Where is the US economy headed?

@mysteryman,

mm, Who are you trying to kid? The last sentence of the article you show shows:

Quote:

The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.

, but the post by FOX News is dated today, and says nothing about Bush authorizing this "study.".

You're attempts to blame why your taxes are higher "now" by posting that article makes the reader assume that $400,000 was more taxes wasted under Obama.

You must make it clear if you know that the impressions made by your posts are not correct.

You lose on all counts: as shown by posters in response to your article, most believe it's money well spent, and your implication that Obama is wasting tax money is false.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Maybe they didnt think it was neccessary to do so.
After all, as you pointed out..."The study began in September 2008"
And it says so in the article.

Now, even a person with no political interest would know that Bush was President then, NOT OBAMA.

So, its quite possible that fox thought that people could figure it out on their own.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

"The study began..." doesn't explain the extra $400,000 in funding that program.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It is fairly clear that the researchers were given $400,000 and so far they have spent $198,000

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Show me where that article says that the original budget for that study was $400,000?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That shows that you didnt read the entire article, did you?

If you had, you would have seen this...

Quote:

An NIH official said that funds approved for the project include $275,000 for direct costs and an additional $125,000 in indirect costs, but would not elaborate. Though FOXNews.com could not confirm the median price of cervezas in Buenos Aires, that should leave a lot of money for tips.

That adds up to $400,000.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mm, This is what you originally posted:

Quote:

Your tax dollars at work...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/

Quote:

Government researchers are spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money to hit the bars in Argentina.

The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it.

Doctors and specialists from the New York Psychiatric Institute are using the generous grant from NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to help tailor HIV prevention programs to work at bars and clubs.

Though public health officials say that HIV/AIDS rates are higher in Washington, D.C., than in some parts of West Africa, U.S. government funds are going to help curb dangerous liaisons in Argentina's capital.

The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.

This is part of the reason our taxes are so high.

This $400,000 implies it was approved by Obama simply because FOX News posted this news today. It's an assumption easily concluded by "most" readers.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

No, I didn't read the whole article. Your abbreviation of the article implies you didn't want people reading your post to see your added quote; otherwise, you would have included it. Besides, that added post doesn't say whether that $400,00o was approved by Bush or Obama. You can infer anything you wish, but you're pissing in the wind.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

No, I didn't read the whole article.

Next time, try actually reading the articles I link to.

Quote:

Your abbreviation of the article implies you didn't want people reading your post to see your added quote; otherwise, you would have included it.

Not at all.
I have NEVER included the full article on any link I have posted.
I dont believe thats neccessary, and I find that people wont read the article or op-ed if its long.
I have always posted only the first couple of paragraphs and a link to the story.
I see no reason to change that.

Quote:

Besides, that added post doesn't say whether that $400,00o was approved by Bush or Obama.

Since the article clearly states that the study began in 2008, and since Obama wasnt president till 2009, it doesnt take any thought to figure out whose admin authorized the money.

Quote:

You can infer anything you wish, but you're pissing in the wind.

So now you are contradicting an earlier position you took that says things inferred are just as valid as things actually stated?

Or are you saying that I am blaming Obama for the study?
Since I have clearly stated WHEN the study was started, how is it even remotely possible that I am blaming Obama?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, I'm sure the motivation to open an office in Dubai has very little to do with "tax breaks," and more to do with location of opportunity. Dubai is not exactly a cheap country to live in. A friend of ours went to lunch in that famous building we see in Dubai, and they paid US$300. The cruise line offered dinner for $1200, and they sold out. Even in the US $300 for lunch is way beyond most people's income level.

Sure - but no taxes. You don't have to move a lot of people there, just open an office and declare it your corporate headquarters. Then you can operate in whatever country you like and pay virtually no taxes whatsoever on the income. A convenient little dodge.

Cycloptichorn

No, there are corporate taxes there just as there are in most countries. U.S. corporate income taxes on profits are higher than most countries, however many foreign countries make up for that with onerous restrictions on the transfer of profits out of the country. There are still a few tax havens involving small countries happy to take a little to enable corporations to keep a lot. While they figure greatly in the public imagination - and evidently in Cyclo's thinking - they are less commonly used than most people think. It is difficult for a publically traded corporation to use such a haven and also have continued access to investment capital.

My point was that many U.S. corporations have already moved their manufacturing, accounting, customer interface, software and other like functions overseas to reduce their labor cost and remain competitive in the world economy. In most cases if they didn't do this they would go under. If the current administration also widens the relative tax penalty on corporations headquartered here, they will simply move to other countries and we will lose everything, including the taxes they currently pay.

Just as businesses must compete to keep their customers, countries must compete to keep the economic activity they require to sustain themselves. The free economjic activity of people everywhyere is a great and very effective leveller.

