Obama campaign office staff lacks diversity

Are you on crack? Lowest tax rate in decades?

Please see Exhibit A: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/us-corporate-tax-rate_n_1392310.html

Outsourcing will always happen because it is simply cheaper to produce goods outside of the United States. If businesses produced here in the US, then the product would cost more and people wouldn't buy.

 

lol

dunno if this was sarcasm or not, but outsourcing is a very scary reality

what's even more scary was taking econ for the first time, and seeing how countries had to rely on others

i remember reading about hypothetical situations, such as if people really did just buy american. you'd think it would keep more american companies in business (and more american jobs open), when it fact it would be bad for the economy.

 

Simply not true, the first stimulus helped a great deal

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/the-first-fiscal-stimulus-worked-should-we-do-another/

You mention corporate taxes, - "But a little context is in order.

The OECD rate is the "statutory rate" – in other words, the top corporate tax rate on the books. But many companies pay considerably less than that, due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting these factors produces a statistic called the "effective tax rate."

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service looked into whether U.S. corporate taxes are the world’s highest and concluded that the answer depends, in part, on which taxes are being compared."

And if you read your own link, Obama is seeking to LOWER the corporate tax rate, so how can you blame him when it WAS NOT his policies that raised corporate taxes to their current level?

 

- The economic issues of 2007-2008 were not policy issues. The problems occurred when human nature kicked in and lenders were throwing out mortgages to anyone who asked. Bush promoting an "ownership" is not bad. People should own homes

- Barack has allowed unemployment to reach 10% (October 2009). Please look at unemployment when the election occurred (Nov 2008) and then look at unemployment 1 year later. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

- Gas prices under Obama have increased 103.79%, the highest in history. It was $1.59 when he took office. Yet he blocks the keystone pipeline keeping our prices high. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa.../gas-prices-grow-more-under-obama-than-carter

-Republicans don't need to find common ground with the POTUS. There are small issues where you can agree such as extending the low tax rates on student loans. But the Republicans don't need to sacrifice their views on this issue to kiss the president's ass.

- By Obama being a “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao. But he does fall within the mainstream view of contemporary socialism as represented by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party.

 

- The fiscal stimulus to the banks were necessary because without them you don't have a modern economy. So if you want to applaud Obama for making a no-brainer decision then okay :smt038. But the stimulus to the auto industry was one of the worst ideas ever. It made the auto companies no more competitive against the Japanese automakers (Honda, Toyota, and Nissan). We still have the same high union labor rates and poor contracts.

- And if Obama wanted to lower the tax rate it would already be done. Who would stop him? The republicans have been asking for this for years!!

 

Obama simply kept the Bush tax cuts in place and is talking about increasing taxes. Currently, I fall in the 25% tax bracket filing as married. Under the GOP Plan just released married couples earning under 100K would only pay 10% in taxes. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-for-3-big-tax-hikes-courtesy-of-barack-obama

 

Obama is nowhere near being a socialist, you embarrass yourself even mentioning that word, you cannot point to one single action that meets that definition.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...perry/rick-perry-says-barack-obama-socialist/

 

Simply not true about the Auto industry, here read this link and educate yourself, part of the deal to receive the money was to radically change how business was done.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...campaign-movie-says-auto-bailout-money-had-r/

As far as Obama lowering the tax rate, are you at all familiar with how Washington works? Gridlock and "playing politics for re-election" applies to ALL issues, even the ones where there appears to be common ground.

In your prior post you blamed Obama's polices for producing the highest corporate tax rate, I posted proof that the rate is not always what it seems, many corporations don't pay the rate detailed in the article that you posted, and that the rate was not the result of Obama's polices. Perhaps you should re-visit your views.

By the way, before you assume I am some bleeding heart, I have posted many times before that I am a republican and a founding member of a republican PAC, (ask any of the older members), that being said, Obama has done an OUTSTANDING job in his first 4 years, and I am sick and tired of the numerous falsehoods and political attacks (from the usual suspects like Rush and Fox news, to disgraceful outbursts like Joe Wilson) he has to suffer like no other President in recent times in my opinion.

