PDA

View Full Version : Now it is congress's fault that jobs are not being created



duane1969
08-20-2011, 11:28 AM
Just saw an article where Obama is blaming congress for the lack of jobs. I have a newsflash for Mr. Obama, unemployment is on the rise because ARRA funds are drying up, not because Republicans are in control of the house.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=20094943&videofeed=36

bouncer
08-20-2011, 01:49 PM
If Obama wants to get Americans back to work, he needs to start cracking down on the illegal immigrants in this country. 18 years ago when I had my first job in a restaurant, the only people who worked in the kitchen were Americans. Now you go to a restaurant all you see are Hispanics cooking the food, clearing the tables and washing dishes. You get rid of the illegals in this country and that will force business to start hiring Americans.

andrewhoya
08-20-2011, 03:04 PM
If Obama wants to get Americans back to work, he needs to start cracking down on the illegal immigrants in this country. 18 years ago when I had my first job in a restaurant, the only people who worked in the kitchen were Americans. Now you go to a restaurant all you see are Hispanics cooking the food, clearing the tables and washing dishes. You get rid of the illegals in this country and that will force business to start hiring Americans.

Good point.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-20-2011, 04:10 PM
How come NOTHING is Obama's fault . This guy has blamed everything that has happened on everybody else . When will this guy step up to the plate and accept some blame for something . BTW they are letting illegals go by the thousands .

sbr420a
08-20-2011, 04:12 PM
news flash. this country is doomed. the problems can not be resolved by the people that created them.

bouncer
08-20-2011, 06:41 PM
BTW they are letting illegals go by the thousands .

Obama is losing support with the African American vote for the next election, so he will try to please the Hispanicís and get there vote.

mrveggieman
08-21-2011, 12:24 PM
Obama is losing support with the African American vote for the next election, so he will try to please the Hispanicís and get there vote.


He still has my vote.

andrewhoya
08-21-2011, 12:36 PM
He still has my vote.

One person doesnt speak for millions.

sanfran22
08-21-2011, 02:18 PM
He still has my vote.
Lol, of course he does.....:smash: No matter what he does he'll have people like yourself's vote.

bouncer
08-21-2011, 02:30 PM
Lol, of course he does.....:smash: No matter what he does he'll have people like yourself's vote.

Or all the people that voted for Obama based on his race in 2008. Let's see if he can count on those same people in 2012.

Star_Cards
08-23-2011, 12:18 PM
news flash. this country is doomed. the problems can not be resolved by the people that created them.

I'd say doomed is a bit dramatic.

Star_Cards
08-23-2011, 12:27 PM
Just saw an article where Obama is blaming congress for the lack of jobs. I have a newsflash for Mr. Obama, unemployment is on the rise because ARRA funds are drying up, not because Republicans are in control of the house.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=20094943&videofeed=36

from the link I saw I don't think he said that exactly. He said they should "set aside their differences and find ways to get people back to work." I can't decipher if he means they are the fault of lack of jobs or just that they aren't doing much to help the situation. The latter is what I feel he's saying over blaming them.

If this is what he's saying, I agree with him. Both sides want their way and seem to have huge issues with compromising. And even when there are things they agree on they get hung up on one other item and it kills all of the other things that they could put into action. That's not to say that the administration doesn't have some blame either, but there are a lot more factors with the lack of action with the government than the president himself or one party or the other.

mrveggieman
08-23-2011, 03:19 PM
Or all the people that voted for Obama based on his race in 2008. Let's see if he can count on those same people in 2012.


Right just like Obama's oponnent can can on all those who wont vote for Obama solely based on race. SMH. :confused0024:

andrewhoya
08-23-2011, 04:00 PM
Right just like Obama's oponnent can can on all those who wont vote for Obama solely based on race. SMH. :confused0024:

In Virginia, Obama is considered white.

mrveggieman
08-23-2011, 04:07 PM
In Virginia, Obama is considered white.

That's not what some of the good old boys down there think let alone some of our more conservative bretheren on here. :winking0071:

andrewhoya
08-23-2011, 04:08 PM
That's not what some of the good old boys down there think let alone some of our more conservative bretheren on here. :winking0071:

No, you're right, but in Virginia, your argument wouldn't work.

duane1969
08-23-2011, 07:02 PM
from the link I saw I don't think he said that exactly. He said they should "set aside their differences and find ways to get people back to work." I can't decipher if he means they are the fault of lack of jobs or just that they aren't doing much to help the situation. The latter is what I feel he's saying over blaming them.

