114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 08:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers bought up ALL the advertising time possible around Walker's speech on local WI television.
Cycloptichorn
And who is supporting the Democrat legislators in Wisconsin when they cowardly run away from their duly elected duties? Here is an interesting article that indicates that Howard Dean has a slush fund for them, which may be against the law, cyclops.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/22/howard-dean-and-the-100000-wis

"Former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a one-time presidential candidate, is the founder of a group that by mid-day of President's Day had raised over $100,000 in a slush fund to "back" the on-the-lam Wisconsin Democratic State Senators.

The Dean Dollars are being specifically funneled to the Wisconsin State Senate Democratic Committee (SSDC) -- an apparent violation of Wisconsin election law that pointedly says, according to the Wisconsin Election Board's Legal Counsel in a 2005 decision, that the "SSDC may not accept a contribution of more than $6,000 from a single committee in a calendar year." (Note: the Election Board is now called the "Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.")"

okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:12 pm
@okie,
rjb, did you just post and then delete your post? I think you asked the question why nobody had litigated Dean's Slush Fund? I was going to answer that I do not know, and I am not an investigative reporter, and are you doubting the veracity of the story? I do not very much, because that would be typical of Democratic Party operations to do that kind of stuff.

Did you read also about the doctors handing out phony sick notes to union members?

The end justifies the means, that is the operational motto for Democrats. Sorry to be so biased, but that is my honest opinion after watching the past 30 or 40 years of politics.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:16 pm
@okie,
Perhaps you missed it okie.
People banding together have the same rights as if they acted individually. 2000 people banding together can donate the same as 2000 individually. Any denial of that would violate a recent USSC ruling.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:18 pm
@parados,
Sure sure, parados, I believe you, ha ha. In case you missed it, the campaign is over now.

Also, is bribery legal now?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:25 pm
@okie,
Is this not a year? Or did you not read what you wrote?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:37 pm
@okie,
If I am telling the truth . . .Be a man and call me a liar or are you afraid to? Why wouldn't I tell the truth.

Why do you think math takes more intelligence than other subjects? The news flash is that it does not. It takes a different sort of intelligence.

As for my understanding of the economy, who is it that is constantly called on being wrong here, you or me?

The idea of a conservative being educated is nonsense. There are two or three right wing public intellectuals who can string together reasonable sentences but the rest of the right consists of people like you who are fairly far removed from reality. Logic and the American right have never made each other's acquaintance.

Look, most scientists are liberal. Most college professors are as well.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:40 pm
@okie,
Did you approve of the Texas legislators when they pulled the same stunt a few years back?
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 02:06 pm
@plainoldme,
Probably he doesn't.

They too were Democrats.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 02:15 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Did you approve of the Texas legislators when they pulled the same stunt a few years back?


How many times are you going to make that same mistake, POM?

It's important to look things up before you post them, to avoid basic errors such as this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 04:44 pm
@okie,
Hey Okie,

Because we've been talking about Corporate Tax reform lately, I wanted to share this article with you to see what you thought.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what-should-corporate-tax-reform-look-like/

Quote:
What Should Corporate Tax Reform Look Like?
March 1, 2011 at 11:34 am

With Congress likely to consider corporate tax reform this year,
we’ve issued a report outlining the tests that a well-designed reform proposal should meet:

1. Contribute to long-term deficit reduction. Corporate tax revenues are now at historical lows as a share of the economy (see graph), at a time when the nation faces deficits and debt that are expected to grow to unsustainable levels. Although the top statutory corporate tax rate is high, the average tax rate — that is, the share of profits that companies actually pay in taxes — is substantially lower because of the tax code’s many preferences (deductions, credits and other write-offs that corporations can take to reduce their taxes). Moreover, when measured as a share of the economy, U.S. corporate tax receipts are actually low compared to other developed countries. All parts of the budget and the tax code, including corporate taxes, should contribute to deficit reduction. Well-designed corporate tax reform can improve economic efficiency and help on the deficit-reduction front at the same time.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//2-28-11tax-f1-infocus.jpg

2. Reduce the tax code’s bias towards debt financing. The current corporate tax code encourages corporations to finance their investments with debt (e.g., by issuing bonds) rather than equity (e.g., by selling stock). This encourages corporations to rely excessively on debt, which, as the recent financial crisis demonstrated, poses risks for both the firms and the broader economy. The tax code should be more even-handed in treating these two types of financing.