 

Sorry I meant paying the least amount of taxes in decades but I think you know what I meant. Despite that reality and again I'll mention the record profits companies are investing else where what do companies have to complain about. This president sould have to be fucking Palin to be even more rjght than he is now. The GOP rhetoric that he a tax anx spend democrat simply isnt true but since when do the GOP care about facts.

 

- The oversight on Wall Street was inadequate. Do you know who warned about this? George W. Bush!! In his 2002 State of the Union address he was pushing for regulations on the financial sector. The fact is...tricky Wall Street executives will always pull off scams and doing illegal things to make money. My point is that it's human nature and not the President's fault

- This recession we were experiencing needed dramatic cuts to taxes in order to spur job creation and spending. Obama has stood by and let things go status quo. And democrats hide behind job creation numbers, not disclosing that the majority of new hires are vastly underemployed. People are taking part-time jobs or considerably less money just to have a job. But the amount of legitimate full-time CAREERS is a long way from coming back.

- Yes gas prices have to do with supply and demand. And that is my point when I say he blocked the keystone pipeline. We have oil here in the US and could lower prices but he refuses to do so. I have no problem with seeking clean energy sources, but that does me no good if those solutions are 10-15 years away.

 

The GOP pushed Voter ID in several states that gone Republican. They had done nothing but bring a lot of grief to Blacks. Also the GOP Congress decided after Obama was inaugurated to stop anything that the President supported or proposed. They are determined not to give Obama success in anything positive. If any Republican who gave respect or help to Obama they are hounded out of office. That is very personal and no doubt Obama will get mo heat on his support of Gay marriage. Guess who is byching along with the Right wingers:The Log Cabin Republicans,Homocon,and others. Why? I think they are pissed at Romney. Are the GOP would be human and help Obama? It is doubtful since they have the Ku Klux spirit in having him defeated.

 

If the president would reduce companies tax burden, they could possibly produce more domestically. But US companies still have to compete with wages being much higher here in the US than elsewhere, so producing overseas is always a possibility.

Obama is a "tax and spend" democrat whether you choose to agree or not. The CBO's latest analysis shows his budget plan would pile up $6.39 trillion in cumulative deficits over a 10-year period.

 

Why do people think it's the Republican's job to allow Obama's policies to go through? They would be Democrats if they agreed with his policies. Their job is to represent the Party and the people that elected them to defend those viewpoints. Trust me, the republican national slogan is not "bring a lot of grief to blacks"

 

There is certainly great debate (by biased parties on both sides of the issue, see below in bold) whether this particular pipeline would have a positive or negative affect on prices.

The Keystone XL pipeline

The ad says Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline. Obama did block the Keystone XL, an addition to an existing pipeline so that oil sands (also known as tar sands or bituminous sands) could be moved from Canada to refineries near Houston, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Because the pipeline crosses the U.S. border, the State Department must sign off. Back in November, the State Department said it would delay a decision while environmental concerns about the pipeline were addressed. Back then, the pipeline was set to cross over drinking water sources in Nebraska, and people were asking TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline project, for an alternate route.

The company has since said it would work with officials to shift the route. But environmentalists have still said the pipeline shouldn’t be built at all, because oil sands are harder to clean up when spilled and cost more to turn into gasoline.

Then Congress put new deadlines into play, passing a law that said the Obama administration had to make a decision on the pipeline by February. Obama said that wasn’t enough time for a thorough environmental review and rejected the pipeline.

The ad again suggests the delay of the pipeline is somehow responsible for today’s high gas prices. Since the pipeline was only proposed in 2008 with a then-projected opening of 2013, it’s hard to see how gas prices in 2012 would be lower. (PolitiFact Ohio also looked in detail the question of whether Keystone approval would cause gas prices to drop in the near term; they ruled that claim False.) Whether Keystone will reduce gas prices in the future is a contested point that we won’t settle in this fact-check. TransCanada’s analyst said it would bring down gas prices by 3.5 to 4 cents per gallon, according to Forbes. But environmentalists have seized on arguments that the pipeline could drive gas prices up, by giving Canadian oil an outlet to world markets through the Gulf of Mexico and bypassing U.S. customers. (The Christian Science Monitor explored these issues in some detail.)
Greg Laskoski, a senior petroleum analyst with GasBuddy.com, said Keystone had the closest connection to gas prices, but even that connection was far from simple and more oriented toward future prices. Lower-priced Canadian oil could be of some benefit to refineries in the United States, but that assumes it stays in the United States and isn’t sold to foreign countries.

