Obama Talks Competitiveness as Japan Cuts its Corporate Tax Rate
by Capitol ConfidentialThis week, President Obama held a summit in Washington, D.C., with top CEOs to discuss a variety of economic topics. Among them was U.S. competitiveness in the global economy, with Obama describing the issue upfront as an “overarching theme,” and with the message being sent that competitiveness impacts domestic job creation.
Obama’s comments were timely, because on Tuesday, it emerged that Japan, which currently maintains the highest corporate tax rate of any O.E.C.D. (i.e., developed) nation, will cut its corporate income tax by “5 percentage points in a bid to shore up its sluggish economy,” according to the New York Times.
Currently, Japan’s corporate tax rate is about 40 percent, slightly higher than but roughly the same rate as the U.S. rate.
However, Japanese leaders aim to cut the tax rate in order to make the country more competitive, internationally, provoke new investment and boost job creation. Japan is worried about its unemployment rate of 5.1 percent–a figure of envy to most in Europe and the U.S., where unemployment is running substantially higher.
The fact that Japan’s corporate tax rate, post-cut, will remain higher than that of South Korea (24 percent) or Germany (29 percent) however has some figures skeptical as to whether the plan will work. In addition, Japan may raise its consumption tax rate to offset the cut, which could minimize positive effects that would otherwise flow from it.
Despite this, speculation abounds that the cut will improve Japan’s standing as against the U.S., where discussion surrounding tax cuts is currently focused on individual rates, as opposed to corporate rates. Once Japan’s cut has been implemented, the U.S. will become the O.E.C.D. nation with the highest corporate rates, which unlike most countries taxes the income of Americans and American companies worldwide.
The Obama administration meanwhile continues to pursue the nixing of tax policies originally put in place to enable American companies to compete globally, given these two substantial disadvantages.
Observers say that Obama remains personally committed to curtailing a tax credit known as the “dual capacity tax credit,” which prevents double taxation of U.S. companies with foreign offices. Recently, Obama and congressional allies have sought to limit the availability of this tax credit to oil and gas firms, specifically.
During 2009, Obama had pursued a more broad-based curtailment plan that would have affected other tax provisions designed to enable U.S. companies to compete against, say, German, Korean or British firms who are subject to a more favorable tax regime, and limited the availability of tax credits to firms in many industries seeking to avoid double taxation.
It remains to be seen what the precise effect of Japan’s proposed cut will be, but for now, it appears that the U.S. is set to move into the top spot in terms of high corporate taxes.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
162 Comments
What would Professor Obama know about business, or competitiveness for that matter?
He has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history.
Since the topic is Obama, I still want to know the real underlying reason that Al Sharpton was at the White House yesterday for the Bill Signing ceremony. I want to know if he dined with Obama, and if he spent the night. There is a story there.
Just how many times is Obama going to shoot us in the foot before he gets a clue?
Obama can talk about anything he wants. The trouble is that actions speak much louder than words, and all his actions do nothing more than contradict his words.
Hello old friend.
It is good to see you here. I have not seen you for a long time.
How goes your project?
I had not heard about Sharpton being present. He has recently opened up an office in Indianapolis too. I am sure he held a secret with Prez about Net neutrality and the "fairness doctrine" to specifically deal with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and "offensive" free speech. A fair media would include real coverage and transparency regarding exactly who and what happens at the "White House". Maybe Breitbart can get to the bottom of this.
Look at this juvenile "tweet" http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/20... . It is like a third grader was boasting.
I saw Sharpton at the Bill Signing when the camera panned the crowd. He was sitting there, front dead center, scowling like an angry chimp.
"He has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history."
Hyperbole, party of one?
And from every consumer and citizen throughout the land the mournful wail of a word was heard , and the word was BOHICA!
The CONSUMER pays the corporate tax. I am sure that Obama would like us to believe that corp. tax comes out of the CEO's pay and folks with real world experience know that is "hogwash". Think of the job creation if they dropped that rate to 5% or even 0%, our econ. would really take off.
Yup. As we say down here in Flownoverville, I hear the wind blowing, but I don't see the trees shaking… This surely applies to Obama if it ever applied to anyone.
No. Not at all.
Not even rhetoric.
I challenge YOU.
Can you name one President who has done more to stymie business, and chase investment away? He has declared war on Business, war on Wall Street and war on Main Street.
Been very busy, and too soon to say, but 2011 could be very interesting for me.