We could of course further restrict the freedoms of people and corporations and attempt to keep them prisoners here. There's a nice liberal idea.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Naw, I think I refuse your suggestion. If you want to provide abbreviated info when you post, I'll just have to assume you must have left out some important material.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Naw, I think I refuse your suggestion. If you want to provide abbreviated info when you post, I'll just have to assume you must have left out some important material.

So can we assume then that you have provided EVERY WORD of every article, op-ed piece, or any other link you have ever posted?

And if you are so lazy that you refuse to read links provided, then it is entirely your fault if you dont get all of the info.
Therefore, you cannot criticize if you refuse to avail yourself of the chance to get all the info.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

No, you failed to prove "who" authorized that extra $400,000.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, I'm sure the motivation to open an office in Dubai has very little to do with "tax breaks," and more to do with location of opportunity. Dubai is not exactly a cheap country to live in. A friend of ours went to lunch in that famous building we see in Dubai, and they paid US$300. The cruise line offered dinner for $1200, and they sold out. Even in the US $300 for lunch is way beyond most people's income level.

Sure - but no taxes. You don't have to move a lot of people there, just open an office and declare it your corporate headquarters. Then you can operate in whatever country you like and pay virtually no taxes whatsoever on the income. A convenient little dodge.

Cycloptichorn

No, there are corporate taxes there just as there are in most countries.

Bzzt! Incorrect per my research.

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/dubai/jdbdctx.html

Quote:

With the exception of banks and oil companies no corporate income tax is payable by businesses in Dubai. Oil companies pay up to 55% tax on UAE sourced taxable income whereas banks pay 20% tax on taxable income. The taxable income of banks is as per the audited financial statements whereas that of oil companies is as per the concession agreement. Oil companies also pay royalties on production.

Quote:

My point was that many U.S. corporations have already moved their manufacturing, accounting, customer interface, software and other like functions overseas to reduce their labor cost and remain competitive in the world economy. In most cases if they didn't do this they would go under. If the current administration also widens the relative tax penalty on corporations headquartered here, they will simply move to other countries and we will lose everything, including the taxes they currently pay.

I just don't believe this is true. This is the equivalent of people 'going Galt,' which is to say, it is an empty threat.

Quote:

We could of course further restrict the freedoms of people and corporations and attempt to keep them prisoners here. There's a nice liberal idea.

Your rhetoric is funny but inaccurate. We would keep nobody 'prisoner,' we would merely be erasing loophole after loophole which allows Corporations to dodge taxes and hide profits. I surely can understand why the Corporations will threaten to leave and complain that they cannot remain competitive. I do not believe either is true.

I believe this is exactly the behavior people display when they are making money and see an attempt to lower the amount of money they are making, no matter the validity of the decision to do so: they begin Appealing to Extremes in a desperate bid to convince the other side that Armageddon awaits if the decision is made.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I believe this is exactly the behavior people display when they are making money and see an attempt to lower the amount of money they are making, no matter the validity of the decision to do so: they begin Appealing to Extremes in a desperate bid to convince the other side that Armageddon awaits if the decision is made.

Strict Darwinian principles allow for nothing else.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, What in hell are you talking about? On the sauce again?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

He doesn't get drunk nightly on saki like you do!!

0 Replies

GeorgeOB wrote:

My point was that many U.S. corporations have already moved their manufacturing, accounting, customer interface, software and other like functions overseas to reduce their labor cost and remain competitive in the world economy. In most cases if they didn't do this they would go under. If the current administration also widens the relative tax penalty on corporations headquartered here, they will simply move to other countries and we will lose everything, including the taxes they currently pay.

Just as businesses must compete to keep their customers, countries must compete to keep the economic activity they require to sustain themselves. The free economjic activity of people everywhyere is a great and very effective leveller.

We could of course further restrict the freedoms of people and corporations and attempt to keep them prisoners here. There's a nice liberal idea.

*******************************************************

Beautifully done and quite correct except for the last line.

BO's administration does not depend on "liberal ideas" but rather SOCIALIST ideas.

1 Reply

@genoves,

That's an extreme that will never happen; all US companies off-shoring to other countries based on taxes or cheaper labor cost. You're implying that all we'll have in the US is one office for all international operations with only the CEO and secretary living in the US because it's cheaper that way. How ridiculous!

0 Replies

GeorgeOB wrote:

My point was that many U.S. corporations have already moved their manufacturing, accounting, customer interface, software and other like functions overseas to reduce their labor cost and remain competitive in the world economy. In most cases if they didn't do this they would go under. If the current administration also widens the relative tax penalty on corporations headquartered here, they will simply move to other countries and we will lose everything, including the taxes they currently pay.

Just as businesses must compete to keep their customers, countries must compete to keep the economic activity they require to sustain themselves. The free economjic activity of people everywhyere is a great and very effective leveller.

We could of course further restrict the freedoms of people and corporations and attempt to keep them prisoners here. There's a nice liberal idea.

*******************************************************

Beautifully done and quite correct except for the last line.

BO's administration does not depend on "liberal ideas" but rather SOCIALIST ideas.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know