If this is what he's saying, I agree with him. Both sides want their way and seem to have huge issues with compromising. And even when there are things they agree on they get hung up on one other item and it kills all of the other things that they could put into action. That's not to say that the administration doesn't have some blame either, but there are a lot more factors with the lack of action with the government than the president himself or one party or the other.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Dems had their way for 2 years. They failed miserably and their failures will be paid for by generations to come.

The House Republicans ran on a platform of doing what the Dems failed to do. They are trying to do just that but they get blocked by Dems and called non-cooperative if they refuse to give in. As far as I am concerned if the Republicans give concessions then they fail to do what they promised.

duwal
08-24-2011, 03:05 AM
I'd say doomed is a bit dramatic.


yes, nothing in the past couple years has done anything to change my quality of life. Things would have been pretty much the same course no matter if Obama or McCain won the election. I hoped for McCain but not calling for Obama's head like others. But I love how some are claiming doom and the country is going to hell on here and other sites while they are sitting in their nice homes, on their personal computers, talk about the boxes and cases of cards that they bought...


yes, things could be better. But in no way are people suffering like it is in other parts of the globe.

andrewhoya
08-24-2011, 08:19 AM
yes, nothing in the past couple years has done anything to change my quality of life. Things would have been pretty much the same course no matter if Obama or McCain won the election. I hoped for McCain but not calling for Obama's head like others. But I love how some are claiming doom and the country is going to hell on here and other sites while they are sitting in their nice homes, on their personal computers, talk about the boxes and cases of cards that they bought...


yes, things could be better. But in no way are people suffering like it is in other parts of the globe.
in regards to your first sentence.... That's not the case for everyone.

Sorry, can't bold on a tablet.

pghin08
08-24-2011, 09:09 AM
yes, nothing in the past couple years has done anything to change my quality of life. Things would have been pretty much the same course no matter if Obama or McCain won the election. I hoped for McCain but not calling for Obama's head like others. But I love how some are claiming doom and the country is going to hell on here and other sites while they are sitting in their nice homes, on their personal computers, talk about the boxes and cases of cards that they bought...


yes, things could be better. But in no way are people suffering like it is in other parts of the globe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0xtUfjv4zE&feature=related

Star_Cards
08-24-2011, 09:28 AM
Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Dems had their way for 2 years. They failed miserably and their failures will be paid for by generations to come.

The House Republicans ran on a platform of doing what the Dems failed to do. They are trying to do just that but they get blocked by Dems and called non-cooperative if they refuse to give in. As far as I am concerned if the Republicans give concessions then they fail to do what they promised.

so it looks as if you have the same "my way or no way" attitude that most politicians have. negotiation and compromise are how any sort of relationship works. being able to compromising isn't a weakness in my opinion... and that goes for either party.

There's something noble about standing your ground, but at some point that just stalls everything and creates an environment of negativity where nothing gets done. We'd be a lot better off if politicians saw themselves as more of a team and less of rivals. They are supposed to be working for the country as a whole... right? I get that people have different ideologies, but at some point the my way or highway stances just fail everyone.

mrveggieman
08-24-2011, 09:42 AM
so it looks as if you have the same "my way or no way" attitude that most politicians have. negotiation and compromise are how any sort of relationship works. being able to compromising isn't a weakness in my opinion... and that goes for either party.

There's something noble about standing your ground, but at some point that just stalls everything and creates an environment of negativity where nothing gets done. We'd be a lot better off if politicians saw themselves as more of a team and less of rivals. They are supposed to be working for the country as a whole... right? I get that people have different ideologies, but at some point the my way or highway stances just fail everyone.

This is the post of the day. :cheer2:

Hilfiger1975
08-24-2011, 09:51 AM
so it looks as if you have the same "my way or no way" attitude that most politicians have. negotiation and compromise are how any sort of relationship works. being able to compromising isn't a weakness in my opinion... and that goes for either party.

There's something noble about standing your ground, but at some point that just stalls everything and creates an environment of negativity where nothing gets done. We'd be a lot better off if politicians saw themselves as more of a team and less of rivals. They are supposed to be working for the country as a whole... right? I get that people have different ideologies, but at some point the my way or highway stances just fail everyone.
You hit the nail on the head...thread over...

shrewsbury
08-24-2011, 02:11 PM
thread over or economy over?

