Michele Bachmann

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Our problem is our corporate taxes are the highest in the world.

Not sure that's actually... "factual."

http://www.businessinsider.com/16-more- ... xes-2011-3

Maybe you can explain to us how the country with the highest corporate taxes have so many corporations that barely pay them at all or pay zero?

It is factual. It's said even in the article you just quoted. haha...

Anyway, here's how "a few" company's get away with paying less:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n

And guess what, if we do a better job of enforcing the 35% rate, as 60 minutes mentions.... the companies will REALLY move overseas and we will get ZERO tax dollars. The 35% tax rate is a real, serious problem, as that video shows.

Byrnzie

Michele Bachmann on Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0nN_hAiWY


Check out the fucked-up make-up job. Looks like she applied it with a paintbrush.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

It is factual. It's said even in the article you just quoted. haha...

Anyway, here's how "a few" company's get away with paying less:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360932n

No, I get that... but.. even in that video... it's only the highest rate on paper. Kinda like how Donald Trump paid Ivana $1 to redecorate but count her as an employee (or something).

And guess what, if we do a better job of enforcing the 35% rate, as 60 minutes mentions.... the companies will REALLY move overseas and we will get ZERO tax dollars. The 35% tax rate is a real, serious problem, as that video shows.

Ah... the "we're going to fuck you over anyway, so just roll over and take it... there's a good slave..." explanation.

markin ball

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no, NEWS FLASH...being probusiness is being PRO PROFIT at the expense of and on the backs of said workers.

why is it called pro business and not pro worker when a corporation moves operations and maunfacturing overseas when it cuts american jobs?? they do that to avoid paying american workers what the workers command and for the tax breaks.

pro business? yes.

pro worker? fuck no.
does dr. greenspan have a response for this?

I assume that's meant me. No offense, but I didn't think a post like this needed a response. It seemed like something you'd hear on South Park.

But, I'll respond. Being pro-business is being pro-profit. I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with profits. I hope every company in America has record breaking profits for years to come, because if that happens, and the profits are stable for years to come, it means better jobs, better pay and better quality of life for us in the future.

Corporations move overseas for a variety of reasons. One reasons is corporate taxes. If you had to pay 35% corporate tax at place A and you could easily move to place B where you'd pay 15%, would you move? Yes. You would. Particularly, as the moving becomes easier and easier in this new global/paperless economy. You can just pick up and move. It's that simple.

Another reason business moves abroad is that foreigners may be able to do a similar quality job for less money. Our advantage in the U.S. is that our workers are more productive in most cases. We desire higher wages, but in most cases we're more productive. Nevertheless, our demand for higher wages in some cases is artificially high - sometimes due to unions, sometimes due to Americans thinking they are entitled.

For certain jobs, the productivity difference between a U.S. worker and a foreign worker is smaller, and therefore, wages (and capital investment costs) come into play. Once again, you can get upset... you can scream "their stealin' our jobs!",... you do whatever you want. That won't ever, ever stop this from happening. It will continue forever.

Bottom line: Being pro-business is being pro-jobs. You may not like where the jobs go in every case, but the only way jobs are created is through business. I'd like to hear how you think jobs are going to be created with this slogan: anti-business is pro-jobs.... You can't, because it's an oxymoron.

Unless these record breaking profits are because of reduced costs, of course, such as reducing compensation, benefits, etc.

Electric_Delta

Byrnzie wrote:

unsung wrote:

Can't be worse than Obama.

Care to elaborate?

Personally, I think that a born again fruitcake with absurd views on pretty much everything, is much worse than Obama.

Yeah, I agree. Things are so much better under Obama. Our dollar can soon be used to line bird cages, millions of people have no jobs, the housing market is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, we illegally intervened in Libya (media outrage?), gas prices and food prices are sky high, the Middle East is going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood....

I love this great progressive leadership. Four more years!

Electric_Delta

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't know too much about Bachman, except that liberals really hate her. The fact that she has won six congressional races in a state known to lean left speaks for something on her ability to get votes.

Um... She's won twice. Not six times.

And at what point did Minnesota lean left?