Obama: Welcome to the meeting. First item on the agenda, how can I screw you guys over, even worse?
if he wanted to spur business he would have cut the amount businesses had to pay for unemployment insurance……you know, the people who actually have in their power to create jobs could have used the break……he is anti private business period….he also loves card check which ties the hands of private business……
Let's see, mass unemployment, completely destroyed contract law when he shafted GM shareholders, rewarded unions at the expense of employers, wants the highest tax structure on the planet, imposed massively expensively Obamacare (over 200 businesses were given exemptions), imposes new regulation after new regulation, took over the banking system, trying to take over the food and internet, wasted tax payers dollars on a "stimulus" bill that only stimulated public unions and rewarded political allies now calling for new taxes to get a "real" stimulus, no reform of Fannie and Freddie, etc etc etc.
Yeah, the MOST business unfirendly president in history. No hyperbole. That's only a PARTIAL list. Facts, douche bag, facts. They NEVER stand on the side of you libs.
I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Blessed and Safe New Year.
You stated "He has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history."
Any one…you didn't say any president. Would you argue that Chavez is better for business? Castro?
Corporate taxes, onerous regulations, obamacare, fees, fines and bribes; the cost of ALL of these expenses that our government imposes are paid for by the consumer. Even the "poor." It is the backdoor tax on the population that politicians will never speak of.
Combine that with the inflation created by the Fed, the "silent" tax, and we can easily see that our government (and the Fed) are at war with the People of this country. Even as they brag about lowering SS tax rates by 2%, they've simultaneously driven up the cost of living by 1000%.
It's so nice that we have government that's looking out for the "little guy."
May they rot in hell.
a radical socialist promoting good business conditions, say what ?????? alsharpton the only business he knows is coersion, and the craft of the racial shake-down.
Due to the fact that the topic of the thread is Obungles, it would be safe to surmise he is the topic of discussion. Why would i argue about Chavez, or Castro, or even Ascmedinijad or Kim Jong Riki-tiki-tavi? They are about as relevant as you and your lame attempt at argument.
You're asking an awful lot of him to actually say what he means. Press him for some specifics and statistics. Research is his weak spot. He'll fold like a house of cards and start with the ad hominim.
Unless the corporate tax rate drops lower than the competing countries, it's not going to attract any new businesses. Otherwise it's just a drag on the economy as long as we keep spending like drunken sailors on shore leave.
With any luck Al the Race-Baiter Sharpton dined on NoBama.
Have you ever seen one as lame-brained as this one, Cowboy?
Oh wait. I guess we have seen quite a few around here.
THAT is the tragedy. That the most powerful office on the planet is occupied by someone as willfully destructive to the nation that he was elected to lead.
NoBama is trying to look centrist in the publics' eye, however he is still pursuing the radical socialist agenda behind the scenes. If he lowers the cooperate income tax bet your last dollar he will raise taxes or fees somewhere else without congressional approval or any public debate.
That's how he operates !
Amazing how many people do not understand that simple premise.
We have seen quire a few, to be sure. If you look above, and look below, we are surrounded.
Even if we did lower corporate tax rates we wouldn't attract any investment. The cost of obamacare, environmental regulations, unions and union pensions, state and local taxes, ALL of these things make it almost untenable to do business here.
Once upon a time, America was an attractive place to invest, because of our rock-solid contract laws, private ownership, and protection of our rights.
All of that is now gone. Swept away by the "progressive" infiltration of a hundred years. Finally capped off by the Marxist-in-Chief.
At least drunken sailors on liberty usually get laid instead of the other way around like were getting.
Amen!
"He'll fold like a house of cards and start with the ad hominim."
Yeah. And the "ad hominim" would go on for hours, just to wear you down.
Don't forget the regulatory thicket the government has grown around business in the last century.
Addendum: Or what John said…
Ditto!
He's full of nonsense pedaled by Ivy League liberal arts profs and ACORN advisors without the first level of understanding of finance and econ.
If he runs in 2012, I would love to see Presidential debates peppered with simple Econ 101 questions. His obfuscation would be on full display, fully blown.
Isn't that a great picture of his Excellency!
Snoopy would be jealous: "Here's the great President pondering the mystery of why high corporate taxes, over regulation and runaway spending are not restoring prosperity". Hmmmm?
Ben Stein was on Fox News just now, saying that Obama would win a second term because the GOP has no candidates to run against him!! THAT would be a nightmare!!
