Will Obama's call to cut corporate taxes materialize?

[logroller]

I know there are a few Obama haters here, but his call to cut corporate tax rates is traditionally a GOP party line. Do you think it's just an olive branch, or a sincere request?

He also mentioned a lot spending cuts, any predictions from the DP community?

[fj1200]

The Reps should jump on this and multiply any proposal from BO by 2.

BTW, what exactly was his proposal? Is his idea of tax cutting more giveaway credits or does it actually cut the rate?

[Trigg]

I know there are a few Obama haters here, but his call to cut corporate tax rates is traditionally a GOP party line. Do you think it's just an olive branch, or a sincere request?

He also mentioned a lot spending cuts, any predictions from the DP community?

As with any politician, they will promise the moon and stars in order to get re-elected. I would love to see the gov. live within their means and cut spending. Results are what I'm looking for, not speeches about WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

When he vetoes earmarks...........that will get my attention.

[logroller]

The Reps should jump on this and multiply any proposal from BO by 2.

BTW, what exactly was his proposal? Is his idea of tax cutting more giveaway credits or does it actually cut the rate?

He said cut corporate rates and eliminate earmarks, in no uncertain terms. But he also said cut apportionment to traditional fuels in favor of alternative: seems to me like he contradicted himself there; but he certainly made an overwhelming statement to congress on what he wants to see come accross his desk: increased longterm investment and decreased spending short term: both of which are prescriptive of corporate favor. He also encouraged spending cuts, saying it is necessary wherever duplication and inefficiency exists, accross the board (excluding safety and social security). I think he anticipates using his healthcare plan to reduce spending on medicare/medicaid; but thats just my prediction. Assuming this congress' actions will be the fuel for his reelection, and in light of the hammering dems got at the polls last year, I expect more fiscally responsible conservative bills to be approved. Here's hoping!

[fj1200]

^As Trigg says, actions are more important than words.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/1-25-11wordsactionsCMYj20110125114043.jpg

[logroller]

^As Trigg says, actions are more important than words.

We are discussing politics here, so words not equating to action is expected. However, it's in Congress' hands, the president's actions are really a distant thought. I was moved by the SOTU but there was an obvious lack of specification on prposed cuts to spending. Obviously there is the white elephant of healthcare looming, to which the public is divided, but I don't see a whole lot of ideas for change, other than "its bad-repeal". The problems within our society have been exacerbated by government interference, beginning in the 30's, with FDR spending our way out of the fiscal inpropriety- agreed? With that said, the problems already existed; specifically the belief in infinite growth potential.

Perhaps this makes me more progressive than the average conservative, but I find it hard to place the blame on govt when our society shares the same disillusionment. The most daunting hurdle of govt is to depress our society with decisions based on reality. We can't continually expand our economy in any real sense, not that we don't try -- to which govt has grown to accomodate this pursuit. Corporate success is predicated upon increased growth; why wouldn't govt do the same? So many people have no problem with massive corporate influence on our personal behaviors; but bitch and moan when govt does the same thing. This is an obvious hypocrisy to me.

If we examine the financial crisis, it shows the same error of foundational beliefs as evidenced through the speculation of fiat wealth and debt capitalization. How is this any different from the S&L crisis, except on a bigger scale. Well, bigger isn't better; not in govt, not in business. It's the uniqueness of each individual that makes our society great, its the foundation of this country. We need to start celebrating our individuality and abandon our infatuation with capital returns. Happiness doesn't have an earnings potential, but you sure can spend it away!

[fj1200]

We are discussing politics here, so words not equating to action is expected. However, it's in Congress' hands, the president's actions are really a distant thought. I was moved by the SOTU but there was an obvious lack of specification on prposed cuts to spending. Obviously there is the white elephant of healthcare looming, to which the public is divided, but I don't see a whole lot of ideas for change, other than "its bad-repeal". The problems within our society have been exacerbated by government interference, beginning in the 30's, with FDR spending our way out of the fiscal inpropriety- agreed? With that said, the problems already existed; specifically the belief in infinite growth potential.

Politics be the problem. They've in essence dumbed down the population so that they can get away with "politics."


Perhaps this makes me more progressive than the average conservative, but I find it hard to place the blame on govt when our society shares the same disillusionment. The most daunting hurdle of govt is to depress our society with decisions based on reality. We can't continually expand our economy in any real sense, not that we don't try -- to which govt has grown to accomodate this pursuit. Corporate success is predicated upon increased growth; why wouldn't govt do the same? So many people have no problem with massive corporate influence on our personal behaviors; but bitch and moan when govt does the same thing. This is an obvious hypocrisy to me.