Hilfiger1975
08-24-2011, 02:13 PM
thread over or economy over?

so it looks as if you have the same "my way or no way" attitude that most politicians have. negotiation and compromise are how any sort of relationship works. being able to compromising isn't a weakness in my opinion... and that goes for either party.

There's something noble about standing your ground, but at some point that just stalls everything and creates an environment of negativity where nothing gets done. We'd be a lot better off if politicians saw themselves as more of a team and less of rivals. They are supposed to be working for the country as a whole... right? I get that people have different ideologies, but at some point the my way or highway stances just fail everyone.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-24-2011, 03:32 PM
If anybody has been the "have it my way" person its Obama without question . Why would the republicans agree with him when they think his policies would bankrupt our country, in which they have . He has beeen the one to pass giant bills through the way he wants. Not compromising with someone trying to cripple our nation is called heros . I am glad the reublicans/TEA PARTY are trying to shut him down .

pghin08
08-24-2011, 09:38 PM
If anybody has been the "have it my way" person its Obama without question . Why would the republicans agree with him when they think his policies would bankrupt our country, in which they have . He has beeen the one to pass giant bills through the way he wants. Not compromising with someone trying to cripple our nation is called heros . I am glad the reublicans/TEA PARTY are trying to shut him down .

Burger King always encourages me to have it my way.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-24-2011, 10:39 PM
Burger King always encourages me to have it my way.

:sign0020:

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 08:57 AM
so it looks as if you have the same "my way or no way" attitude that most politicians have. negotiation and compromise are how any sort of relationship works. being able to compromising isn't a weakness in my opinion... and that goes for either party.

There's something noble about standing your ground, but at some point that just stalls everything and creates an environment of negativity where nothing gets done. We'd be a lot better off if politicians saw themselves as more of a team and less of rivals. They are supposed to be working for the country as a whole... right? I get that people have different ideologies, but at some point the my way or highway stances just fail everyone.
You mean the same attitude Obama has? I remember him saying on a couple occasions "I won".

Star_Cards
08-25-2011, 10:11 AM
Burger King always encourages me to have it my way.

LOL. I like extra cheese. hold the onion.

Star_Cards
08-25-2011, 10:18 AM
You mean the same attitude Obama has? I remember him saying on a couple occasions "I won".

not sure why hilfiger copied my post without quoting it, but if you and Intimidator read the full comment it calls out both parties. To follow up with your Obama rant and act like it's not both parties is completely dishonest or blind to the situation in my opinion.

It's all about a happy medium and both parties need to figure that out. for them it seems to be more about their jobs and power and less about the people that put them in office. I have no idea how to fix that either as it seems like the political machine usually has this effect on most who enter it.

Sometimes I think politicians create these battles just to divide the country so we have people like us arguing back and forth while they sit back and laugh. I know that's probably not the case but just a thought i have from time to time. lol

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 10:21 AM
You mean the same attitude Obama has? I remember him saying on a couple occasions "I won".
Actions speak louder than words...

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 10:22 AM
not sure why hilfiger copied my post without quoting it, but if you and intimidator read the full comment it calls out both parties. To follow up with your obama rant and act like it's not both parties is completely dishonest or blind to the situation in my opinion.

It's all about a happy medium and both parties need to figure that out. For them it seems to be more about their jobs and power and less about the people that put them in office. I have no idea how to fix that either as it seems like the political machine usually has this effect on most who enter it.

Sometimes i think politicians create these battles just to divide the country so we have people like us arguing back and forth while they sit back and laugh. I know that's probably not the case but just a thought i have from time to time. Lol
+1

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 10:30 AM
I've never actually heard someone just say "I won". It was odd and didn't get him any points with the right. I'm not saying both sides don't do it. There are alot of issues you don't compromise IMO. Reaching across the Isle to the left means do it my way or we'll belittle you.
Kinda like the whole car scenerio from Obama.
If you want to spin that on the right tell me how you explain the debt ceiling deal. That was not a deal conservatives wanted.

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 10:31 AM
I've never actually heard someone just say "I won". It was odd and didn't get him any points with the right. I'm not saying both sides don't do it. There are alot of issues you don't compromise IMO.
I could care less either way. Bottom line is both parties need to work together, period...that was the point of my post that i quoted from another member...but you went into republican mode and wanted to point fingers...

I use to get a real big kick out of organized religion and politics, but sadly politics interfere with my way of life more, so it got old fast...

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 10:33 AM
I could care less either way. Bottom line is both parties need to work together, period...that was the point of my post that i quoted from another member...but you went into republican mode and wanted to point fingers...
No, you don't compromise your core principals IMO.

