opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in part because it contained another provision limiting the ability of companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on money earned overseas. The chamber argued that it would limit the ability to compete overseas.

Let's see. You can't compete overseas, so you have to layoff workers, maybe downsize or close your business depending on how much the business depends on overseas sales.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WTF. Why are we giving manufacturers a tax break for shipping plants and jobs out of the country anyway?

Of course the GOP's number one goal is to regain power. Stiffling the economy is part of their plan. Can't let anything pass that will help the American economy under the Preisdent Obama.

Why are we giving manufacturers a tax break for shipping plants and jobs out of the country anyway?

Of course we aren't doing that.

Yes of course we are. This bill would have eliminated the deduction and created an incentive to move plants to America.

Cut the corporate rate from 35% to 20% and companies will rush into America.

 

[Conservative]

I love that you post as if you know what you're talking about.

Perhaps you could show everyone the tax deduction for moving jobs overseas?
Your failure will prove my point.

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

You're welcome.

First, that deduction is not specifically for moving jobs overseas. Y9ou can claim it for moving jobs from NJ to IN too.

Second...

On the same day Whitehouse made his statement, Scott A. Hodge, president of The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that studies tax policy, released a statement saying the problem that served as the premise of the legislation isn't as big as people imagine.

He cited a Bureau of Labor Statistics report from the second quarter of 2010 showing 338,064 mass layoffs. When seasonal layoffs are subtracted, only 6 percent of the remaining workers -- 10,206 people -- lost their jobs during that quarter due to any movement of work. When the destination of the relocation was known (most of the time it wasn't) about 29 percent of the movement was to places outside the U.S. We checked more-recent numbers from the third quarter of this year; they showed a similar pattern.)

"The bottom line is that offshoring accounts for a small percentage of overall job losses . . . The offshoring of jobs may make for good headlines and political points, but it is not supported by the data," Hodge concluded.

That means that 29% of the 10,206 jobs lost to moving went overseas... that's 2,960 jobs... .008, or .8% of the total losses of 338,064... less than 1% of the job losses in that period went overseas.

While I agree that no job losses to overseas locations is preferable, it is hardly an epidemic or even a large problem.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ireland cut their corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
I'm pretty sure that increased Irish employment.
We could raise rates, like Obama wants.
I'm sure that will increase American employment.

Oh you're pretty sure. That should be all we need to hear, case closed. Right?

I could find the actual stats, but I know liberals have a hard time with numbers.

No you can't. That's why you didn't. How pathetic can you possibly be? Party over country, you're a true American patriot!

 

[RDD_1210]

Perhaps you could show everyone the tax deduction for moving jobs overseas?
Your failure will prove my point.

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

You're welcome.

From your source:

In this case, the bill, which would also have given companies two years of payroll tax relief for jobs they brought back to the U.S. from overseas, was opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in part because it contained another provision limiting the ability of companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on money earned overseas. The chamber argued that it would limit the ability to compete overseas.

Let's see. You can't compete overseas, so you have to layoff workers, maybe downsize or close your business depending on how much the business depends on overseas sales.

That's referencing a bill from 2010, not this one. The link was provided to prove that there is indeed an incentive to move jobs overseas.

I know you're a partisan hack anyway so I don't expect much from you.

 

[RDD_1210]

Perhaps you could show everyone the tax deduction for moving jobs overseas?
Your failure will prove my point.

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

You're welcome.

First, that deduction is not specifically for moving jobs overseas. Y9ou can claim it for moving jobs from NJ to IN too.

Second...

On the same day Whitehouse made his statement, Scott A. Hodge, president of The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that studies tax policy, released a statement saying the problem that served as the premise of the legislation isn't as big as people imagine.

He cited a Bureau of Labor Statistics report from the second quarter of 2010 showing 338,064 mass layoffs. When seasonal layoffs are subtracted, only 6 percent of the remaining workers -- 10,206 people -- lost their jobs during that quarter due to any movement of work. When the destination of the relocation was known (most of the time it wasn't) about 29 percent of the movement was to places outside the U.S. We checked more-recent numbers from the third quarter of this year; they showed a similar pattern.)

