Where are the jobs, Mr. President?

[zeke]

The government isn't taking away all of businesses' profits. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. The 1% job creators have plenty of money with which to create jobs.

Sure - for corporations whose jobs were forced over seas. And they continue to hire over there. But how does that help us here in the United States?

There is a reason Detroit went bankrupt - 60 years of "spread-the-wealth" Dumbocrat solicalist control. No matter how you liberals try to spin it, Detroit was 60-years of your pure liberal utopia. And now it's a bankrupted 3rd-world shit-hole.

Hey you dumb dog. How did the manufacturers get "forced"? Was it at gun point? Collusion with the unions? Bribery? Greed? Stock holders?

Where was the "force" applied?

Or is it Star Wars evil empire that "forced" those companies overseas?

Surely you don't think it was low wages, no environment regs, no corporate taxes along with other benefits like not paying retirement, being able to build brand new plants and all the other things capitalist's like.

No, you say they were "forced". By who?

 

[LeftofLeft]

If a President cannot deliver jobs or policies that deliver jobs, he/she ought not include it in their campaigns.

 

[boilermaker55]

What they cannot admit to is that the jobs are "forced" overseas for exploitation of the people of 3rd world countries and the exploitation of their lack of environmental laws.

The government isn't taking away all of businesses' profits. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. The 1% job creators have plenty of money with which to create jobs.

Sure - for corporations whose jobs were forced over seas. And they continue to hire over there. But how does that help us here in the United States?

There is a reason Detroit went bankrupt - 60 years of "spread-the-wealth" Dumbocrat solicalist control. No matter how you liberals try to spin it, Detroit was 60-years of your pure liberal utopia. And now it's a bankrupted 3rd-world shit-hole.

Hey you dumb dog. How did the manufacturers get "forced"? Was it at gun point? Collusion with the unions? Bribery? Greed? Stock holders?

Where was the "force" applied?

Or is it Star Wars evil empire that "forced" those companies overseas?

Surely you don't think it was low wages, no environment regs, no corporate taxes along with other benefits like not paying retirement, being able to build brand new plants and all the other things capitalist's like.

No, you say they were "forced". By who?

 

[Meister]

What they cannot admit to is that the jobs are "forced" overseas for exploitation of the people of 3rd world countries and the exploitation of their lack of environmental laws.

Sure - for corporations whose jobs were forced over seas. And they continue to hire over there. But how does that help us here in the United States?

There is a reason Detroit went bankrupt - 60 years of "spread-the-wealth" Dumbocrat solicalist control. No matter how you liberals try to spin it, Detroit was 60-years of your pure liberal utopia. And now it's a bankrupted 3rd-world shit-hole.

Hey you dumb dog. How did the manufacturers get "forced"? Was it at gun point? Collusion with the unions? Bribery? Greed? Stock holders?

Where was the "force" applied?

Or is it Star Wars evil empire that "forced" those companies overseas?

Surely you don't think it was low wages, no environment regs, no corporate taxes along with other benefits like not paying retirement, being able to build brand new plants and all the other things capitalist's like.

No, you say they were "forced". By who?

I belive the main reason for jobs going overseas is the result of corpoate taxes that are levied on the companies. Our government really doesn't encourage them to stay or come back. They are the highest or near the highest in the world. Just sayin'......

 

[edthecynic]

What they cannot admit to is that the jobs are "forced" overseas for exploitation of the people of 3rd world countries and the exploitation of their lack of environmental laws.

Hey you dumb dog. How did the manufacturers get "forced"? Was it at gun point? Collusion with the unions? Bribery? Greed? Stock holders?

Where was the "force" applied?

Or is it Star Wars evil empire that "forced" those companies overseas?

Surely you don't think it was low wages, no environment regs, no corporate taxes along with other benefits like not paying retirement, being able to build brand new plants and all the other things capitalist's like.

No, you say they were "forced". By who?

I belive the main reason for jobs going overseas is the result of corpoate taxes that are levied on the companies. Our government really doesn't encourage them to stay or come back. They are the highest or near the highest in the world. Just sayin'......

More of your MessiahRushie's bullshit. There are so many deductions the biggest companies pay no corporate tax and the smaller companies pay about half the rate. A GAO study found that in every year from 1998 to 2005, approximately 55 percent of large corporations paid no corporate income tax.