Now Japan is a country we should try to emulate. Fine. They also have employer mandated health insurance for their employees. As a result, their health care costs are approximately one-half of our's because their doctors and hospitals are not writing off approximately 20% of their charges because persons lack health insurance. Oh, and by the way, the Japanese have excellent, excellent medical care.
He's getting the clues, unfortunately they are the clues from Soros.
CL, in the spirit and memory of a few good Americans fighting the good fight 66 years ago, I would offer a suggestion to append "–the poor bastards" to your comment.
As Ron Paul asserted, Barack Obama is a corporatist (as was Mussolini). In his vision business works like this. You create giant oligopolies and monopolies in industries (because having a small number of companies controlling the market makes it easy to regulate from the top down). You then have Big Government sit down with Big Business and Big Unions and make rules. Then you can do things like have GE (who wants $ for Green Energy Research + Military contracts) buy 22,000 of the new GM Electric cars (which are over-market price by 10K) and kick them a tax credit for their trouble. Then use the propaganda chamber of the media to tout the big buy of elecrtic cars by GE as a signal that those cars are the in thing.
To Obama this is how it all works at the end of the day.
You are right, and so is Ben Stein.
That has concerned me, going back to 2008, and concerns me more with each passing day. The American public have short memories, and vote with the mindset "the devil you know, is better than the one you don't." It is cause for concern. Hopefully someone will step forward into the breech and fill the void. Huckabee, Newt, Romney or none of them impress me. Palin has the best chance, and she still hasn't sold me.
I stand corrected.
Comment appended.
I'd be willing to bet that story is Sharpton and Obama discussing how far and how quickly they should push their campaign to brand all dissenters as racists.
That whole tactic seemed to lose traction through overuse, for a while there, but I have noticed that it has been resurrected of late, mainly by Sharpton.
I think that – from their perspective – censorship of the media (the internet and talk radio, mainly) must be achieved by the end of 2011, to give them time enough to indoctrinate anyone who is wavering in their support (they probably realize that the TRUE Conservatives are out of reach, but the moderate Republicans, the Independents and the 'blue-dog' Democrats are all ripe for the picking, so long as there is no popular voice of dissent).
Justification for this censorship will come in the form of a three-pronged attack; silence the 'racists', ensure that 'wiki-gate' will never be repeated and ensure that every citizen has access to a 'balanced diet' of news reporting.
Dont forget: "We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership." ,"
-Barack Obama May 18, 2008
The problem is your consumption. Anything that makes it more expensive is good in the mind of your freakin' president!
FUBHO and Harry too!
I see I'm not the only one who's noticed that. Brutal, isn't it? It's like being on the kindergarten playground with a bully.
"Yeah, the MOST business unfirendly president in history. No hyperbole. That's only a PARTIAL list. Facts, douche bag, facts. They NEVER stand on the side of you libs."
As I stated…it was not stated must business unfriendly _president_ but person….now let's look at those facts, shall we
"mass unemployment"
Which began under bush…per standard employment and economic curves, the acceleration of it stopped and it is slowly reversing. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemploymen...
"completely destroyed contract law when he shafted GM shareholders"
Nope. There was no imperial edict here. This is what happened. The government offered money to the interested parties with the idea being to avoid bankruptcy. The bond holders rejected the offer. The government funded a guarantee for the warranty liabilities and issued a secured loan. The bond holders further refused offers to sell their contracts. GM filed chapter 11 in june of 2009 under section 363. That's why the bond holders got screwed. Read up on the precedent from say..adelphia. A 363 works like this:
1) bond holders think they'll get more from liquidation than from the pre filing offer
2) Under 363 a company (the debtor) can sell their assets to another company without creditor approval
3) secured lenders get squat now
Completely legal.
"rewarded unions at the expense of employers"
citation please…not sure exactly what you mean
"wants the highest tax structure on the planet"
I'm assuming you mean the corporate taxation rates? Or can you be more specific?
"imposed massively expensively Obamacare"
Agreed.
"imposes new regulation after new regulation"
Regulations aren't necessarily bad, correct?
