i didnt ask what you thought of the source. is the info they put up correct? and when i googled us corporate taxes and used that link, there were plemty of other with the same story. i guess they are all biased?

if the releases are correct and over half the $300 billion is dedicated to extending unemployment benefits and payroll taxes this is more of another giveaway rather than a job creator.

The first $800 plus billion package failed. To propose it again shows the true purpose of this President and it has little to do with jobs and less to do with the financial condition of the country.

Less than two months ago he was crying he’d be unable to pay seniors and the military their benefits and pay despite the fact they've paid and or worked for them unless we raised the debt ceiling. Now having $1.2 trillion more he can't keep himself from throwing their money away once again all in less than a couple months. Sorry this is dead on arrival.

BTW even as a Bear fan, I'll watch the Packer pre-game show that NBC Milwaukee has chosen to air over the hot air coming out of the President.

If he came to WI and visited one of the many reservations I suspect he'd be given the Indian name Lame Duck.

Posting **** from the Internet to support your position is a joke. Anyone that can type can find hundreds of "articles" supporting thier position. Talk to me in a year when we are NO better off and are 300 more million in debt.

No, it did not fail. I recently posted multiple financial analytic sources that say yes, it created plenty of jobs.

Give potential employers an incentive say $2K for every new hire, payable after 2 years employment. That $300 billion would represent a minimum of 15 million jobs if collected. (Or 40 million jobs for $800 billion which shows just how much the first stimulus failed.) It would also reward successful companies in that they would be the ones needing and hiring new employees. As an additional bonus, the incentive would be due in two years. No immediate outlay of any cash, thus no new financial burden for the American taxpayer today and for years to come.

With the added personal income and payroll taxes over two years employment more than covering the $300 billion or any portion collected, it's sure-fire.

But that will never happen with this guy because jobs are far down on the list of priorities as demonstrated by this newest giveaway.

well, at any rate thanks for answering my questions about the corporate tax rates.
oh, wait...you didn't.
and i also don't want us to be no better off and 300 more million or billion in debt in a year. that we agree on.

Brilliant right wing rag..

They brought you the Savings and Loan collapse in the 80's,LTCM,Enron,Worldcom in the 90's, Internet Bubble,and brought theworld to near financial collapse in th 00's. Received massive bailouts and proceeded to give bonuses to those that caused the collapse. Now they are saying reduce my tax rates becuase I will bring jobs back. And like a beaten spouse you say they have changed, this time it will be different. It scares me that they allow you to vote.

You ask me if our corporate tax rates are too high and I ask you if countries with lower rates have all the loopholes that allow corps to pay no taxes and get massive refunds. If you give them the option of cutting their rate in half with Zero deductions or the current system, what so you think they will choose? They probably will ask for both becaue without it they can't create
jobs. :zz:

Wow you found a fuking editorial that agrees with your position. I am truly impressed.

all business did that?

at any rate, i appreciate you taking digs at me rather than answering the simple question. thanks for staying above board with your debate skills. of course, i don't recall you saying such things during the times i held the same opinion as yourself on an issue being discussed.
i'm taking it that you know our corporate rates are indeed higher than other countries since you didn't just say yay or nay. i have no doubt that when businesses look in this direction, see that number, that they don't just go elsewhere, rather than see if they can beat the system.
i have no doubt that businesses who say they left because of the tax rate are just making that up since it makes no sense. why leave if they could exploit all those loopholes and pay less? matter of fact, if it's so easy to buck the sytem, why aren't more companies moving here to reap all those rewards?


moving on...what do we need to do to generate jobs? small businesses are hurting, so are large, and everything in between. investors aren't investing, they are holding cash in huge amounts. how do we spur investment? how do we help start ups?

