A promising sign that Dems and the admin understand the election results, how to really govern and want to move to the center!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    A promising sign that Dems and the admin understand the election results, how to really govern and want to move to the center!

    WASHINGTON — With both parties positioning for difficult negotiations to avert a fiscal crisis as Congress returns for its lame-duck session, Democrats are latching on to an idea floated by Mitt Romney to raise taxes on the rich through a hard cap on income tax deductions.

    The proposal by Mr. Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, was envisioned to help pay for an across-the-board income tax cut, a move ridiculed by President Obama as window dressing to a “sketchy deal.” But many Democrats now see it as an important element of a potential deficit reduction agreement — and one they can claim to be bipartisan.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/49803756/

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Reagan was a genius.  We should put the income tax (for high and low earners), the capital gains tax, and corporate tax rates back to the percentages that he set-up under his administration.  Sound good? 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Reagan was a genius.  We should put the income tax (for high and low earners), the capital gains tax, and corporate tax rates back to the percentages that he set-up under his administration.  Sound good? 

    [/QUOTE]


    The world has changed!

    You cant have the second highest corporate tax in the world (behind only Japan) and then complain about companies leaving!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    second highest corporate tax

    I see. Jump to nominal rate when effective rate doesn't help you out. Very honest. Typical tvoter "honesty".

    [/QUOTE]


    So, you LIED when you said you werent opening my posts any longer......crap!!

    btw: the nominal rate is what most small business pays!!

    Taxation is exactly why businesses move over seas or do not establish here along with payrolls costs for manufacturing. In the global economy we are losing!!

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Taxation is exactly why businesses move over seas or do not establish here along with payrolls costs for manufacturing. In the global economy we are losing!!

     [/QUOTE]


    Some would say they were just greedy, selfish and care not a whit for properly contributing to the society that nurtured and supported them.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Funny thing is we are all greedy and selfish at some level, yet we get up in arms when companies want to make profits. 

    BWT, A company that employs people in this country IS contributing to the society that nutured and supported them. The company supplies job to people who then spend money on goods and service and round and round we go

    [/QUOTE]

    Not when they improperly stash their profits overseas and don't share it with their employees - the folks who actually do the work.

    Companies are not people, no matter what the Citizens United ruling says.  A person acting in his/her own self-interest is not the same as a company doing it, no matter what the stakes.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Funny thing is we are all greedy and selfish at some level, yet we get up in arms when companies want to make profits. 

    BWT, A company that employs people in this country IS contributing to the society that nutured and supported them. The company supplies job to people who then spend money on goods and service and round and round we go

    [/QUOTE]

    Not when they improperly stash their profits overseas and don't share it with their employees - the folks who actually do the work.

    Companies are not people, no matter what the Citizens United ruling says.  A person acting in his/her own self-interest is not the same as a company doing it, no matter what the stakes.

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Funny thing is we are all greedy and selfish at some level, yet we get up in arms when companies want to make profits. 

    BWT, A company that employs people in this country IS contributing to the society that nutured and supported them. The company supplies job to people who then spend money on goods and service and round and round we go

    [/QUOTE]

    Not when they improperly stash their profits overseas and don't share it with their employees - the folks who actually do the work.

    Companies are not people, no matter what the Citizens United ruling says.  A person acting in his/her own self-interest is not the same as a company doing it, no matter what the stakes.

     [/QUOTE]


    Companies will pay and provide the benefits it takes to maintain a productive work force. PERIOD!

    Unions are largely responsible for jobs going overseas because companies cannot stay competitive in many markets by providing extremely generous lifelong benefits and pay while having little or no control over production standards or those that do meet minimum standards!

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    The last time a President won re-election, 2004, that President stated "I earned politcal capital with this election and I intend to spend it."

    That President won 286 Electoral votes and beat his challenger by 2.4% of the vote.

    If 286 Electoral votes and a 2.4% margin of victory was good for "Politcal Capital" in 2004, I'm sure the same logic applies in 2012 for 330 Electoral votes and a 2.8% margin of victory.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    The last time a President won re-election, 2004, that President stated "I earned politcal capital with this election and I intend to spend it."

    That President won 286 Electoral votes and beat his challenger by 2.4% of the vote.

    If 286 Electoral votes and a 2.4% margin of victory was good for "Politcal Capital" in 2004, I'm sure the same logic applies in 2012 for 330 Electoral votes and a 2.8% margin of victory.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    The last time a President won re-election, 2004, that President stated "I earned politcal capital with this election and I intend to spend it."

    That President won 286 Electoral votes and beat his challenger by 2.4% of the vote.

    If 286 Electoral votes and a 2.4% margin of victory was good for "Politcal Capital" in 2004, I'm sure the same logic applies in 2012 for 330 Electoral votes and a 2.8% margin of victory.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    The President has absolutely won capital!

    He did not gain control of the house so, THE FACT is he will either LEAD towards compromise or he WILL find gridlock!

    The saying goes: the only right you have won is the right to fail; everything else must still be earned!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The last time a President won re-election, 2004, that President stated "I earned politcal capital with this election and I intend to spend it."

    That President won 286 Electoral votes and beat his challenger by 2.4% of the vote.

    If 286 Electoral votes and a 2.4% margin of victory was good for "Politcal Capital" in 2004, I'm sure the same logic applies in 2012 for 330 Electoral votes and a 2.8% margin of victory.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're assuming Bush was correct in his statement. Funny, how you never took anything he said in the past serious except of course for this right? Transparent indeed!