"The bottom line is that offshoring accounts for a small percentage of overall job losses . . . The offshoring of jobs may make for good headlines and political points, but it is not supported by the data," Hodge concluded.

That means that 29% of the 10,206 jobs lost to moving went overseas... that's 2,960 jobs... .008, or .8% of the total losses of 338,064... less than 1% of the job losses in that period went overseas.

While I agree that no job losses to overseas locations is preferable, it is hardly an epidemic or even a large problem.

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Because it is more of the same failed jobs policies of the last 3.5 years and would add even more money to the national debt than the record amount Obama has already added.

Insanty - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - Albert Einstein

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Because it is more of the same failed jobs policies of the last 3.5 years and would add even more money to the national debt than the record amount Obama has already added.

Insanty - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - Albert Einstein

It would? How much would it add?

 

[saveliberty]

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

Sounds like a net LOSS of jobs, if you factor in the Chamber of Commerce's point.

 

[Oddball]

Dollar to a dog turd Reid loaded it down with a bunch of poison pill amendments, so lolberal bedwetters could mewl about "republican obstructionism".

Double-dealing weasel fuckchops are like that.

So you can prove that or you just blowing shit outa fat mouth?

What that means is that I'll put up a dollar, betting that there were poison pill amendments tacked onto the bill, and all you have to risk is a dog turd if you take the bet.

Judging by subsequent sourced posts, looks like you owe me a buck, Slappy.

 

[RDD_1210]

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

Sounds like a net LOSS of jobs, if you factor in the Chamber of Commerce's point.

LOL. Go back to sleep sheep.

 

[GuyPinestra]

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

You're welcome.

First, that deduction is not specifically for moving jobs overseas. Y9ou can claim it for moving jobs from NJ to IN too.

Second...

On the same day Whitehouse made his statement, Scott A. Hodge, president of The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that studies tax policy, released a statement saying the problem that served as the premise of the legislation isn't as big as people imagine.

He cited a Bureau of Labor Statistics report from the second quarter of 2010 showing 338,064 mass layoffs. When seasonal layoffs are subtracted, only 6 percent of the remaining workers -- 10,206 people -- lost their jobs during that quarter due to any movement of work. When the destination of the relocation was known (most of the time it wasn't) about 29 percent of the movement was to places outside the U.S. We checked more-recent numbers from the third quarter of this year; they showed a similar pattern.)

"The bottom line is that offshoring accounts for a small percentage of overall job losses . . . The offshoring of jobs may make for good headlines and political points, but it is not supported by the data," Hodge concluded.

That means that 29% of the 10,206 jobs lost to moving went overseas... that's 2,960 jobs... .008, or .8% of the total losses of 338,064... less than 1% of the job losses in that period went overseas.

While I agree that no job losses to overseas locations is preferable, it is hardly an epidemic or even a large problem.

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

$187 million cost divided by 3,000 jobs.... Nah, I can't see WHY that's a bad deal...

 

[Conservative]

Dollar to a dog turd Reid loaded it down with a bunch of poison pill amendments, so lolberal bedwetters could mewl about "republican obstructionism".

Double-dealing weasel fuckchops are like that.

So you can prove that or you just blowing shit outa fat mouth?

What that means is that I'll put up a dollar, betting that there were poison pill amendments tacked onto the bill, and all you have to risk is a dog turd if you take the bet.

Judging by subsequent sourced posts, looks like you owe me a buck, Slappy.

Problem is, neither of you can win the bet. As I pointed out earlier, there were 3 Dem amendments and 8 GOP amendments. None were allowed to come to a vote by Reid, so there is no congressional record of their contents. They could have sucked wind, or been the greatest thing since sliced bread... we'll never know, thanks to Reid.

 

[saveliberty]

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

Sounds like a net LOSS of jobs, if you factor in the Chamber of Commerce's point.

LOL. Go back to sleep sheep.

You were given numbers on the possible gains in employment. It is a very small number. Easy to see how a loss of jobs from not being competitive overseas would be a much larger number. Your lack of comprehension is of no concern to me.

 

[RDD_1210]

Sounds like a net LOSS of jobs, if you factor in the Chamber of Commerce's point.

LOL. Go back to sleep sheep.