 

[Meister]

What they cannot admit to is that the jobs are "forced" overseas for exploitation of the people of 3rd world countries and the exploitation of their lack of environmental laws.

I belive the main reason for jobs going overseas is the result of corpoate taxes that are levied on the companies. Our government really doesn't encourage them to stay or come back. They are the highest or near the highest in the world. Just sayin'......

More of your MessiahRushie's bullshit. There are so many deductions the biggest companies pay no corporate tax and the smaller companies pay about half the rate. A GAO study found that in every year from 1998 to 2005, approximately 55 percent of large corporations paid no corporate income tax.

Educate me, ed. Show me the source so I can read it for myself....not that I don't believe you...
It's just that the Tax Foundation states that the GAO is not measuring apples to apples.

They found that the tax rate was 22-25%. Nowhere was it found that the GAO stated that corporations
were paying 0 like what you stated, what they did say that it was around 12%.

Ps....no matter how much you don't know....I don't listen to Rush......FYI

 

[regent]

Don't the Democrats and Obama know that Article Two, Section one, Clause five of the Constitution says: The executive shall have the power and the responsibility for creating jobs as needed in the various states. He is to draw on the treasury any amount of monies needed for this endeavor, and the opposing party, if any, is not to throw any monkey wrenches into this task.

 

[KNB]

With America's inexcusably high corporate tax rate, corporations are still boasting record profits every fiscal quarter. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since Bush left office. Obviously those profits are not being reinvested in expanding businesses (in America) or raising wages (in America or anywhere else), otherwise there wouldn't be such high unemployment and so many people needing government assistance.

Cutting corporate taxes doesn't spur economic development if taxes are already "too high" and corporations are making more money than ever before. Cutting corporate taxes would only take less money out of the public sector to be hoarded in overseas accounts, because that is how greed works.

 

[P@triot]

With America's inexcusably high corporate tax rate, corporations are still boasting record profits every fiscal quarter. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since Bush left office. Obviously those profits are not being reinvested in expanding businesses (in America) or raising wages (in America or anywhere else), otherwise there wouldn't be such high unemployment and so many people needing government assistance.

Cutting corporate taxes doesn't spur economic development if taxes are already "too high" and corporations are making more money than ever before. Cutting corporate taxes would only take less money out of the public sector to be hoarded in overseas accounts, because that is how greed works.

You're absolutely right KNB. Because of the failed policies of the Dumbocrats, those profits are being invested in jobs overseas. And that's where those jobs will remain so long as the Dumbocrats believe that success and wealth should be demonized and punished.

 

[francoHFW]

The corporate rate is a joke, like the OP. Name anything Dems have been able to pass since Pubs got the filiubuster, 2/3/2010. The Pubs' contribution to fixing THEIR World Depression is total disfunction, bs hate/propaganda, and phony crises costing 1% in growth each time. TOTAL A-HOLES AND SILLY HATER DUPES- A DISGRACE...

 

[francoHFW]

309- bs, THEY'RE JUST SITTING ON THEIR CASH, WAITING FOR THE GREEDY IDIOT GOP TO GET THE FEQ OUT OF THE WAY...

 

[bluesman]

Despite getting 100% of his policies implemented (whether by a Nancy Pelosi Congress or by unconstitutionally bypassing Congress with his "pen") over 5 years, all we have to show for Obama's marxist policies is record unemployment.

Where are the jobs, Mr. President? Progressive policies have destroyed America

You seriously are using Glen Beck as a link? He is a pure ideologue idiot.

It seems like the right wants to blame everything on Obama. Is last year's record year in the auto industry Obama's fault? What about the booming stock market?

Right wingers lover to undermine America and preach gloom and doom because they love their party more than they love the country. Fuck anybody who talks up the negatives with the hope of undermining our economy for partisan gain.



Leading Index Rises More Than Forecast Signaling U.S. Pickup - Bloomberg


Job market growth, climbing home values and record-high stock prices are adding to household wealth, which will probably help boost Americans’ confidence. More consumer spending, which makes up about 70 percent of the economy, could make businesses willing to invest and hire.