    [/QUOt

    Correct or incorrect is irrelevant.  It is about the double standard.  You and I both know if Romney had won by 1 vote, he would be moving forward with his agenda, whatever it was, and the same people saying "Obama didn't win by enough" would not be saying "Romney didn't win by enough".  Sore losers.  Plain and Simple.

    Both candidates incessently said this election was about "clear choices", "2 different visions", ect.... Just because the people chose the other guy, doesn't mean it still wasn't a clear choice between 2 different visions. 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The last time a President won re-election, 2004, that President stated "I earned politcal capital with this election and I intend to spend it."

    That President won 286 Electoral votes and beat his challenger by 2.4% of the vote.

    If 286 Electoral votes and a 2.4% margin of victory was good for "Politcal Capital" in 2004, I'm sure the same logic applies in 2012 for 330 Electoral votes and a 2.8% margin of victory.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're assuming Bush was correct in his statement. Funny, how you never took anything he said in the past serious except of course for this right? Transparent indeed!

    [/QUOt

    Correct or incorrect is irrelevant.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why'd you bring it up? 

    [/QUOTE]


    You must dominate the 2nd grade debate circuit.

    To answer your question,  read the rest of my post.  History will judge the 'correctness'.  Whether or not capital is earned, is not up for the loser to decide because the people have spoken.  I suspect this fact will be lost by many of the Extremists on the obstrunctionist Right wing.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Funny thing is we are all greedy and selfish at some level, yet we get up in arms when companies want to make profits. 

    BWT, A company that employs people in this country IS contributing to the society that nutured and supported them. The company supplies job to people who then spend money on goods and service and round and round we go

    [/QUOTE]

    Not when they improperly stash their profits overseas and don't share it with their employees - the folks who actually do the work.

    Companies are not people, no matter what the Citizens United ruling says.  A person acting in his/her own self-interest is not the same as a company doing it, no matter what the stakes.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, I assume these people don't work for free so it's a fact that these companies are supplying jobs to people to pay for goods and services. Not to mention health benefits and retirement benefits. 

    The company that keeps more profit will have more money to help stay in business and maybe even grow. Which in turns means helping to keep those jobs that people need in order to survive. So I have no problem when they legally stash profits overseas. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I believe that's contradictory.  To my knowledge, companies can't expatriate money and then bring it back to invest here at home, else it would get taxed (as it should).  At that point, it's just an off-shore holding, earning interest but still collecting dust, as it were.

    And if I'm not mistaken, the last time they tried a repatriation tax exemption during the Bush II years, the effect on the overall economy was very small.

    That said, I think it's still worth pursuing an incentive, as POTUS outlined, to get companies to bring some of those squirreled funds back to re-invest in america's future if they're willing to create jobs here.

    Labor costs are a bit different than profit sharing...with the latter part of my point that growth drives profits....

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Funny thing is we are all greedy and selfish at some level, yet we get up in arms when companies want to make profits. 

    BWT, A company that employs people in this country IS contributing to the society that nutured and supported them. The company supplies job to people who then spend money on goods and service and round and round we go

    [/QUOTE]

    Not when they improperly stash their profits overseas and don't share it with their employees - the folks who actually do the work.

    Companies are not people, no matter what the Citizens United ruling says.  A person acting in his/her own self-interest is not the same as a company doing it, no matter what the stakes.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, I assume these people don't work for free so it's a fact that these companies are supplying jobs to people to pay for goods and services. Not to mention health benefits and retirement benefits. 

    The company that keeps more profit will have more money to help stay in business and maybe even grow. Which in turns means helping to keep those jobs that people need in order to survive. So I have no problem when they legally stash profits overseas. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I believe that's contradictory.  To my knowledge, companies can't expatriate money and then bring it back to invest here at home, else it would get taxed (as it should).  At that point, it's just an off-shore holding, earning interest but still collecting dust, as it were.

    And if I'm not mistaken, the last time they tried a repatriation tax exemption during the Bush II years, the effect on the overall economy was very small.

    That said, I think it's still worth pursuing an incentive, as POTUS outlined, to get companies to bring some of those squirreled funds back to re-invest in america's future if they're willing to create jobs here.

    Labor costs are a bit different than profit sharing...with the latter part of my point that growth drives profits....

     

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Funny thing is we are all greedy and selfish at some level, yet we get up in arms when companies want to make profits. 

    BWT, A company that employs people in this country IS contributing to the society that nutured and supported them. The company supplies job to people who then spend money on goods and service and round and round we go

    [/QUOTE]

    Not when they improperly stash their profits overseas and don't share it with their employees - the folks who actually do the work.

    Companies are not people, no matter what the Citizens United ruling says.  A person acting in his/her own self-interest is not the same as a company doing it, no matter what the stakes.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, I assume these people don't work for free so it's a fact that these companies are supplying jobs to people to pay for goods and services. Not to mention health benefits and retirement benefits. 

    The company that keeps more profit will have more money to help stay in business and maybe even grow. Which in turns means helping to keep those jobs that people need in order to survive. So I have no problem when they legally stash profits overseas. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I believe that's contradictory.  To my knowledge, companies can't expatriate money and then bring it back to invest here at home, else it would get taxed (as it should).  At that point, it's just an off-shore holding, earning interest but still collecting dust, as it were.

    And if I'm not mistaken, the last time they tried a repatriation tax exemption during the Bush II years, the effect on the overall economy was very small.

    That said, I think it's still worth pursuing an incentive, as POTUS outlined, to get companies to bring some of those squirreled funds back to re-invest in america's future if they're willing to create jobs here.

    Labor costs are a bit different than profit sharing...with the latter part of my point that growth drives profits....

     

     

     

Share