"took over the banking system"
I think you mean rescued…
"trying to take over the food and internet"
Not necessarily bad for business
"wasted tax payers dollars on a "stimulus" bill that only stimulated public unions and rewarded political allies now calling for new taxes to get a "real" stimulus"
Do you remember the part where the country thought financial armageddon was upon them? Did argmageddon occur? Also, your results seem to be skewed. Estimates of the effect of the stimulus suggest it:
1) raised GDP 1.7 to 4.5 percent
2) lowered unemployment 0.7 to 1.8 percent
3) increased employment by 1.4 to 3.3 million people
4) increased FTEs by 2.0 to 4.8 million people
Are any of those results "real" stimulus?
"no reform of Fannie and Freddie"
How is that necessarily bad for business? Fannie and Freddie didn't seem to stop the larger secondary market from buying up all those MBSes and CDOs just prior to the crisis.
"Facts, douche bag, facts. They NEVER stand on the side of you libs."
No need to call names. We're having a discussion here. Oh yeah…those are facts above as well.
"Due to the fact that the topic of the thread is Obungles, it would be safe to surmise he is the topic of discussion"
Of course… he is the subject but when you compare to any one and don't limit it to presidents why should i make the assumption that you mean something different than what you wrote. Words have meanings. You should choose them carefully.
" Why would i argue about Chavez, or Castro, or even Ascmedinijad or Kim Jong Riki-tiki-tavi?"
Because you stated "He has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history. "…which … as written …is hyperbole.
Now, if you'd rather discuss concrete things…such as him being the worst US president ever for business that's fine. That's not hyperbole.
I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment.
Mr. Step-n-Fetchit Sharpton is there to carry the water. Watch as his role become more pronounced, as the voice, and the face for censorship.
Woodrow Wilson and FDR come immediately to mind.
Oh, I haven't forgotten. I haven't forgotten a single word that's come out of this rat-bastard's mouth.
I just hope we can find a candidate that remembers as well as I do, who will throw these words back in his face until he drowns in them.
Democrat Plantation.
"Jump down, turn around, pick a bale a cotton…………."
You and John both make excellent points. I am "hoping" that these are temporary obstacles that can, in the near future, be reversed through the Legislative process. We, as citizens, are doing our part. That needs to continue. Our elected officials will have to do the same or face the consequences.
In order for it to happen, we have to overcome the liberal mindset of class envy and get everyone to realize that a rising tide lifts ALL ships.
Maybe we should also emulate the way the Japanese educational system.
And also how they treat illegal immigrants.
Obama isn't stupid. I don't give him the benefit of any doubt anymore, he CLEARLY has malicious intent. What he is doing is deliberately destroying our capitalist system so that it CANT recover so that he can implement Neo National Socialism (referred to these days as "state capitalism").
The biggest difference between Obama and Carter is that Jimmah Carter truly WAS a bumbling fool. Obama is a true Marxist who APPEARS to be a bumbling fool because he has no experience whatsoever with conflict or adversity. He can't think on his feet which means he can't appear smooth when it can't be scripted with TOTUS.
As for corporate tax rates, one of the biggest fallacies out there, perpetuated by the left is that corporations pay taxes. They do not. Corporate taxes are paid by the CUSTOMERS, INVESTORS, and EMPLOYEES of corporations. Corporate taxes in the end do not gain the government any revenue, and in fact LOSES it revenue due to the inefficiency of the transfer payment process, costs of compliance, etc.
Set the corporation tax to ZERO, implement the flat tax or a national sales tax and watch prosperity rocket to never before seen heights. Which is the ONLY chance we have to ever pay down this massive debt that 80 years of socialism has created.
You know, you have all the intellectual heft of a flea. I actually pity you, not because you're "dumb," but because you "think" that you're clever.
Please, for the love of "gaia," stop embarrassing yourself.
Or nixon. He decreased defense spending from 9 to 6% (approximately) as well as introduced price and wage controls. Price and wage controls, huh? Isn't that kinda socialist? He also took us off the gold standard, devalued the dollar, and introduced a 10% tax on all imports. He introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act which would've required employers to purchase health insurance for employees (as well as introduce a voluntary national health insurance system).
So…yeah…nixon wasn't necessarily the best based on some metrics.
I do not want to emulate their educational system because it stifles creativity. However, I have no problem with cracking down on illegal immigration and it can begin with the persons who employee them.
If you can't beat them with facts, dazzle them with bullshit.
Personally, I'm not so dazzled.
Your rebuttal…it's so awash in evidence…how can i not be convinced?
Thanks for adding so much substance to the conversation and for the lovely personal attacks.
"He has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history."
The facts speak for themselves.
Here is hoping the next Congress can slow him down a bit.
