Soooooo why was this shot down?

[saveliberty]

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?

See, this display of ignorance shows exactly why your view is so confused. The Chamber's concern was that a tax delay for foreign earned company income helps us be MORE competitive in overseas sales. The product most likely is made state side. The jobs lost are not overseas, but here.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

We already are! We just want to shift those breaks to be for creating American jobs and not foreign jobs.

 

[Conservative]

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.

did not say it would. I was giving both sides of the coin, as it were. There is simply not enough information to prove one way or the other what the effects would be, and if they would be cost-effective. Therefore, I am against voting on it until such time as more information is made available. Should that information show that the bill would have even a minor positive effect, I'd be in favor of voting.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

See, this display of ignorance shows exactly why your view is so confused. The Chamber's concern was that a tax delay for foreign earned company income helps us be MORE competitive in overseas sales. The product most likely is made state side. The jobs lost are not overseas, but here.

Pardon me for not taking you seriously, but just a few posts ago you were arguing the points from a totally different bill. You're either dumb or lazy, or both and not worth my time to be honest.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

We already are! We just want to shift those breaks to be for creating American jobs and not foreign jobs.

If they made the bill JUST about that one aspect and didn't change OTHER taxes too in it then you would have a great argument.

However, if you read the 150+ pages you will see a ton of other stuff tacked onto the bill that ruins that one good part you bring up about shifting ONE tax break. Read it, there are many other breaks for these wealthy corporations aka "Job Creators".

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

did not say it would. I was giving both sides of the coin, as it were. There is simply not enough information to prove one way or the other what the effects would be, and if they would be cost-effective. Therefore, I am against voting on it until such time as more information is made available. Should that information show that the bill would have even a minor positive effect, I'd be in favor of voting.

There are no two sides. It either creates new jobs or it doesn't. It doesn't decrease jobs as you've implied. We both know that this bill deserves to at least be voted on, but because theres a chance it might do some good under Obamas watch it has to be blocked. That's all there is to it.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

We already are! We just want to shift those breaks to be for creating American jobs and not foreign jobs.

If they made the bill JUST about that one aspect and didn't change OTHER taxes too in it then you would have a great argument.

However, if you read the 150+ pages you will see a ton of other stuff tacked onto the bill that ruins that one good part you bring up about shifting ONE tax break. Read it, there are many other breaks for these wealthy corporations aka "Job Creators".

Which other stuff in the bill would you like to see eliminated? (This is the whole point of my OP)

 

[zeke]

You know what? I would have some fuking respect for rethugs if they would just come out and say; we are not doing ANYTHING that would possible help with the employment situation, as helping reduce the UE rate would be good for Obama and bad for us.

At least you could respect them for telling the truth.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

So it's your argument that its better to have an enigma of a tax code rather than simplify it?

Which part of the tax code gives the incentive to move companies overseas?

Can you please post it?

 

[Intense]

Republicans controlling a Democratic Senate??? Who knew??? ....

It's a conspiracy I tell Ya!!!.......

 

[Conservative]

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?

We already are! We just want to shift those breaks to be for creating American jobs and not foreign jobs.

If they made the bill JUST about that one aspect and didn't change OTHER taxes too in it then you would have a great argument.

However, if you read the 150+ pages you will see a ton of other stuff tacked onto the bill that ruins that one good part you bring up about shifting ONE tax break. Read it, there are many other breaks for these wealthy corporations aka "Job Creators".

ok, I'm a little lost here. Are we still talking about the S.3364 Bring Jobs Home Act in the OP?
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
There is only 1 page.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

Until 1998 the standard rate of corporation tax in Ireland was 32%. Following the Irish Government's agreement with the EU for a general rate of 12.5% to apply from 1st January 2003, the rate to be applied to trading income fell in stages between 1999 and 2003:


in the 1999 fiscal year the rate was 28%;
in the 2000 fiscal year the rate was 24%;
in the 2001 fiscal year the rate was 20%;
in the 2002 fiscal year the rate was 16%;
thereafter the rate has been 12.5%.

Ireland Domestc Corporate Taxation

 

[Jackson]

If GE was taxed $4.00 a light bulb for bringing those bulbs from overseas, we'd see him rethink the manufacturing plants in the USA! Of course we all know, that the CEO of GE is none other than Jeffrey Emmelt, Obama's former Head of the Jobs Council who is one of the biggest outsourcers of them all!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We already are! We just want to shift those breaks to be for creating American jobs and not foreign jobs.

If they made the bill JUST about that one aspect and didn't change OTHER taxes too in it then you would have a great argument.

However, if you read the 150+ pages you will see a ton of other stuff tacked onto the bill that ruins that one good part you bring up about shifting ONE tax break. Read it, there are many other breaks for these wealthy corporations aka "Job Creators".

ok, I'm a little lost here. Are we still talking about the S.3364 Bring Jobs Home Act in the OP?
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
There is only 1 page.

DOH I was reading the wrong bill this whole time!

Crap...now i have to read that one and come back and see where I stand.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Cut out all special deductions and loopholes and I'd agree to that.

Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations | ThinkProgress

U.S. corporations actually pay incredibly low taxes due to the ever-proliferating loopholes, credits, and deductions in the tax code and the use of overseas tax havens.