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 10:35 AM
No, you don't compromise your core principals IMO.
I do what i want, and dealing with politics has nothing to do with my core principles... :winking0071:

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 10:36 AM
I do what i want, and dealing with politics has nothing to do with my core principles... :winking0071:
Not you personally..:sign0020:

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 10:37 AM
Not you personally..:sign0020:
Well let me know how that works out for you... :winking0071:

pghin08
08-25-2011, 10:40 AM
I've never actually heard someone just say "I won". It was odd and didn't get him any points with the right. I'm not saying both sides don't do it. There are alot of issues you don't compromise IMO. Reaching across the Isle to the left means do it my way or we'll belittle you.
Kinda like the whole car scenerio from Obama.
If you want to spin that on the right tell me how you explain the debt ceiling deal. That was not a deal conservatives wanted.

It wasn't a deal anyone wanted. It was, in football terms, a punt. As if they said, "This is really hard. If I can delay this to the end of my term, that would be awesome."

Even public opinion polls are fairly split on who's to blame. I read a WSJ poll that had it almost even, with a slight tilt towards more people blaming the Reps/Tea Party, but I think it was even within the margin of error.

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 10:44 AM
Well let me know how that works out for you... :winking0071:
Works out fine for me???? Do you even understand what I was saying? I think you are confused.

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 10:45 AM
It wasn't a deal anyone wanted. It was, in football terms, a punt. As if they said, "This is really hard. If I can delay this to the end of my term, that would be awesome."

Even public opinion polls are fairly split on who's to blame. I read a WSJ poll that had it almost even, with a slight tilt towards more people blaming the Reps/Tea Party, but I think it was even within the margin of error.
It was a bad deal and didn't do enough. I would rather the tea parties hold it up then to sign on to a crappy deal.

duane1969
08-25-2011, 10:46 AM
so it looks as if you have the same "my way or no way" attitude that most politicians have. negotiation and compromise are how any sort of relationship works. being able to compromising isn't a weakness in my opinion... and that goes for either party.

There's something noble about standing your ground, but at some point that just stalls everything and creates an environment of negativity where nothing gets done. We'd be a lot better off if politicians saw themselves as more of a team and less of rivals. They are supposed to be working for the country as a whole... right? I get that people have different ideologies, but at some point the my way or highway stances just fail everyone.

Isn't the Obama administration's position that if the Republicans do not agree to concessions then the Dems will fight it tooth and nail? The Dems are even trying to take Contress out of play altogether and just do whatever they want without Congress' approval or involvement. How much more of a "my way or the highway" mentality can you have than that?

My position is simple. Obama & Co. had full control for 2 years and they failed miserably. Why would giving in and doing anything their way be a good idea?

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 10:49 AM
Isn't the Obama administration's position that if the Republicans do not agree to concessions then the Dems will fight it tooth and nail? The Dems are even trying to take Contress out of play altogether and just do whatever they want without Congress' approval or involvement. How much more of a "my way or the highway" mentality can you have than that?

My position is simple. Obama & Co. had full control for 2 years and they failed miserably. Why would giving in and doing anything their way be a good idea?
Exactly, so then the repubs can get blamed for anything that didn't work.

duane1969
08-25-2011, 10:51 AM
It's all about a happy medium and both parties need to figure that out. for them it seems to be more about their jobs and power and less about the people that put them in office. I have no idea how to fix that either as it seems like the political machine usually has this effect on most who enter it.

Sometimes I think politicians create these battles just to divide the country so we have people like us arguing back and forth while they sit back and laugh. I know that's probably not the case but just a thought i have from time to time. lol

There is no happy medium when it comes to the economy. It is either working or failing. If the Democratic policies of the last two years are failing (and they are) then we do something else. Tweaking what hasn't been working will not make it suddenly work. If you are overspending by trillions a year then cutting the budget a few hundred billion over the next 10 years won't fix it.

I am with you on the splitting the country thing. I wonder this myself sometimes.

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 10:57 AM
Works out fine for me???? Do you even understand what I was saying? I think you are confused.
I understand perfectly. You are on a sports card forum arguing about politics and holding your core principles. Just like all the other organized politican parties. And all the organized political parties are not going to budge on their core principles and nothing will continue to get done in America and we'll be enjoying this recession our Country is in for many more years. Is that about right or am i confused still?

pghin08
08-25-2011, 10:57 AM
It was a bad deal and didn't do enough. I would rather the tea parties hold it up then to sign on to a crappy deal.