Perhaps they do not know the definition of:
Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression,
Let's not lose sight of the fact that none of them operated in a vacuum. They ALL had plenty of help. And history will NOT be kind to any of them…provided that history is true and accurate.
Well now, that's just it. The "evidence" for my claims are provided in every one of YOUR comments.
But please, don't think of this as a "personal attack." Think of it as "tough love."
Remember, nobody can help you until you admit you have a problem.
BREAKING NEWS
The "dream" act has FAILED in its senate vote.
May the nightmare be over forever.
Seven Pillars of Liberalism
J ust Deny it
A lways Blame America
C inton Is Good, Perjury Is Very Bad
K ill Innocent Babies, Not Convicted Murders
A l Qaeda Has Rights, Christians Don't
S upport Our Troops By Rooting Against Them
S ocialism: There Is No Substitute!
The other thing is that history adds perspective. There have definitely been times when i've been on one side of the issue only to look at things historically and realize the merits of the other side.
Not to insult you, John, but I believe you have misunderstood my meaning here. In the spirit of fairness and honesty, What I'm saying is that the troll has a valid point here. That he is a troll is not sufficient reason to dismiss him. We must prove his statement wrong…and in this instance he is correct.
Oh I know! …aren’t we all so proud. You can just hear the parasites cheering, as corporations hit the exit door. Well done Washington…idiots!
OOOooo. I love a good conspiracy theory.
"Well now, that's just it. The "evidence" for my claims are provided in every one of YOUR comments. "
No…in a line of rebuttal, one would provide evidence, in this case, of how Obama "He has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history" is not hyperbole….which has not occurred…as I've provided no evidence supporting that in my comments.
"But please, don't think of this a "personal attack." Think of it as "tough love." "
Saying someone has the intellectual heft of a flea is a personal attack…and hyperbole.
"Remember, nobody can help you until you admit you have a problem."
The problem which is… ? Attempting to reason with those who can't seem to follow the basic rules of logic? Or is there some thing more specific? Are you suggesting that saying Obama "has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history" is not hyperbole?
The Tea Party electee's have not even arrived yet and they are already slaying D.C. Pork Delegation. They are like Jihaadist's around Pork….Just wait till they get sworn in….Here Piggy Piggy.
It's also a fact that he's not the first one to do ANY of that…so to say he's the worst ever IS hyperbole. Given all the things you've listed, why do we still feel the need to exaggerate and massage the truth? Are his sins not numerous and heinous enough already that we have to sink to that level? Why don't we just start calling him the anti-Christ? Will that elevate our argument?
<sarc>The amnesty and enforcement mandated by the legislation of 1986 worked so well, I can't understand why all the gub'ment weenies did not fall into line for a do-over? </sarc>
Hindsight is usually 20-20, if you're not wearing rose-colored glasses. We will no doubt find ourselves on opposite sides of the issues soon enough, but truth is truth no matter who utters it. I don't think that the conservative argument can be served by exaggeration and distortion. You were right to point it out. It is completely unnecessary and counter-productive for us to embellish upon the existing facts.
Yes, I've noticed!
"Saying someone has the intellectual heft of a flea is a personal attack…and hyperbole."
Not if it's true.
"The problem which is… ? Attempting to reason with those who can't seem to follow the basic rules of logic? Or is there some thing more specific?"
The problem is that you waste an inordinate amount of time arguing what is, or isn't, "hyperbole." As if it's some new word you've just learned and want to show off to everyone around. It doesn't advance the debate, has no intellectual value, and it shows you as like a precocious child trying to interrupt an adult conversation.
But even that is not the real problem. The real problem is you don't even know that's how you appear.
" Why would i argue about Chavez, or Castro, or even Ascmedinijad or Kim Jong Riki-tiki-tavi?" Because you stated "He has done more to thwart good business, than anyone in history"
Because, in your lieberal, twisted, sub conscience mind, these world anti-American thugs are your heros!
"and in this instance he is correct"
On what, the "hyperbole" thing? I'd say it's not a matter of it being a "valid" point, but whether it's a "substantive" point. I put the value of that conversation at about the level of correcting someone's spelling. Technically valid, substantively worthless.
"Not if it's true. "
You're absolutely correct; however, it's an obvious exaggeration; therefore, not true.