Does society share a disillusionment created by every bit of everyday life being legislated. I think you've not acknowledge the causation to that correlation.

Not sure why you think that hypocrisy. Corporate growth is to be expected as they expand. Most sectors of government are not required to match that growth, outside of some necessary regulations of course, except when it/Congress/regulators interjects themselves into a process that they don't normally belong in.


If we examine the financial crisis, it shows the same error of foundational beliefs as evidenced through the speculation of fiat wealth and debt capitalization. How is this any different from the S&L crisis, except on a bigger scale. Well, bigger isn't better; not in govt, not in business. It's the uniqueness of each individual that makes our society great, its the foundation of this country. We need to start celebrating our individuality and abandon our infatuation with capital returns. Happiness doesn't have an earnings potential, but you sure can spend it away!

I think you ignore the regulatory issues (and monetary, different thread of course) in both crises. You're right, we should celebrate our individuality. Capital returns will come on their own. ;)

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/172214.JPG

[red states rule]

We are discussing politics here, so words not equating to action is expected. However, it's in Congress' hands, the president's actions are really a distant thought. I was moved by the SOTU but there was an obvious lack of specification on prposed cuts to spending. Obviously there is the white elephant of healthcare looming, to which the public is divided, but I don't see a whole lot of ideas for change, other than "its bad-repeal". The problems within our society have been exacerbated by government interference, beginning in the 30's, with FDR spending our way out of the fiscal inpropriety- agreed? With that said, the problems already existed; specifically the belief in infinite growth potential.

Perhaps this makes me more progressive than the average conservative, but I find it hard to place the blame on govt when our society shares the same disillusionment. The most daunting hurdle of govt is to depress our society with decisions based on reality. We can't continually expand our economy in any real sense, not that we don't try -- to which govt has grown to accomodate this pursuit. Corporate success is predicated upon increased growth; why wouldn't govt do the same? So many people have no problem with massive corporate influence on our personal behaviors; but bitch and moan when govt does the same thing. This is an obvious hypocrisy to me.

If we examine the financial crisis, it shows the same error of foundational beliefs as evidenced through the speculation of fiat wealth and debt capitalization. How is this any different from the S&L crisis, except on a bigger scale. Well, bigger isn't better; not in govt, not in business. It's the uniqueness of each individual that makes our society great, its the foundation of this country. We need to start celebrating our individuality and abandon our infatuation with capital returns. Happiness doesn't have an earnings potential, but you sure can spend it away!

http://thenationalscene.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cartoon-for-everything-else-500.jpg

[logroller]

Politics be the problem. They've in essence dumbed down the population so that they can get away with "politics."
sad, but true.



Does society share a disillusionment created by every bit of everyday life being legislated. I think you've not acknowledge the causation to that correlation.

It's a positive feedback, like gas lines in a burning building; once started, simply removing the gas doesn't stop the fire. The fire is the problem. The economy is ablaze with money, we need to cut off the spending. But merely cutting the spending wont put the fire out, we need to check the infaturation with money in our country. Our culture needs to focus on resources; to which money, even in the private sector, is not a resource. That's why tax cuts and credits don't make us wealthier. All money serves to do is make resource transfers easier and more efficient. Unfortunately, we have long since forgotten their isn't any real value in money, its fiat currency, backed only by the faith of the US Government-- and that faith is getting thinner and thinner.


Not sure why you think that hypocrisy. Corporate growth is to be expected as they expand. Most sectors of government are not required to match that growth, outside of some necessary regulations of course, except when it/Congress/regulators interjects themselves into a process that they don't normally belong in.

Who benefits from corporate growth, really? Investment funds and the financial sector. Somehow Americans have been convinced that investment is purely capitalistic, judged solely by financial profits; as opposed to personal benefits. We can regulate anything and everything, but so long as our motives are driven by the accumulation of monetary wealth, society as a whole still suffers. We, as individuals, need to focus our energy and wealth on community and family, within these do our most profitable investment returns lie.