No way. I didn't like the deal at all, but the ramifications of a US default would have likely made 2008/09 look like child's play. World markets were down 10-15% so far in August just because of one rating organization downgrading the US to AA+ and because of Europe fears. If the US defaults (basically going from AAA to F), Europe would have crumbled ("Holy crap, if the US defaults, Spain, Italy, etc. are next"), and world markets would have gone to hell in a handbasket.

mrveggieman
08-25-2011, 11:00 AM
Everyone is at fault, from obama,bush, clinton to the republicans to the voters for not demanding more accountability from our elected officials who work for us. It trips me out how people want to blame obama for everything from the crusification of jesus to the kennedy assisanation but never mention that their beloved republicans are part of the gov't and they have also made decisions that were not in the best intrests of our country and the people who voted them in to office.

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 11:01 AM
everyone is at fault, from obama,bush, clinton to the republicans to the voters for not demanding more accountability from our elected officials who work for us. It trips me out how people want to blame obama for the everything from the crusification of jesus to the kennedy assisanation but never mention that their beloved republicans are part of the gov't and they have also made decisions that were not in the best intrests of our country and the people who voted them in to office.
+1

Star_Cards
08-25-2011, 02:05 PM
Isn't the Obama administration's position that if the Republicans do not agree to concessions then the Dems will fight it tooth and nail? The Dems are even trying to take Contress out of play altogether and just do whatever they want without Congress' approval or involvement. How much more of a "my way or the highway" mentality can you have than that?

My position is simple. Obama & Co. had full control for 2 years and they failed miserably. Why would giving in and doing anything their way be a good idea?

My point is both sides are playing the same game. I'm not really sure why so many posters have responded to my post acting like my post was a directed at the Reps only. I thought I clearly said that both sides have failed by not being able to work as a team. It's sad that proponents of either side want to believe it's the other side when in fact it's both sides that are keeping things from happening.

Star_Cards
08-25-2011, 02:11 PM
Everyone is at fault, from obama,bush, clinton to the republicans to the voters for not demanding more accountability from our elected officials who work for us. It trips me out how people want to blame obama for everything from the crusification of jesus to the kennedy assisanation but never mention that their beloved republicans are part of the gov't and they have also made decisions that were not in the best intrests of our country and the people who voted them in to office.

I don't get it either. and to be fair there are people that do the same things when a Rep is in the White House.

duane1969
08-25-2011, 03:06 PM
My point is both sides are playing the same game. I'm not really sure why so many posters have responded to my post acting like my post was a directed at the Reps only. I thought I clearly said that both sides have failed by not being able to work as a team. It's sad that proponents of either side want to believe it's the other side when in fact it's both sides that are keeping things from happening.

I got your point. Like I said before, my position is based on the fact that everything that Obama & Co. said they were going to do got done and yet here were sit deeper in the hole than ever.

Opposing the failing policies of the last two years is not being difficult or partisan, it is logical.

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 03:45 PM
my point is both sides are playing the same game. I'm not really sure why so many posters have responded to my post acting like my post was a directed at the reps only. I thought i clearly said that both sides have failed by not being able to work as a team. It's sad that proponents of either side want to believe it's the other side when in fact it's both sides that are keeping things from happening.
+1

Hilfiger1975
08-25-2011, 03:46 PM
I got your point. Like I said before, my position is based on the fact that everything that Obama & Co. said they were going to do got done and yet here were sit deeper in the hole than ever.

Opposing the failing policies of the last two years is not being difficult or partisan, it is logical.
Wasn't we in a recession BEFORE Obama was even in office?

Star_Cards
08-25-2011, 04:34 PM
basically each side will just blame the other. myself I'm more about solutions to problems than blaming someone. blame can be helpful in certain instances to help prevent similar things from happening in the future, but the solution is what people want... well most people. It seems some are more worried about blaming than solving.

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 07:20 PM
Wasn't we in a recession BEFORE Obama was even in office?
He was in a different office so no. He contributed to the mess in congress as well.

sanfran22
08-25-2011, 07:21 PM
basically each side will just blame the other. myself I'm more about solutions to problems than blaming someone. blame can be helpful in certain instances to help prevent similar things from happening in the future, but the solution is what people want... well most people. It seems some are more worried about blaming than solving.
Solutions would be awesome. Do you see any solutions from Obama? Or is he going to use the George Bush game some more?Just curious.