“The general trend is still positive, and that’s consistent with a pickup in the overall economy,” Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida, said before the report. “We look for things to pick up.”

 

[Meister]

With America's inexcusably high corporate tax rate, corporations are still boasting record profits every fiscal quarter. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since Bush left office. Obviously those profits are not being reinvested in expanding businesses (in America) or raising wages (in America or anywhere else), otherwise there wouldn't be such high unemployment and so many people needing government assistance.

Cutting corporate taxes doesn't spur economic development if taxes are already "too high" and corporations are making more money than ever before. Cutting corporate taxes would only take less money out of the public sector to be hoarded in overseas accounts, because that is how greed works.

The economy was being infused with 85 billion a month from the federal reserve bank, and still being infused with 55 billion a month, soooooo.....really can't use the DOW as any kind of indicator of the strength of our economy....well maybe how weak it still is.
If that kind of money was being pumped into a good economy, we would be at the 20, 000 level.

 

[Meister]

Despite getting 100% of his policies implemented (whether by a Nancy Pelosi Congress or by unconstitutionally bypassing Congress with his "pen") over 5 years, all we have to show for Obama's marxist policies is record unemployment.

Where are the jobs, Mr. President? Progressive policies have destroyed America

You seriously are using Glen Beck as a link? He is a pure ideologue idiot.

It seems like the right wants to blame everything on Obama. Is last year's record year in the auto industry Obama's fault? What about the booming stock market?

Right wingers lover to undermine America and preach gloom and doom because they love their party more than they love the country. Fuck anybody who talks up the negatives with the hope of undermining our economy for partisan gain.



Leading Index Rises More Than Forecast Signaling U.S. Pickup - Bloomberg


Job market growth, climbing home values and record-high stock prices are adding to household wealth, which will probably help boost Americans’ confidence. More consumer spending, which makes up about 70 percent of the economy, could make businesses willing to invest and hire.

“The general trend is still positive, and that’s consistent with a pickup in the overall economy,” Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida, said before the report. “We look for things to pick up.”

Your own source has economists all over the place with the outlook of the economy going forward this year. Yes, it is getting somewhat better, but it certainly hasn't been anything this administration has implemented. And it isn't anything to be bragging about.

 

[Meister]

With America's inexcusably high corporate tax rate, corporations are still boasting record profits every fiscal quarter. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since Bush left office. Obviously those profits are not being reinvested in expanding businesses (in America) or raising wages (in America or anywhere else), otherwise there wouldn't be such high unemployment and so many people needing government assistance.

Cutting corporate taxes doesn't spur economic development if taxes are already "too high" and corporations are making more money than ever before. Cutting corporate taxes would only take less money out of the public sector to be hoarded in overseas accounts, because that is how greed works.

You're absolutely right KNB. Because of the failed policies of the Dumbocrats, those profits are being invested in jobs overseas. And that's where those jobs will remain so long as the Dumbocrats believe that success and wealth should be demonized and punished.

Also, where the states are business friendly regarding tax breaks......businesses are migrating to them.

 

[edthecynic]

I belive the main reason for jobs going overseas is the result of corpoate taxes that are levied on the companies. Our government really doesn't encourage them to stay or come back. They are the highest or near the highest in the world. Just sayin'......

More of your MessiahRushie's bullshit. There are so many deductions the biggest companies pay no corporate tax and the smaller companies pay about half the rate. A GAO study found that in every year from 1998 to 2005, approximately 55 percent of large corporations paid no corporate income tax.

Educate me, ed. Show me the source so I can read it for myself....not that I don't believe you...
It's just that the Tax Foundation states that the GAO is not measuring apples to apples.

They found that the tax rate was 22-25%. Nowhere was it found that the GAO stated that corporations
were paying 0 like what you stated, what they did say that it was around 12%.

Ps....no matter how much you don't know....I don't listen to Rush......FYI

The 12% figure sure shoots down your claim that the US corporations pay the highest rate in the world. Thank you. Your source also had this little gem:"U.S. corporate tax collection totaled 2.6% of GDP in 2011, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That was the eleventh lowest in a ranking of 27 wealthy nations."