You were given numbers on the possible gains in employment. It is a very small number. Easy to see how a loss of jobs from not being competitive overseas would be a much larger number. Your lack of comprehension is of no concern to me.

So you equate people losing jobs overseas to somehow being a negative for us? Seriously?

 

[Conservative]

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Whitehouse says companies get a tax break for moving jobs overseas

You're welcome.

First, that deduction is not specifically for moving jobs overseas. Y9ou can claim it for moving jobs from NJ to IN too.

Second...

On the same day Whitehouse made his statement, Scott A. Hodge, president of The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that studies tax policy, released a statement saying the problem that served as the premise of the legislation isn't as big as people imagine.

He cited a Bureau of Labor Statistics report from the second quarter of 2010 showing 338,064 mass layoffs. When seasonal layoffs are subtracted, only 6 percent of the remaining workers -- 10,206 people -- lost their jobs during that quarter due to any movement of work. When the destination of the relocation was known (most of the time it wasn't) about 29 percent of the movement was to places outside the U.S. We checked more-recent numbers from the third quarter of this year; they showed a similar pattern.)

"The bottom line is that offshoring accounts for a small percentage of overall job losses . . . The offshoring of jobs may make for good headlines and political points, but it is not supported by the data," Hodge concluded.

That means that 29% of the 10,206 jobs lost to moving went overseas... that's 2,960 jobs... .008, or .8% of the total losses of 338,064... less than 1% of the job losses in that period went overseas.

While I agree that no job losses to overseas locations is preferable, it is hardly an epidemic or even a large problem.

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

Based upon my reading of the text (link posted earlier), there is not enough information to determine if this is the case... that it would increase American jobs. Or, conversely, if it would decrease American jobs. There simply is not enough information pointing one way or the other in regards to it's effectiveness or it's cost/benefit ratio.

That being the case, I'd opt for not voting on it until more information showing it would be a benefit is produced.

 

[RDD_1210]

First, that deduction is not specifically for moving jobs overseas. Y9ou can claim it for moving jobs from NJ to IN too.

Second...


That means that 29% of the 10,206 jobs lost to moving went overseas... that's 2,960 jobs... .008, or .8% of the total losses of 338,064... less than 1% of the job losses in that period went overseas.

While I agree that no job losses to overseas locations is preferable, it is hardly an epidemic or even a large problem.

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

$187 million cost divided by 3,000 jobs.... Nah, I can't see WHY that's a bad deal...

And your numbers come from where? Those 3,000 "insignificant" jobs are still American jobs created and are per quarter. Still a small number yes but it's putting Americans back to work. Good, no? Apparently not says those with an agenda.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Because it is more of the same failed jobs policies of the last 3.5 years and would add even more money to the national debt than the record amount Obama has already added.

Insanty - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - Albert Einstein

It would? How much would it add?

The white house didn't give specific numbers on if/how much it would add. However, if you read the act you will see where the tax cuts to big companies would hurt federal tax revenues, adding to the debt. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobs-act.pdf i'm not for giving more tax breaks to big and wealthy corporations, are you?

 

[RDD_1210]

First, that deduction is not specifically for moving jobs overseas. Y9ou can claim it for moving jobs from NJ to IN too.

Second...


That means that 29% of the 10,206 jobs lost to moving went overseas... that's 2,960 jobs... .008, or .8% of the total losses of 338,064... less than 1% of the job losses in that period went overseas.

While I agree that no job losses to overseas locations is preferable, it is hardly an epidemic or even a large problem.

Right, I'm not arguing how much of a problem this is or isn't. My question is why can this sort of thing be construed as negative and not even be voted on. It's designed to increase american jobs, and if that's not going to cost more than it's worth no matter if it creates 1 million jobs or 100, why exactly is this a problem? That's the point.

Based upon my reading of the text (link posted earlier), there is not enough information to determine if this is the case... that it would increase American jobs. Or, conversely, if it would decrease American jobs. There simply is not enough information pointing one way or the other in regards to it's effectiveness or it's cost/benefit ratio.

That being the case, I'd opt for not voting on it until more information showing it would be a benefit is produced.

How the hell could it possibly decrease American jobs? Seriously? Forget it, I knew there was no one capable here of being rational about this.