GOP pledge to america

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Since you are unable to answer a yes or no question the crickets are still chirping...

The way the bill is worded no, I do not support it. What do you want? Do you want American companies to not be able to compete with foriegn ones? The only way for that bill to work is if all imports to the US were taxed the same so that they are the same price.

American companies would have to move back to the US because they simply could not compete price wise with other foriegn companies. They would then only be able to compete in the US market and not the global one. Of course, the question begs, why would they not just revoke their US citizenship?

Originally posted by whodey
The way the bill is worded no, I do not support it. What do you want? Do you want American companies to not be able to compete with foriegn ones? The only way for that bill to work is if all imports to the US were taxed the same so that they are the same price.

American companies would have to move back to the US because they simply could not compete ...[text shortened]... global one. Of course, the question begs, why would they not just revoke their US citizenship?

So, as I said, you support the anti-working people policies of the Republican party. Just another Republican trying to give them cover by whining on and on about the tea party. If that is the policies of the tea party then why would anyone in their right mind waste a vote on the tea party? A vote for the so called 'tea party' is in fact a vote for the same tired old Republican policies that plunged this county into a depression. The leadership and the funding and the policies of the tea party is in fact Republican.

(BTW - the bill just proposes to no longer give tax cuts to companies that are outsourcing. If it is so advantageous to pull jobs out of America and away from Americans then they certainly don't need a tax break to do so. But, if you care more about their profits (as all Republicans do) then I can see why that policy would be so attractive, Republican. The so called 'Tea party' is a complete sham. If it quacks and quacks it should be clear even to a blockhead what it is.)

Originally posted by whodey
But neither Republican nor Democrat will put out overseas.

In addition, what about other government cuts? Why is it that the left is preoccupied with it but mention other cuts and they act as if people will begin to die in the streets?

Because the left is polarized just like the right and both sides are so busy pushing an agenda that they prefer to shout party propaganda with their fists in the air.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So, as I said, you support the anti-working people policies of the Republican party. Just another Republican trying to give them cover by whining on and on about the tea party. If that is the policies of the tea party then why would anyone in their right mind waste a vote on the tea party? A vote for the so called 'tea party' is in fact a vote for the complete sham. If it quacks and quacks it should be clear even to a blockhead what it is.)

As I said, the bill appears to tax US companies overseas at US corporate rates. This would then negate one of the benefits for them going overseas that is true, but it would also make it increasingly hard to compete with foriegn companies. To help fix this problem, perhaps foriegn goods could be taxed so that both foriegn goods and US goods cost the same so that people will not favor the cheaper foreign products. Of course, this fixes the issue of products coming into the US, but what of other goods internationally?

To sum up, the bill as written appears to dampen the competitiveness of US companies abraod. So if this bill reduced the number of businesses in the US would it be worth it?

On a different note, why do you protest money going overseas? After all, don't foriegners need jobs as well? I don't see any on the left up in arms as illegals cross the border in droves receiving free health care at tax payer expense and being schooled at tax payer expense yet you are all up in arms as they take American jobs? I just don't get it.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said, the bill appears to tax US companies overseas at US corporate rates. This would then negate one of the benefits for them going overseas that is true, but it would also make it increasingly hard to compete with foriegn companies. To help fix this problem, perhaps foriegn goods could be taxed so that both foriegn goods and US goods cost the same so ...[text shortened]... ax payer expense yet you are all up in arms as they take American jobs? I just don't get it.

whodey: I just don't get it

You sure don't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is government spending really a "big concern" to voters this November? Only 7% cite the budget deficit as the "most important problem facing this country" according to Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/143135/Economy-Jobs-Easily-Top-Problems-Americans-Minds.aspx

It appears that the economy/jobs are by far America's biggest concerns.

...[text shortened]... t, there is plenty of discretionary spending esp. in National Offense that could be cut.

Jobs, and the economy, have to be linked to excessive government spending.

What reflects adversely on the Democrats is that they beat the drum on Bush's spending and deficits, but they've had Congress for four years and the White house for two, and all they've done is make Bush look like a cheapskate.