However my info came from a different GAO report.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf

What GAO Found
FCDCs reported lower tax liabilities than USCCs by most measures shown in this report. A greater percentage of large FCDCs reported no tax liability in a given year from 1998 through 2005. For all corporations, a higher percentage of FCDCs reported no tax liabilities than USCCs through 2001 but differences after 2001 were not statistically significant. Most large FCDCs and USCCs that reported no tax liability in 2005 also reported that they had no current- year income. A smaller proportion of these corporations had losses from prior years and tax credits that eliminated any tax liability. By another measure, large FCDCs were more likely to report no tax liability over multiple years than large USCCs. In 2005, comparisons of FCDCs and USCCs based on ratios of reported tax liabilities to gross receipts or total assets showed that FCDCs reported less tax than USCCs.





In the 8 years from 1998 through 2005, large FCDCs in a panel data set that we analyzed consisting of tax returns that were present in the SOI corporate files in every year were more likely to report no tax liability over multiple years than large USCCs in the same panel data set. As figure 2 shows, about 72 percent of FCDCs and 55 percent of USCCs reported no tax liability for at least 1 year during the 8 years. About 57 percent of FCDCs and 42 percent of USCCs reported no tax liability in multiple years—2 or more years—and about 34 percent of FCDCs and 24 percent of USCCs reported no tax liability for at least half the study period—4 or more years.

 

[bluesman]

Despite getting 100% of his policies implemented (whether by a Nancy Pelosi Congress or by unconstitutionally bypassing Congress with his "pen") over 5 years, all we have to show for Obama's marxist policies is record unemployment.

Where are the jobs, Mr. President? Progressive policies have destroyed America

You seriously are using Glen Beck as a link? He is a pure ideologue idiot.

It seems like the right wants to blame everything on Obama. Is last year's record year in the auto industry Obama's fault? What about the booming stock market?

Right wingers lover to undermine America and preach gloom and doom because they love their party more than they love the country. Fuck anybody who talks up the negatives with the hope of undermining our economy for partisan gain.



Leading Index Rises More Than Forecast Signaling U.S. Pickup - Bloomberg


Job market growth, climbing home values and record-high stock prices are adding to household wealth, which will probably help boost Americans’ confidence. More consumer spending, which makes up about 70 percent of the economy, could make businesses willing to invest and hire.

“The general trend is still positive, and that’s consistent with a pickup in the overall economy,” Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida, said before the report. “We look for things to pick up.”

Your own source has economists all over the place with the outlook of the economy going forward this year. Yes, it is getting somewhat better, but it certainly hasn't been anything this administration has implemented. And it isn't anything to be bragging about.

So then your position is that right wingers would also be wrong to blame Obama? Or does he only get credit for the negatives? For example, if the stock market tanked and the Automotive Industry went to shit, who would the right wingers blame? Would they say, as you do, that it doesn't have anything to do with this administration?

 

[Iceweasel]

... if the stock market tanked and the Automotive Industry went to shit, who would the right wingers blame? Would they say, as you do, that it doesn't have anything to do with this administration?

If the stock market tanks, everything will turn to shit. Been there, done that. GM has already had a bailout and we weren't payed back in full the last I checked. Maybe that's changed now, I don't know but fiscal conservatives don't believe it's a good idea for government to try to micro-manage the economy. The government's role is to create and protect the environment the economy exists in and it's far too fluid for smaller and smaller groups of individuals to operate efficiently. And I believe the proof is there.

 

[zeke]

... if the stock market tanked and the Automotive Industry went to shit, who would the right wingers blame? Would they say, as you do, that it doesn't have anything to do with this administration?

If the stock market tanks, everything will turn to shit. Been there, done that. GM has already had a bailout and we weren't payed back in full the last I checked. Maybe that's changed now, I don't know but fiscal conservatives don't believe it's a good idea for government to try to micro-manage the economy. The government's role is to create and protect the environment the economy exists in and it's far too fluid for smaller and smaller groups of individuals to operate efficiently. And I believe the proof is there.

What a GREAT non answer. Typical Republican. No ideas, no solutions. All bitching all the time.

 

[Meister]

More of your MessiahRushie's bullshit. There are so many deductions the biggest companies pay no corporate tax and the smaller companies pay about half the rate. A GAO study found that in every year from 1998 to 2005, approximately 55 percent of large corporations paid no corporate income tax.