3. Reduce the tax code’s bias toward overseas investments. U.S. multinationals pay much lower taxes on profits from their overseas investments than on profits from their domestic investments. That gives corporations a strong incentive to shift economic activity and income from the United States to other countries. Policymakers should address the features of the corporate tax code that allow so much business activity to escape taxation and that favor foreign investments over domestic ones.

4. Improve economic efficiency by reducing special preferences. The corporate tax code taxes different kinds of corporate investments at very different rates. This “unlevel playing field” encourages businesses to choose among investments in substantial part based on their tax benefits, instead of making those decisions based entirely on investments’ real economic value. Policymakers should level the playing field through corporate tax reform.

5. Provide more neutral treatment of corporate and non-corporate businesses. Over time, various policy changes have made it easier for companies to enjoy the benefits of corporate status without being subject to the corporate income tax. Reform should reflect the guiding principle that firms engaging in similar activities and enjoying similar legal benefits should be taxed at similar rates.

6. Take specific steps to discourage tax sheltering. If policymakers lower the statutory corporate tax rate to well below the top individual tax rate, they should also establish safeguards to prevent high-income individuals from sheltering their income in corporations in order to pay taxes at a lower rate.


I agree with pretty much all of that.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 05:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That will never come about, because congress is already split. The future for any such legislation is also very bleak.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 05:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
While I don't argue with some of the remedies proposed here, particularly with respect to equity financing, I believe the graphical picture which appears to be the basis for the central contention involves significant variables not cited or even acknowledged, and that the central conclusion that these tax revenues are at a near all time low due to some presumed structural problems in the tax code, clearly involves some dubious misinterpretation of the data.

In the first place the scale of the chart was carefully selected to include the tail end of the unusually high WWII tax rates. Indeed a careful examination of the chart reveals significant trends that contradict the central thesis of the article.

In the second the authors fail completely to acknowledge the effects of economic variations on tax collections: in some years corporations lose or don't make much money, thereby reducing tax payments. This is what was behind the steep decline in tax payments in 1977-79 and again during the revent 2007-2008 drop.

It is noteworthy that just before the recent recession, corporate tax collections were at their 1970 levels, and that the trend since 1980 has generally been up - a 30 year period of increading corporate taxes as a % of GP.

I offer this merely as an illustration of the deceptions that can result from superficial research and the thoughtless, uncritical consumption of propaganda. There's more to understanding than just finding links to opinion pieces, and more to the truth than just the headline propaganda.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 05:59 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob, You need to be careful on how you measure tax revenues; the economic book before 2008 was built on straws where many made money and paid their taxes. Most consumers borrowed from the equity in their homes to spend, spend, spend. Most were in debt up to their eyeballs.

We all know what happened in 2008, and subsequent years.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Perhaps so, but that has nothing to do with corporate tax collections, or the misrepresentation of what was in the chart above.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:04 pm
@georgeob1,
If you're talking amounts, it sure does!
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:05 pm
@georgeob1,
I am coming down on GOB's side here. The article (and graph) you cited, Cylco, was more than a bit biased. Perhaps, if this discussion is still active tomorrow I will comment. For whatever that is worth.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 09:53 pm
@georgeob1,
Um. I think the point is that, none of the reasons why corporate taxes are at their historical lows right now really matter when it comes to the recommendation that they can help bear the burden of closing our budget deficits and debt just like everyone else in society.

Specifically, was there any one of their recommendations that you disagree with?

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:51 am
@Cycloptichorn,
At this point the burden is on government and government agencies to tighten their belts and cut their overhead.
Only an idiot would suggest putting the burden on the private/corporate sector.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 07:21 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Your chart coupled with Robert Reich's observation that the top earners in this country are not paying into Social Security at the level they should offers an enormous insight into the economic situation . . . particularly when you consider that the real wages for 80% of the work force have been flat for more than 30 years.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 07:25 am
@H2O MAN,
No, the burden in on interest groups, like the oil producers, who sponsor fleets of lobbyists to push their interests in Congress. An NPR report on oil dependency, broadcast last night, pointed out that the five largest oil companies recorded $90 Billion in profits over the past decade.

During that same time, 80% of the American workers saw their wages remain flat, which means their buying power actually sank.

The burden rests on the top 1% that has drained the economy and the lives of millions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/22/2025 at 07:51:21