Their hypocracy on taxation is front and center as well, because it is now abundantly clear that Bush's tax cuts "for the rich" were mostly for the poor and middle class. And finally, the spectre of "cap and trade" taxation, and/or VAT taxes and no cosideration of any spending cuts is bad news for anyone looking for a job, or economic growth.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course the immediate concern are jobs. However, the bottom line is that Americans are sick of federal spending and ballooning deficits. Americans know that the higher the spending goes the bigger load working Americans will have to carry. Soon that load may be to such an extent that working does not really seem worth while.

I started another thread t ...[text shortened]... dea of what they are voting for because if they did, they would in no way vote for these smucks.

Spending is a huge concern to most Americans, more so if you are old enough to have a sense of history.

Tax increases might temporarily reduce deficits, but Congress has always demonstrated an ability to outspend any increases in revenue. In fact a balanced budget, or a surplus is bad news. Why? The last time we had a surplus (budget that is) there was a mad rush to spend the non existent money.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But since the Tea Party is just a proxy of the GOP that isn't going to happen.

Partly, you are correct, except that the Tea Party isn't going along with the GOP leadership, and is actively showing an ability to prune of branches that aren't principled conservatives.

The Tea Party is altering what the "mainstream" of the GOP is.

Originally posted by normbenign
Jobs, and the economy, have to be linked to excessive government spending.

What reflects adversely on the Democrats is that they beat the drum on Bush's spending and deficits, but they've had Congress for four years and the White house for two, and all they've done is make Bush look like a cheapskate.

Their hypocracy on taxation is front and center ation of any spending cuts is bad news for anyone looking for a job, or economic growth.

It's hardly "abundantly clear that Bush's tax cuts "for the rich" were mostly for the poor and middle class"; it is abundantly clear that you have little knowledge of where the benefits of these cuts accrued. In fact, 31% of the benefits went to the top 1% of taxpayers and more than 50% went to the top 10% of taxpayers, so unless they are regarded as "poor and middle class" your claim is simple BS.

EDIT: I was a bit off; more than 50% went to the top 5% of taxpayers:

Half of all the Bush tax cuts went to the top 5% of households, while the bottom 60% of households shared only 15% of the Bush tax cut crumbs between them. Instead of the promised trickle-down, we got stagnant wages for middle class Americans while the wealthy became fabulously wealthy. We now have the greatest economic disparity in wealth since just before the Great Depression.

http://www.faireconomy.org/bushtaxcuts

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Likewise, it is extremely hard to take anything the teabaggers say seriously because they have presented no plan and have no plans to present. Exactly like who? O yeah, the Republicans that are the funders of the 'movement.' They exist only to take advantage of ill-informed voters (the independents) by hiding the fact that their candidates are just Rep ...[text shortened]... intention of ever stating a positive opinion on anything. The crickets are still chirping...

Do I take it that you are one of those "ill informed" independents?

The problem is that the Tea Party has presented too many plans, and all of them involve unraveling the power that has been improperly granted the Federal government.

"The only goal is to continue the long term plan of robbing the treasury so the middle class has no resources to defend themselves from lower and lower wages and less jobs."

Good lord. Check on the antenae on that tin foil hat. Robbing the treasury? What are the resourses in the treasury which you have access to? How do these resources defend you from lower wages?

On limiting corporations, do you really think that government bureaucrats know more about their business than they do? Several decades ago, Nike exported about 400 jobs making shoes to Indonesia. Go check Nike's payroll today.

That bill got killed because of bipartisan opposition to it because it was bad legislation.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Whining is NOT doing something. Whining will not 'put food on a family.'

This is what they ARE doing:

---
DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom.

“(When I said those things, ...[text shortened]... either 'Yes, I support it.' or 'No, I do not.'😉

The crickets are still chirping...

"DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom."

And you want people flaunting their morality (contrary to yours) teaching your children. They can do what they want, but they will not flaunt it or pretent it's good in front of my children or grandchildren.