I think you ignore the regulatory issues (and monetary, different thread of course) in both crises. You're right, we should celebrate our individuality. Capital returns will come on their own. ;)

You mentioned causation vs correlation, I would argue that regulation was prescribed errantly, what needed to happen was for people to abandon the markets which failed, not make them appear trustworthy; which is all financial regulations really do. Sometimes it works, other times people just get better at circumventing the regs. Either way, the gains of a system are inherently limited, and intervening in the markets only delays the growth and retraction; resulting in market failures which become increasingly more severe and longer lasting.
I contend that capital returns are greater without individuality, why else do corporations grow so large. Capital returns will come, but at what cost: social insolvency?

[logroller]

You mentioned causation vs correlation, I would argue that regulation was prescribed errantly, what needed to happen was for people to abandon the markets which failed, not make them appear trustworthy; which is all financial regulations really do. Sometimes it works, other times people just get better at circumventing the regs. Either way, the gains of a system are inherently limited, and intervening in the markets only delays the growth and retraction; resulting in market failures which become increasingly more severe and longer lasting.
I contend that capital returns are greater without individuality, why else do corporations grow so large. Capital returns will come, but at what cost: social insolvency?

Sorry, this should have read "expansion and contraction"

[logroller]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/1-25-11wordsactionsCMYj20110125114043.jpg


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/172214.JPG


http://thenationalscene.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cartoon-for-everything-else-500.jpg

FYI, this is a discussion forum. I believe these belong in the humor forum.

[red states rule]

FYI, this is a discussion forum. I believe these belong in the humor forum.

When you are a staff member then you can remove/move any posts you deem inappropriate

IMO they do show how Obama's policies are making things worse, and his hypocrisy

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Sputnik_Moment20110127045321.jpg

[fj1200]

It's a positive feedback, like gas lines in a burning building; once started, simply removing the gas doesn't stop the fire. The fire is the problem. The economy is ablaze with money, we need to cut off the spending. But merely cutting the spending wont put the fire out, we need to check the infaturation with money in our country. Our culture needs to focus on resources; to which money, even in the private sector, is not a resource. That's why tax cuts and credits don't make us wealthier. All money serves to do is make resource transfers easier and more efficient. Unfortunately, we have long since forgotten their isn't any real value in money, its fiat currency, backed only by the faith of the US Government-- and that faith is getting thinner and thinner.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Our society is based on freedom is it not? Individualistic, free-market, capitalist? Limited government leads to private individuals making private decisions; it happens to be the best way and growth is a result of those decisions. You can't decry what it gives you if you support the base freedoms.


Who benefits from corporate growth, really? Investment funds and the financial sector. Somehow Americans have been convinced that investment is purely capitalistic, judged solely by financial profits; as opposed to personal benefits. We can regulate anything and everything, but so long as our motives are driven by the accumulation of monetary wealth, society as a whole still suffers. We, as individuals, need to focus our energy and wealth on community and family, within these do our most profitable investment returns lie.

You know, crazy things called stakeholders; employees, investors, other businesses, etc. Don't confuse Wall Street, or even the obsession with it, as what really happens on Main Street.


You mentioned causation vs correlation, I would argue that regulation was prescribed errantly, what needed to happen was for people to abandon the markets which failed, not make them appear trustworthy; which is all financial regulations really do. Sometimes it works, other times people just get better at circumventing the regs. Either way, the gains of a system are inherently limited, and intervening in the markets only delays the growth and retraction; resulting in market failures which become increasingly more severe and longer lasting.

I'll agree with you there. Many people get the wrong correlation from the wrong causation. ;)


I contend that capital returns are greater without individuality, why else do corporations grow so large. Capital returns will come, but at what cost: social insolvency?

? You lost me with that statement. In CA too long? :laugh:

[logroller]

When you are a staff member then you can remove/move any posts you deem inappropriate

IMO they do show how Obama's policies are making things worse, and his hypocrisy

whoa. I didnt say anything about censorship, only discussion.

[red states rule]

whoa. I didnt say anything about censorship, only discussion.

Never said you did

But a picture is worth a thousand words

[logroller]

Issuing an argument with a supporting visual aide is a contribution to a discussion. But merely posting a comic image isnt a discussion, its a humorous anecdote. You can post whatever u want; but in appreciation of your consideration of my post, I will give your response the same consideration.

[Kathianne]

Issuing an argument with a supporting visual aide is a contribution to a discussion. But merely posting a comic image isnt a discussion, its a humorous anecdote. You can post whatever u want; but in appreciation of your consideration of my post, I will give your response the same consideration.