" It doesn't advance the debate, has no intellectual value, and it shows you as like a precocious child trying to interrupt an adult conversation. "
Very much like using hyperbole in debates and discussions…
"But even that is not the real problem. The real problem is you don't even know that's how you appear."
How you can be the judge of what I know? I know I look like a stickler for details. I am.
I would react in the same way if someone comes on (if I read it) and says "Sarah Palin is the stupidest woman in the world". It's wrong. I would like to see these boards provide a place to have a valuable exchange of ideas. If these boards are instead a place to simply call names and spew rhetoric, I'll willingly leave, but I don't think that's what people necessarily want (not me leaving..i know most would like that)
I would argue that it is substantively pertinent for the following reason. Gratuitously exaggerating the facts force us to defend these patently false statements at a later date…thereby giving our opponents precious ammunition with which to ridicule our position.
Case in point…this entire thread would not even exist if not for that one exaggeration. And yes…correct spelling and grammar are also important, and words do have meaning.
We're just going to have to disagree on this point, I suppose.
"Because, in your lieberal, twisted, sub conscience mind, these world anti-American thugs are your heros!"
No, they're not….again…you don't know what I think about most things. In thinking you know, you simply show your igorance as to the subject.
You're right CL! I am not impressed with even one of the people you mentioned…Palin would be my first pick, but she doesn't stand a chance against the msm!! They would destroy her before she got off the ground!
All right, I will give you points for trying to be civil. Very unusual for libs here. I don't have time to address these line by line, plus this site only lets me type in about 3 paragraphs per post, a known bug. I'll get to these later.
Regarding the stimulus, start here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/net_j...
then here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/new_s...
Then there's this:
The stimulus's additions to the deficit:
In 2009: $180 billion
In 2010: $392 billion
Cumulative 2009-2019: $814 billion
All funding (including non-military) for the Iraq War in 2008 (peak year): $140 billion
Cumulative Iraq War spending, 2003-2010: $709 billion
This is the best overall summary:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/two_years_...
Thanks for the update. It wasn't entirely unexpected though. The Senate GOP said they would oppose it. We'll call this one a show of good faith to the American people. They could just as easily have back stabbed us…and they didn't. I guess enough of those Senate Dems were up for re-election next cycle to make the difference.
I probably shouldn't say this before Jan 5th, but that isn't going to save them.
I agree the stimulus was extremely expensive. I also believe that the financial crisis was probably going to be the worst since probably the great depression (based on estimates, etc. at the time)…but because of the stimulus (although as expensive as hell) the impact was greatly diminished. Of course the problem with these issues is it always becomes a "what if" that nobody can really say for certain.
Also, are you suggesting that the GDP and employment numbers I gave are false?
Interesting links btw (on the americanthinker site)
"We're just going to have to disagree on this point, I suppose."
That's cool. No two people agree on everything. Unless they're liberals that is. But that's another subject.
As for spelling and grammar, I agree they are important. On that subject, I put myself in the same league as Rush Limbaugh, "I'm right, 98.7% of the time."
: ))
Surrrre. You brainless lieberals display the same mentality as a BB lost in a box of Corn Flakes.
Now THIS is a nice way to end a discussion! Thanks for the DREAM update. Have a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!
You've tended to use simple name calling and rhetoric…what sort of mentality do you think that displays?
The only objective of all these upcoming Obama statements made on the air and in press releases,…..
will be to make him sound presidential and pro American for the next two years.
You see folks, he has already accomplished his mission by having,……….
diverted billions of our money to locations in order to finance future progressive leftist endeavors and,….
has planted hundreds of progressive operatives in key government positions.
I sure hope Issa is good at playing dodge ball because,……
they are going to throw a lot of shit at him
You lieberals are classic examples of how the dinosaurs survived for millions of years with walnut-sized brains.
"………..with the persons who employee them.,…."
",..employee,.."???????
oops I think you just hit a "soar" note there Bo.
"……..I do not want to emulate their educational system because it stifles creativity.,…."
I would rather they first learn how to spell,………"creativity"
As I've suggested…name calling. Keep going..you obviously have so much to contribute.
The Shariah TimeBombs explodes in the Wrong Direction…as always. It's well past time to take him out of the game. This fool Black POTUS…the FIRST Black POTUS…who submits, bows and kisses the ring of a freaking Saudi Muslim terrorist and King….FU_K OBlammma and all his rats borewormed within our FED with salaries in excess of $180,000 annual…Black Friday approaches…
I too will complement you on your attempts to converse in a civil manner…
Now to take a quick pass on your points. Please excuse, if you will, any formatting, grammar, and/or spelling errors. I'm a bit rushed this afternoon.