"It’s not as simplistic as some of these sound bites make it out to be," he said.

 

From the CBO's latest report...

"Concluding Observations
The economy continues to recover from the nation’s most severe
recession since the end of World War II, and while there are calls for
continued federal action to support the economy, these must be balanced
with the need to act soon to develop a plan for addressing the long-term
fiscal imbalance. Absent policy changes, increasingly significant changes
will be needed to close the fiscal gap. However, action taken to address
the fiscal outlook needs to be balanced with the importance of sustaining
economic growth in the near term. If policy changes designed to correct
the federal government’s fiscal path are too sharp, they could stifle the
pace of the recovery in the near term. Conversely, changes in policy
designed to encourage near-term recovery could worsen the long-term
outlook and increase the size of necessary changes in the long run.

Our simulations show deficits declining over the next several years, but
this trend reverses before the decade is over under the assumptions in
our simulations. Despite limits on discretionary spending that would bring
discretionary spending to levels not seen in recent history, our simulations
show total federal spending continuing to exceed revenues and feeding
an unsustainable growth in debt. The policy actions required to close the
fiscal gap are significant, and changing the long-term outlook will likely
require difficult decisions about both federal spending and revenue."

Is there very real cause for concern, yes, can you lay all of this at Obama's feet, point at him and say "see, he's a tax and spend Democrat"? Not even close. His administration was faced with historic economic challenges that required historic economic responses. He did what was needed to stem then stop the bleeding, now lets see how he does with the "difficult decisions" the CBO is referencing in the last line.

 

- The auto industry in Detroit is in no better situation. The UAW wages are insanely high, workers make $37.85/hour without benefits included. Andrew Ross Sorkin claimed that the average UAW worker was paid $70 per hour, including health and pension costs, while Toyota workers in the US receive $10 to $20 less.

- Corporations pay less in taxes because they use every loophole they can to reduce the rate. They claim overseas revenue in that country so that their tax burden is less. It wouldn't have to be that way if Obama just lowered the rate.

- Being a Republican or Democrat doesn't matter to me, we're all just discussing our viewpoints. I think Obama has represented the office well even though I disagree fundamentally with his viewpoints. The argument that "he inherited this mess" is true with every president. Every president who comes into office has some challenges to deal with. I don't shed a tear for him that he got a bad economy, he signed up for the job. I think he would have been a great president if he inherited a good economy similar to Bill Clinton. But in bad economic times, Democratic principles simply do not work.

 

They don't call the GOP the White Man's Party for nothing. Diversity is a joke to them and they are extremely intolerent. Do anyone think those Black Republican members would last more than one term? I don't think so unless they would had to shuffle hard enough to have their support. The party of Thaddius Stevens and Charles Summner are long gone.

 

- Discretionary spending is nowhere near where it needs to be to encourage growth in the economy. Just look around, coupons and discounts are increasingly used everywhere. Large businesses like Best Buy are closing stores across the US. If they lowered the federal tax rate, people could actually afford to take their family to a dinner & a movie again instead of going to RedBox.

- Obama's philosophy of "tax and spend" will never work in this situation. And his version of "stop the bleeding" was putting a band-aid on a shotgun wound

 

The comment that it is a White Man's party is simply ignorant. As we've seen just in the past few years, the Republican party have a growing number of hispanic and female leaders. We should be encouraging people like Tim Scott (R- South Carolina) as African Americans too! He is one of the first Republican African-American Representatives from the states that were part of the Confederacy since 1901, and the first Republican African-American members of Congress since 2003.

 

Interesting assessment, I would argue that there are not many differences between Democratic and Republican principles these days, most of the time the only difference is a different shade of lipstick on the same pig.