Educate me, ed. Show me the source so I can read it for myself....not that I don't believe you...
It's just that the Tax Foundation states that the GAO is not measuring apples to apples.

They found that the tax rate was 22-25%. Nowhere was it found that the GAO stated that corporations
were paying 0 like what you stated, what they did say that it was around 12%.

Ps....no matter how much you don't know....I don't listen to Rush......FYI

The 12% figure sure shoots down your claim that the US corporations pay the highest rate in the world. Thank you. Your source also had this little gem:"U.S. corporate tax collection totaled 2.6% of GDP in 2011, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That was the eleventh lowest in a ranking of 27 wealthy nations."

However my info came from a different GAO report.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf

What GAO Found
FCDCs reported lower tax liabilities than USCCs by most measures shown in this report. A greater percentage of large FCDCs reported no tax liability in a given year from 1998 through 2005. For all corporations, a higher percentage of FCDCs reported no tax liabilities than USCCs through 2001 but differences after 2001 were not statistically significant. Most large FCDCs and USCCs that reported no tax liability in 2005 also reported that they had no current- year income. A smaller proportion of these corporations had losses from prior years and tax credits that eliminated any tax liability. By another measure, large FCDCs were more likely to report no tax liability over multiple years than large USCCs. In 2005, comparisons of FCDCs and USCCs based on ratios of reported tax liabilities to gross receipts or total assets showed that FCDCs reported less tax than USCCs.





In the 8 years from 1998 through 2005, large FCDCs in a panel data set that we analyzed consisting of tax returns that were present in the SOI corporate files in every year were more likely to report no tax liability over multiple years than large USCCs in the same panel data set. As figure 2 shows, about 72 percent of FCDCs and 55 percent of USCCs reported no tax liability for at least 1 year during the 8 years. About 57 percent of FCDCs and 42 percent of USCCs reported no tax liability in multiple years—2 or more years—and about 34 percent of FCDCs and 24 percent of USCCs reported no tax liability for at least half the study period—4 or more years.

The specific problems with the GAO report include:
We can’t check the numbers since the GAO report does not include all the data used in their main calculations. Based on the few numbers provided in the text, all calculations appear to be slightly off, perhaps due to rounding error but in all cases my calculations produce higher ETRs. Also, the GAO report fails to provide any data on total worldwide income taxes to compare against total worldwide income. However, based on the tax rate given, 16.9 percent, GAO must be assuming the total of foreign, state and local income taxes to be $62 billion. In contrast, our analysis of IRS data indicates foreign income taxes alone are at least $100 billion in every year since 2004.
One big problem, as mentioned, is failing to account for foreign taxes properly, and foreign income. GAO's 12.6 percent figure comes from dividing U.S. federal corporate tax by worldwide income. It does not count foreign taxes at all or the foreign tax credit against U.S. tax liablity. In a 2008 report, the GAO did properly account for these things, by separating domestic and foreign income as well as domestic and foreign taxes. They found that federal corporate tax as a share of corporate domestic income was 25.2 percent.
Another big problem, as mentioned, is using a measure of income that has little to no relationship to the tax base to which the corporate tax applies. GAO uses income as reported on financial statements, which is different from taxable income reported on tax returns for many legitimate reasons that GAO describes. The big differences are timing differences in the treatment of cost recovery, losses, and other items. Researchers who use financial statement data generally get around these differences by averaging multiple years of data, but the GAO says they have insufficient data to do such an average. That means the 12.6 percent figure is completely unrepresentative, and should not have been published.
Compounding the problem of using a snap-shot single year of data, GAO does not count companies with losses, but does count them when they return to profitability but have low taxes because of losses carried forward from the years in which the companies were not counted. This skews the data significantly in 2010 due to massive losses incurred during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. The GAO claims that only profitable corporations should be counted, since only they pay taxes, but this is not accurate. Corporations and the IRS often take years to resolve tax settlements, and current payments can and often do occur independent of current income. When including all corporations, including those with losses, the GAO finds that worldwide effective tax rates are roughly equal to the statutory rate of 35 percent in 2007 and 2009 (2008 is “not available”
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/gao-compares-apples-oranges-find-low-corporate-effective-tax-rate