It may be a problem on my end, but I can not get your Google link to display the BLS data that is supposed to be at the BLS link in the properties of your link. Instead, I went straight to the BLS site and after a bit of poking around, I found ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
I also noticed that the unemployment rate fluctuated from 4.0% in 2000 to as high as 6.0% in 2003 then back down to 4.6% in 2006 and 2007 before it began to rise again in 2008. Wasn’t this the first full year of Democratic control of both houses of Congress?
If I recall correctly, the unsecured bond holders, mutual fund investors, individual investors and the like received something like 1% on their GM investments while the UAW walked away with approximately a 40% stake in the new/improved government motors. Was the maneuver legal? Yeah. Was it ethical? Not even close. And when much of GM’s problems stemmed from union pension liabilities, this taxpayer funded reorganization of the breakup, through the dealership closure selections, to the taxpayer funded rebates for purchasing a Volt, on to the funny money transfers touting debt repayment, to the IPO certainly fails the smell test.
Again I am dragging this from the top of my head and will stand corrected if/when hard data is presented to refute my recollections.
Continued, due to length, in next comment.
Cont:
Not that I can answer for anyone other than myself, but I would point out the new UAW ownership of the company as a possible answer to that question.
Some regulation is necessary as are laws for the common good of groups of people trying to live in an orderly society. The debate becomes, how much regulation and for what reasons. The scope of this issue has been argued for a very long time. I will not consume my afternoon getting balled up in the minutia of regulations, how much on what and why, but I would imagine that few sane people want to live in a lawless population just as no one wants burdened with excessive laws on, say, what you have to buy, from whom, what you can and can not eat, having you ability to speak freely regulated by bureaucratic sycophants, etc., etc., etc.
Ah, we’re back to regulation or maybe we should say the lack of enforcement of ample regulation that shoulda, coulda, woulda prevented the crisis in the first place, if only…
I would ask you how on earth having the bureaucratic cluster- <insert appropriate verb here> control your diet and access to information could possibly be beneficial to, much less desirable for, anyone other than someone interested in controlling others, but I’ll admit that I would not be in the slightest bit interested in any attempt to justify such. nonsense.
#1) Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the third quarter of 2010,(that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
But hey, what a couple of percentage points among friends when the gub’ment calculates the inflation rate by excluding food and energy costs?
#2) What? That’s not what I see in various locations, like this one -> http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_ra...
#3) private sector jobs? Would you cite the source for that figure?
#4) In light of -> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf I’d be more inclined to call it treading water…
I’ve not the time to go on a Fanny or Freddy tangent. The boss tells me I have to hook up the trailer to the old pick-'em up go to the feed store, so I can’t play any more this afternoon. But I’ll check in this evening, if possible.
Join the Flat Earth Society. It'll be just your speed.
"I also noticed that the unemployment rate fluctuated from 4.0% in 2000 to as high as 6.0% in 2003 then back down to 4.6% in 2006 and 2007 before it began to rise again in 2008. Wasn’t this the first full year of Democratic control of both houses of Congress? "
Sure…but i think that's more correlation than causation. The housing market had peaked just prior, the defaults were beginning to accelerate (it was pretty bad in late 2006 and in 2007it increase 79% to almost1.3 million properties), and I believe interest rates had been creeping up steadily since.
"If I recall correctly, the unsecured bond holders, mutual fund investors, individual investors and the like received something like 1% on their GM investments while the UAW walked away with approximately a 40% stake in the new/improved government motors."
Correct…but that's because of how the 363 proceedings went. The UAW was part of the agreement/negotiations with how the assets were being sold/purchased where the bond holders fought it to the bitter end.
"Was the maneuver legal? Yeah. Was it ethical? Not even close."
I think I'd probably agree with that. I think we'd all be singing a different tune should the bond holders had accepted the offer of $0.33 on the dollar for their bonds.
"And when much of GM’s problems stemmed from union pension liabilities, this taxpayer funded reorganization of the breakup, through the dealership closure selections, to the taxpayer funded rebates for purchasing a Volt, on to the funny money transfers touting debt repayment, to the IPO certainly fails the smell test. "
Also, the health care obligations…actually i've never seen a breakdown of GM debt and obligations…hmm..
You must be logged in to post a comment.