I often find the posting of a comic, a video, one liners, and partisan hack slogans very annoying in threads where actual discussions are beginning or actually rolling. I figure the folks posting them either think they are contributing something, just want to jump in a trending thread, or are attempting to derail. If it's the last IMO, then I will remove or move the posts. Otherwise, I just skim through and if possible try to keep the conversation going.

[GUBMINT Cheese]

Issuing an argument with a supporting visual aide is a contribution to a discussion. But merely posting a comic image isnt a discussion, its a humorous anecdote. You can post whatever u want; but in appreciation of your consideration of my post, I will give your response the same consideration.

That sounds very liberal of you......:clap:
Political cartoons have been around a very long time & are a very useful tool for bolstering one's position, like it or not.....;)

[OldMercsRule]

I know there are a few Obama haters here, but his call to cut corporate tax rates is traditionally a GOP party line. Do you think it's just an olive branch, or a sincere request?

Hard tellin' not knowin'...... He may have ZERO experience runnin' anything......(other then the last two years of total f.... ups). :laugh2: That said: he is a very skilled pol.


He also mentioned a lot spending cuts, any predictions from the DP community?

Obamaprompter mentioned far more spendin' (light rail n' lots n' lots of green thingys) then spendin' cuts....... :laugh2: :laugh2:

Me thinks he jus' likes ta flap his gums in the breeze....n' he knows all the little girls in the audience luv his reverb..... n' maybe they will even faint or some such fer the drama effect....... :laugh2:

N' he said he wanted ta freeze spendin' at the current levels, (which he should know if he has any higher brain function is an unsustainable level). Then again..... does he have higher brain function?????? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

and repealing Obamacare would encourage businesses to start hiring again

As usual, the Dems accuse their opponents of doing the very thing they did





WASHINGTON – Republicans won dozens of elections last fall after claiming Democrats had focused too little on creating jobs. Now GOP lawmakers stand accused of the same charge, using their new House majority to push to repeal the president's health care law, restrict abortions and highlight other social issues important to their most conservative supporters.

Republican leaders say they have a jobs agenda, kicked off by their attempt to unravel what they call the Democrats' "jobs-killing" health overhaul.

Democrats scoff at this notion, and they're hounding Republicans to show how they can put more people to work.

"It's astonishing to me how tone-deaf the Republicans have been in the first weeks of the session," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "They've talked about everything but jobs."

Few were surprised when House Republicans moved quickly and voted to overturn the law, but the Democratic-controlled Senate will block that effort.

Heads turned when Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, presented the next item on the agenda: writing into law a perennially renewed ban on federal dollars for abortion, and to specify that it applies to health plans.

The abortion proposal "reflects the will of the people," said Boehner. "It's one of our highest legislative priorities."

When reporters asked why jobs weren't the main focus, Boehner said it was vital to vote against the health law because "it's destroying jobs in America."

He and his fellow Republicans say the law could wipe out 650,000 jobs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110129/ap_on_re_us/us_republican_priorities

[logroller]

and repealing Obamacare would encourage businesses to start hiring again

As usual, the Dems accuse their opponents of doing the very thing they did

How does the healthcare law discourage hiring?

[Kathianne]

How does the healthcare law discourage hiring?

1. By taxing the 'rich' including small business owners with over a certain number of employees. 2. The increased deficits will have a negative effect on the economy also leading to unemployment. 3. Business are being required, (if they are not in one of the favored groups to be exempted), to provide more comprehensive insurance, raising their costs and thus leaving less resources for hiring. In many cases in order to provide the required services, they would need to lay people off.

[logroller]

1. By taxing the 'rich' including small business owners with over a certain number of employees. 2. The increased deficits will have a negative effect on the economy also leading to unemployment. 3. Business are being required, (if they are not in one of the favored groups to be exempted), to provide more comprehensive insurance, raising their costs and thus leaving less resources for hiring. In many cases in order to provide the required services, they would need to lay people off.

The first two points are aren't as direct, causally speaking, but the third point peaks my interests. What sort of increases are being required?

[Kathianne]

The first two points are aren't as direct, causally speaking, but the third point peaks my interests. What sort of increases are being required?

Actually the first two points are direct to the subject, that we can't measure before taking effect, doesn't make them irrelevant.

As for the last point, it's been well covered by stories of the waivers, I believe it began with McDonald's:

http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/under-obamacare-not-so-happy-meal-for.html