Star_Cards
08-26-2011, 11:10 AM
I got your point. Like I said before, my position is based on the fact that everything that Obama & Co. said they were going to do got done and yet here were sit deeper in the hole than ever.

Opposing the failing policies of the last two years is not being difficult or partisan, it is logical.

I think the major thing is that politicians keep their jobs by spending tax money which allows them to get votes. The problem, outside of that being a form of bribery, is that we need less government spending and less taxing to allow the economy to grow and politicians don't work under that same philosophy.

Take a look at all of the stimulus spending through both administrations... that has created some jobs but they aren't long term. However for the politicians that brought this money to their areas it has helped their long term employment agenda for themselves.

I'm no economist but it seems like a way to create more jobs and bring jobs back to the U.S. that have been outsourced would be to reform the tax system completely. It seems that if we could compete with the other countries that U.S. companies flock to to get tax breaks that could help things. The wage differences are a concern, but if companies had some financial incentive to keep jobs in the US maybe that could be overcome.

Tax reform could also cause the wealthy to bring a lot of their money back to the U.S. economy that they keep in off shore accounts that have lower tax rates.

Star_Cards
08-26-2011, 11:19 AM
Solutions would be awesome. Do you see any solutions from Obama? Or is he going to use the George Bush game some more?Just curious.

I honestly don't see him bringing up the blame bush admin card as much as other talk about. I'm not saying that I haven't seen it, but from what I see I don't think it's a card that he pulls more times than not. I really am of the opinion that congress holds way more power than a president. I almost see a president as a ref/player as opposed to just being a player... if that makes sense. I just wish they'd start working as a team instead of hated rivals. They are supposed to be working together and they haven't been for a long time. Hopefully we will have some solutions soon.

I think at this point cutting spending is the main thing that needs to be done. For me the wars would be a huge part of that cut. They are drawing down both wars but for me it's not fast enough. I think the last figure I heard was 2014, but I haven't read a lot about it lately.

I've posted this a hundred times in various posts, but politicians think they need to spend tax money to get votes and right now that's pretty much what I think their motivation is. They've made some pretty sweet gigs for themselves. This fact makes it hard for me to think any of them would ever reform the tax code and give the citizens more of their own money.

sanfran22
08-26-2011, 11:27 AM
I think the major thing is that politicians keep their jobs by spending tax money which allows them to get votes. The problem, outside of that being a form of bribery, is that we need less government spending and less taxing to allow the economy to grow and politicians don't work under that same philosophy.

Take a look at all of the stimulus spending through both administrations... that has created some jobs but they aren't long term. However for the politicians that brought this money to their areas it has helped their long term employment agenda for themselves.

I'm no economist but it seems like a way to create more jobs and bring jobs back to the U.S. that have been outsourced would be to reform the tax system completely. It seems that if we could compete with the other countries that U.S. companies flock to to get tax breaks that could help things. The wage differences are a concern, but if companies had some financial incentive to keep jobs in the US maybe that could be overcome.

Tax reform could also cause the wealthy to bring a lot of their money back to the U.S. economy that they keep in off shore accounts that have lower tax rates.
I would give every company a 0 tax liability to bring jobs back.

habsheaven
08-26-2011, 11:39 AM
I think the major thing is that politicians keep their jobs by spending tax money which allows them to get votes. The problem, outside of that being a form of bribery, is that we need less government spending and less taxing to allow the economy to grow and politicians don't work under that same philosophy.

Take a look at all of the stimulus spending through both administrations... that has created some jobs but they aren't long term. However for the politicians that brought this money to their areas it has helped their long term employment agenda for themselves.

I'm no economist but it seems like a way to create more jobs and bring jobs back to the U.S. that have been outsourced would be to reform the tax system completely. It seems that if we could compete with the other countries that U.S. companies flock to to get tax breaks that could help things. The wage differences are a concern, but if companies had some financial incentive to keep jobs in the US maybe that could be overcome.

Tax reform could also cause the wealthy to bring a lot of their money back to the U.S. economy that they keep in off shore accounts that have lower tax rates.

I'm no economist either, just a lowly accountant, but I think these numbers are telling:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

pghin08
08-26-2011, 11:43 AM
I'm no economist either, just a lowly accountant, but I think these numbers are telling:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.


And I can just about guarantee that none of these companies are hiring people in the US right now.

mrveggieman
08-26-2011, 11:48 AM
And I can just about guarantee that none of these companies are hiring people in the US right now.