If the only way you can understand is via yay or nay answer then i feel sorry for you. But you are like most Americans are too simple to understand the nuances of a specific issue and the dowstream consequences involved render this issue non binary. I will dumb it down. Given that our tax code has such generous writeoffs corporate tax rate is fine where it is. How long has it been in place 50-100 years? Now all of a sudden it is the reason companies are shipping jobs overseas? It is an excuse nothing more nothing less as a justification for class warfare against the middleclass by upper management in order to salvage as much of the diminishing pool of assets as they can. Business is taking advantage of our dire straights to gain further leverage by blaming their actions on their tax rate. Their actions are treasonous.

the yea or nay answer was for the question...

are our corporate tax rates higher?


if so, why? when did they go up? are they too high? is it a legit problem or not?

It's pretty basic stuff, historical numbers and such. Since you want to generalize things and lump every company in the US with Enron or any other distasteful occurence I would think you would enjoy the simplicity.

I don't bother to read them as I know the net is they support the posters position. If you are reading them you are spending too much time. Time that may better be spent training your horses... Just sayin ;)

Your broad strokes ignore far too much to speak of nuances. What exactly is your plan? Make huge corporations pay more taxes? OK fine how does that help the economy? The huge bonuses paid to executives surely would be more economically stimulating than sending that money to the gov't no? Do they not spend large sums of money? Their wives do. If Riot can claim that food stamps are stimulus then how isn't bonus pay? LOL!

But seriously you can't browbeat or tax business into expansion. Business doesn't exist to create jobs, jobs are a by product of business. You can't threaten companies into providing jobs, you have to foster an atmosphere of economic growth in order for them to risk capital to expand with a realistic chance to provide profits. Corporations aren't jobs programs even if they produce the lionshare of employment. Getting mad at them is silly and even childish. The heads of fortune 500 companies didnt meet in secret and say "lets screw the middle class"! They are playing the hand dealt, measured by porfits their company makes. Lefties love the class warfare card but lets not act like Fortune 500 companies don't fire their executives when they underperform. And lets not pretend that the retirment accounts of millions of Americans aren't anchored by stock in the same companies that you seek to demonize. People like you aren't bashful about making a profit investing in big corporations while at the same time complaining about them operating a call center in India.

Wow you are smart. That is some talent, being able to critique articles that you didn't even bother reading. Maybe you should be reading the help wanted ads...

Here this should help

http://corp.7-eleven.com/Careers/tabid/136/Default.aspx

Dude. I have a job and always have had a job but since you are getting personal maybe you should look at the ad. And as far as your economics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLweQe3ZprE

The Big O's job proposal is very simple. Half the people get up and go to work everyday and the other half's job is to stay home and let us support them.
Then the half that doesn't work, or pay taxes, votes for him. Very simple.

Actually no, they don't. You only spend so much on living. The more money you make, you just end up saving it. Not spending it.

If you want to be serious about it, yes, food stamps - aside from literally keeping people alive by allowing them to, you know, eat, which is sorta important - is instant local economy money churn. It's money spent immediately and fully in the local economy. Executive bonuses are not. LOL.

True - but business needs consumers. Businesses do not create jobs out of nowhere just for "growths" sake, unless there is a demand by consumers of their products and services for that growth.

You need to create consumers, create a middle class with disposable income above food and basic life necessities, for "business growth". We don't have that now. We have destroyed the middle class in the United States. We don't even have spending on basic necessities any more, as so many are out of work and unable to do even that.

That's why the meme of "tax cuts for the rich to allow them to foster growth" is complete nonsense. Businesses don't grow first, then look for consumers. Businesses grow only in response to consumer demand.

Food stamps, btw, create instant consumers. Jobless benefits enable instant consumers. Payroll tax cuts create instant consumers. All of that money, when given to someone without money, without food, is spent instantly for substenance living. Executive bonuses are not.

And most of those executives still get million dollar golden parachutes. Not exactly incentive to perform, when getting fired and doing well still has your ass covered very generously.

Whoa - let's be realistic. Millions of investors may have stock in a company, but the very investment firms that sold them that stock also short against their investors making a profit. Wall Street doesn't invest in growing companies any more, they don't care if the company makes profit - they invest in being on the right side of the move. But the common investor is hoping on the company growing.

As we can see, the common investor has been screwed the past 10 years, while Wall Street, taking the opposite position, has made billions.