U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors:

 

[saveliberty]

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

See, this display of ignorance shows exactly why your view is so confused. The Chamber's concern was that a tax delay for foreign earned company income helps us be MORE competitive in overseas sales. The product most likely is made state side. The jobs lost are not overseas, but here.

Pardon me for not taking you seriously, but just a few posts ago you were arguing the points from a totally different bill. You're either dumb or lazy, or both and not worth my time to be honest.

You and honesty are not related subjects.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Is the GOP out of their fucking minds? They just squashed a bill that epitomizes the essence of what they claim to stand for. I don't know who's going to win the Presidential race. But I don't see GOP incumbents doing so well in the Congressional races.

 

[Oddball]

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.

So, Reid controlled the process anyways.

Where's my buck?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is the GOP out of their fucking minds? They just squashed a bill that epitomizes the essence of what they claim to stand for. I don't know who's going to win the Presidential race. But I don't see GOP incumbents doing so well in the Congressional races.

How many jobs bill did the house pass that were shelved by Reid?

15 Real Jobs Bills Stalled in the Senate | FreedomWorks

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act

The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state may not require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the application of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act would ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations that harm job growth.

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act

The bill would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Without this legislation, the agency will continue with its plan to implement burdensome new rules and regulations on American businesses that will have a significant negative impact on America’s economy while having virtually no positive impact on global temperatures.

Click here to see our key vote notice in support of H.R. 910.

H. J. Res. 37, Disapproval of FCC’s Net Neutrality Act

H.J. Res 37 would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from imposing net neutrality regulations on Internet providers. Net neutrality is likely to cripple competition, restrict innovation, reduce employment and raise costs for all consumers—all of which would only exacerbate the current economic downturn. These job-killing regulations would involve significant new controls on the Internet that would have significant implications for investing in innovation and broadband deployment.

Click here to see our key vote notice in support of H. J. Res. 37.

H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act

The bill would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards. This would reduce the federal government’s power over individual state’s water quality standards to help increase job growth.

H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act

This bill is will amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The increased accountability will help to prevent harmful job-killing regulations.

H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act

The bill would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance. Federal bureaucrats should not be reversing the business decisions of private employers. Washington already has too many harmful regulations that hurt job growth. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act would help ensure that the government agency does not over step their bounds by dictating decisions made by private sector companies.

Click here to see our key vote notice in support of H.R. 2587.

H.R. 2401, Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN ACT)

The TRAIN Act would establish an 11-member committee, chaired by the Department of Commerce, to analyze the impacts of a number of major Environment Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The agency often understates the negative impact its rules will have on jobs and energy prices. This is why we need a committee whose sole purpose is to analyze the cumulative impacts of EPA regulations. The TRAIN Act would push back against the EPA's unconstitutional, outrageous rules and regulations that raise energy prices for consumers, destroy jobs and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Click here to see our key vote notice in support of H.R. 2401.

H.R. 2681, Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act

The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations from coming into effect which would place burdensome regulations on the cement industry. The cement industry estimates that the rule could destroy as many as 4,000 jobs. The Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act would stop the unnecessary cement MACT rule which will cost thousands of jobs and hamper economic growth.

Click here to see our key vote notice in support of H.R. 2581.

H.R. 2250, EPA Regulatory Relief Act

The bill would help to curtail the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Boiler MACT regulations on boilers and industrial incinerators. The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners estimates that the regulations will cost 244,000 jobs. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act would help to roll back unreasonable regulations and save thousands of American jobs.

Click here to see our key vote notice in support of H.R. 2250.

H.R. 2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

The bill would prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as a toxic waste in any state which prefers to develop its own plans in that regard. This bill would further slow the EPA’s Regulatory Trainwreck and could save thousands of jobs in coal-rich states such as West Virginia and Ohio.

H.R. 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act

The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230) would establish statutory deadlines for sales of certain oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce net direct spending by $25 million over the 2011-2016 period and about $40 million over the 2011-2021 period. Restarting offshore leasing will help restore thousands of jobs.

H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act

The bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to facilitate the production of American energy resources from the Gulf of Mexico. The Obama administration has delayed or canceled offshore lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill would jump start offshore oil drilling by implementing a 30-day deadline in which the secretary of the U.S. Interior Department would have to make a decision on the Gulf of Mexico drilling permit applications. The bill would likely help to create tens of thousands of jobs and strengthen the economy.

Click here to see our key vote notice in support of H.R. 1229.

H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act

The bill would reverse President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act and amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources and would establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal. Reversing the offshore moratoriums will help restore thousands of jobs.

H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011

The bill would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and rescinded by the agency and its review board, the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit – within six months. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 would speed up the permit process to help create jobs.

H.R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act

The bill would require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, but in no event later than November 1, 2011. A Canadian pipeline company, TransCanada, has long sought to increase the capacity of its Keystone pipeline system in order to bring more Canadian crude oil to American refineries. The North American-Made Energy Security Act would boost jobs and lower the price of gasoline for all Americans.

 

[RDD_1210]

See, this display of ignorance shows exactly why your view is so confused. The Chamber's concern was that a tax delay for foreign earned company income helps us be MORE competitive in overseas sales. The product most likely is made state side. The jobs lost are not overseas, but here.

Pardon me for not taking you seriously, but just a few posts ago you were arguing the points from a totally different bill. You're either dumb or lazy, or both and not worth my time to be honest.

You and honesty are not related subjects.

So you weren't referencing a totally different bill?