Check out bof's latest layoffs:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/bank-of-america-layoffs-continue/

pghin08
08-26-2011, 11:55 AM
Check out bof's latest layoffs:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/bank-of-america-layoffs-continue/

I know it was big news yesterday that Warren Buffett bought $5 bil of BoA stock yesterday, but I gotta say, I think they're in a bit of trouble. When BoA acquired Countrywide, they of course acquired Countrywide's crappy/fradulent/misplaced loans. Those loans are going to hit the books sometime, and they'll be EASILY in the tens of billions. Rough stuff for Bank of America.

To note: most financial stocks are down 30-50% YTD, BoA is down around 42%. Not many companies are going to hire at that rate.

Star_Cards
08-26-2011, 11:57 AM
those numbers are staggering and disappointing. Maybe my idea of giving incentives for companies to high within wouldn't work after all.


It's funny because the cruise lines just set the home port out of a different country to skirt US tax when they serve US ports/customers. well not funny, but you get it.

pghin08
08-26-2011, 03:22 PM
those numbers are staggering and disappointing. Maybe my idea of giving incentives for companies to high within wouldn't work after all.


It's funny because the cruise lines just set the home port out of a different country to skirt US tax when they serve US ports/customers. well not funny, but you get it.

Here's my view of the Republican idea of tax breaks for corporations. It can go one of two ways:

1. You can just give them tax breaks and hope that they hire people (they usually wont).

2. It can be like you said: you can give them tax breaks, but stipulate the the only way they can actually get the tax breaks is if they hire so many people. But that much government involvement in private enterprise? Usually doesn't sit well with conservatives.

habsheaven
08-26-2011, 06:26 PM
Here's my view of the Republican idea of tax breaks for corporations. It can go one of two ways:

1. You can just give them tax breaks and hope that they hire people (they usually wont).

2. It can be like you said: you can give them tax breaks, but stipulate the the only way they can actually get the tax breaks is if they hire so many people. But that much government involvement in private enterprise? Usually doesn't sit well with conservatives.

History has proven that #1 doesn't work but unfortunately it is the only option for the Republicans in government.

duane1969
08-26-2011, 09:51 PM
Here's my view of the Republican idea of tax breaks for corporations. It can go one of two ways:

1. You can just give them tax breaks and hope that they hire people (they usually wont).

2. It can be like you said: you can give them tax breaks, but stipulate the the only way they can actually get the tax breaks is if they hire so many people. But that much government involvement in private enterprise? Usually doesn't sit well with conservatives.

It shouldn't sit well with anyone.

The fact that the government already regulates virtually every aspect of business (health code, safety code, tax code, EOE, etc.) is disturbing enough as it is.

A basic aspect of socialism is that the government oversees all aspects of industry. Hiring is all that is left. When a government employee starts dictating when to hire, who to hire, how many to hire and how much to pay them then the business ceases to exists and it becomes just another government entity.

duane1969
08-26-2011, 09:52 PM
History has proven that #1 doesn't work but unfortunately it is the only option for the Republicans in government.

It actually worked quite well during the Reagan administration.

pghin08
08-27-2011, 11:49 AM
It actually worked quite well during the Reagan administration.

That's because it was about a 30% tax cut for most corporations. Really did well in the long run though, eh? Now they pay little tax and still aren't hiring. The world was a lot different in the 80s. It's clearly not working in the 2010s

sanfran22
08-27-2011, 04:15 PM
That's because it was about a 30% tax cut for most corporations. Really did well in the long run though, eh? Now they pay little tax and still aren't hiring. The world was a lot different in the 80s. It's clearly not working in the 2010s
That's a pretty broad brush you are painting. Why is this the case? There are several answers to that. Also, at least a few companies on that list are hiring and trying to build bigger plants. Lastly, like typical liberals, people post profit totals not percentages. You know the oil companies work on something like a 3-12% profit dont you? Can your business survive on that? Very misleading as usual.

habsheaven
08-27-2011, 04:24 PM
That's a pretty broad brush you are painting. Why is this the case? There are several answers to that. Also, at least a few companies on that list are hiring and trying to build bigger plants. Lastly, like typical liberals, people post profit totals not percentages. You know the oil companies work on something like a 3-12% profit dont you? Can your business survive on that? Very misleading as usual.