That is a far cry from imposing religion on others. They gay and immoral are the ones attempting to "openly" advocate their lifestyle and morality, and imposing a gag order on the rest of us. Before you go caling me a fundy, religious nut, save it. I'm an atheist, but my beliefs are private and my own. I don't try to force them on others. Now if only those who think they can invent their own morality would keep that to themselves.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's hardly "abundantly clear that Bush's tax cuts "for the rich" were mostly for the poor and middle class"; it is abundantly clear that you have little knowledge of where the benefits of these cuts accrued. In fact, 31% of the benefits went to the top 1% of taxpayers and more than 50% went to the top 10% of taxpayers, so unless they are regarded as "po ...[text shortened]... wealth since just before the Great Depression.

http://www.faireconomy.org/bushtaxcuts

There is not doubt that the total dollar amounts favored higher earners. That is simply because the tax code before the cuts was so heavily weighted against them. The top 1% and top 5% have always paid the lions share of income taxes. Tax cuts allow people to keep their own money. They don't give government money to various income groups. The Bush cuts made the rates more progressive, not less.

The facts are simple. The lower your marginal rate, the greater percentage tax cut you got from W's cuts. Those paying no taxes got the biggest percentage returned, and in their case it wasn't even their money.
The dollar amounts reflect how badly you were being soaked before.

Continuing with current policy, even Bush's, will ultimately result in two classes, those who pay, and those who receive benefits. Close to 50% pay no taxes. When the number creeeps above 50%, there will be no restraining taxations as the beneficiaries will be able to demand anything from the producers, at which point producers will simply stop producing. Atlas will shrug.

Originally posted by normbenign
There is not doubt that the total dollar amounts favored higher earners. That is simply because the tax code before the cuts was so heavily weighted against them. The top 1% and top 5% have always paid the lions share of income taxes. Tax cuts allow people to keep their own money. They don't give government money to various income groups. The Bush cu from the producers, at which point producers will simply stop producing. Atlas will shrug.

This is a lot of nonsense. Throughout most of the 20th Century the top marginal rates were far above the 39.6% at the start of the Bush administration. In fact, most of the time they were at 77% or higher.(http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213) Somehow "producers kept producing"; in fact, from 1947-1975 median household incomes more than doubled even after adjusting for inflation.

Having an ideology that is at odds with the facts must make you feel a bit silly.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said, the bill appears to tax US companies overseas at US corporate rates. This would then negate one of the benefits for them going overseas that is true, but it would also make it increasingly hard to compete with foriegn companies. To help fix this problem, perhaps foriegn goods could be taxed so that both foriegn goods and US goods cost the same so ax payer expense yet you are all up in arms as they take American jobs? I just don't get it.

So, points for answering the question for once but I could get the same answer from the Republican National Committee. My point stands: there is no difference between the so called 'Tea Party' and the Republican Party. The are in fact the same thing. There is absolutely no reason to cast a vote for a 'Tea Party' candidate unless you are already a Republican and were satisfied with the 8 years of Bush because that is exactly what you'll get from the 'Tea Party.' If you want something different then you need to find someone else to vote for because the 'Tea' is just the same old 'Elephant Urine' you've been served before.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So, points for answering the question for once but I could get the same answer from the Republican National Committee. My point stands: there is no difference between the so called 'Tea Party' and the Republican Party. The are in fact the same thing. There is absolutely no reason to cast a vote for a 'Tea Party' candidate unless you are already a Republ r because the 'Tea' is just the same old 'Elephant Urine' you've been served before.

Why would any party want to reduce the number of American businesses? I contend that this is what the bill would do because I oppose it. Secondly, I am not the Tea Party despite your high opinion of me. Perhaps some do and have a different view of this. As for why I have said I oppose it, I have heard nothing from you in terms of a rebuttal.

Lets call a spade a spade, shall we? The Democrats introduced this bill knowing that people are all up in arms about not having jobs. So they dangle it in front of the masses knowing that the Republicans would be appalled at its business killing potential. They would then have something to run on as they point to the Republicans as the problem. After all, its not like they are going to run on anything else they have done. What are they going to do? Are they going to run on the continuing wars abroad, or the great economy, or Obamacare? In short, they have nothing to point to and be proud of.