What company CANNOT survive on a 12% profit?? You do understand what PROFIT means don't you.

pghin08
08-28-2011, 07:40 PM
That's a pretty broad brush you are painting. Why is this the case? There are several answers to that. Also, at least a few companies on that list are hiring and trying to build bigger plants. Lastly, like typical liberals, people post profit totals not percentages. You know the oil companies work on something like a 3-12% profit dont you? Can your business survive on that? Very misleading as usual.

Who? And they're likely not building plants in America.

sanfran22
08-28-2011, 07:57 PM
Who? And they're likely not building plants in America.
Boeing for one, And they were building in the US. We need to bring the companies back from overseas period. Make it favorable to do business here.

pghin08
08-29-2011, 11:50 AM
Boeing for one, And they were building in the US. We need to bring the companies back from overseas period. Make it favorable to do business here.

How? How can you beat no taxes?

Rockman
08-29-2011, 11:53 AM
How? How can you beat no taxes?

No wages.

Star_Cards
08-29-2011, 01:27 PM
It shouldn't sit well with anyone.

The fact that the government already regulates virtually every aspect of business (health code, safety code, tax code, EOE, etc.) is disturbing enough as it is.

A basic aspect of socialism is that the government oversees all aspects of industry. Hiring is all that is left. When a government employee starts dictating when to hire, who to hire, how many to hire and how much to pay them then the business ceases to exists and it becomes just another government entity.

if the government is giving them tax breaks then I can see why they could/should be able to make stipulations to receive those breaks. If they don't want the regulation they could also not take the tax break. I guess the bottom line is that if companies benefit from the US economy they should be willing to feed the economy as well. Like I said, I don't know the answer, but giving companies huge tax breaks doesn't seem to be working.

I too agree that government involvement should be less, but sometimes involvement can be a good thing if done right.

duane1969
08-29-2011, 10:46 PM
Personally I would like to see some significant tax breaks for small businesses. This country was founded by small businessmen, not large corporations.

A few of my own ideas...

* New small businesses (less than 3 years old) pay zero tax on any profits that are used to pay employee salaries.
* A small business that hires an unskilled laborer and trains them to do a job receives a 100% tax break equivalent to that employee's salary and training costs during the training period and a tax break equivalent to 50% of their salary for the first 3 years that they are employed.
* Small businesses get first dibs on government contracts.

sanfran22
08-30-2011, 10:52 AM
Personally I would like to see some significant tax breaks for small businesses. This country was founded by small businessmen, not large corporations.

A few of my own ideas...

* New small businesses (less than 3 years old) pay zero tax on any profits that are used to pay employee salaries.
* A small business that hires an unskilled laborer and trains them to do a job receives a 100% tax break equivalent to that employee's salary and training costs during the training period and a tax break equivalent to 50% of their salary for the first 3 years that they are employed.
* Small businesses get first dibs on government contracts.
Some decent ideas, I do know first hand that on several gov't contracts small businesses do get first dibs.

pghin08
08-30-2011, 10:58 AM
Personally I would like to see some significant tax breaks for small businesses. This country was founded by small businessmen, not large corporations.

A few of my own ideas...

* New small businesses (less than 3 years old) pay zero tax on any profits that are used to pay employee salaries.
* A small business that hires an unskilled laborer and trains them to do a job receives a 100% tax break equivalent to that employee's salary and training costs during the training period and a tax break equivalent to 50% of their salary for the first 3 years that they are employed.
* Small businesses get first dibs on government contracts.

I have no problem with any of these.

mrveggieman
08-30-2011, 11:15 AM
Personally I would like to see some significant tax breaks for small businesses. This country was founded by small businessmen, not large corporations.

A few of my own ideas...

* New small businesses (less than 3 years old) pay zero tax on any profits that are used to pay employee salaries.
* A small business that hires an unskilled laborer and trains them to do a job receives a 100% tax break equivalent to that employee's salary and training costs during the training period and a tax break equivalent to 50% of their salary for the first 3 years that they are employed.
* Small businesses get first dibs on government contracts.


I'm all for innovation within the gov't.

Star_Cards
08-30-2011, 11:23 AM
Personally I would like to see some significant tax breaks for small businesses. This country was founded by small businessmen, not large corporations.

A few of my own ideas...

* New small businesses (less than 3 years old) pay zero tax on any profits that are used to pay employee salaries.
* A small business that hires an unskilled laborer and trains them to do a job receives a 100% tax break equivalent to that employee's salary and training costs during the training period and a tax break equivalent to 50% of their salary for the first 3 years that they are employed.
* Small businesses get first dibs on government contracts.

I'd be okay with these. Corporations have too much pull in washington.