When they voted in Al Franken...if he won legally, that is.

Byrnzie

Electric_Delta wrote:

Yeah, I agree. Things are so much better under Obama. Our dollar can soon be used to line bird cages, millions of people have no jobs, the housing market is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, we illegally intervened in Libya (media outrage?), gas prices and food prices are sky high, the Middle East is going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood....

I love this great progressive leadership. Four more years!

The economy went to shit under Bush, not Obama.

As for the Middle East falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, can you please elaborate?

shadowcast

[.[/quote]
This quote is taken from an article written in November of 2010. I believe they have had a great 2011 as well.

"Since the end of 2008, when corporate America began enjoying the resumption of growth, profits have swelled from an annualized pace of $995 billion to the current $1.66 trillion as of the end of September. Over the same period, the number of non-farm jobs counted by the Labor Department has slipped from 13.4 million to 13 million."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/2 ... 87573.html

I guess it depends on your definition of stable.[/quote]


That's a really, really ridiculous #.... why would you look at corporate profits at the worst of the recession and then compare it to now?

Regardless, it does nothing to recount my point. Business wants stability. They are acting no different than the typical U.S. citizen who is saving more now, investing less and not spending as much.[/quote]


Why? I work for a corporation and year over year growth is what you look at. They have been growing since 2008!!!Dude, your blind. Numbers are numbers. The corporations have been growing while the middle class is shrinking and the rich is growing. I

inlet13

Byrnzie wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Yeah, I agree. Things are so much better under Obama. Our dollar can soon be used to line bird cages, millions of people have no jobs, the housing market is the worst it's been since the Great Depression, we illegally intervened in Libya (media outrage?), gas prices and food prices are sky high, the Middle East is going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood....

I love this great progressive leadership. Four more years!

The economy went to shit under Bush, not Obama.

As for the Middle East falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, can you please elaborate?

I'd say if the economy went to shit under Bush, it got shittier under Obama.

Just looking at jobs...

The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%. The unemployment rate was 6.8% when Obama was elected, when he was inaugurated it did rise to 7.8%. Obama campaigned two months prior to his inauguration saying it would never rise above 8.5%. Within two months of his Presidency, it was above 8.5% and has remained there his entire Presidency.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%..

to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.

It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%..

to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.

It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.

The President said it would not go above 8.5% during his campaign for President, which took place two months before he took office. He had a plan to tame it.

Four months later it was above 8.5% and has remained there, and in my opinion, may remain above that threshold until the 2012 election (that will be 4 years).

These are his words. This is his economy. And this economy is horrid. The Bush blaming doesn't work anymore. He has a much, much worse economic record than Bush and history texts will reflect that.

gimmesometruth27

inlet13 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%..

to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.

It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.

The President said it would not go above 8.5% during his campaign for President, which took place two months before he took office. He had a plan to tame it.

Four months later it was above 8.5% and has remained there, and in my opinion, may remain above that threshold until the 2012 election (that will be 4 years).

These are his words. This is his economy. And this economy is horrid. The Bush blaming doesn't work anymore. He has a much, much worse economic record than Bush and history texts will reflect that.

ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....

Would really help to read a bit before you state nonsense.

I think by hemorrhaging jobs, you mean Bush lost jobs. Which is not true. Bush gained jobs during his Presidency, particularly in his second term. The same can't be said about Obama. He's lost over 3 million jobs during his Presidency.

gimmesometruth27

inlet13 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.1%, under Obama it's 9.4%..

to be fair, it was pretty low when Bush took office and the changes made by his administration will be kicking us in the face for decades.

It's kinda like ramming an iceberg and then blaming the guy you give the keys to afterward.

The President said it would not go above 8.5% during his campaign for President, which took place two months before he took office. He had a plan to tame it.

Four months later it was above 8.5% and has remained there, and in my opinion, may remain above that threshold until the 2012 election (that will be 4 years).

These are his words. This is his economy. And this economy is horrid. The Bush blaming doesn't work anymore. He has a much, much worse economic record than Bush and history texts will reflect that.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... losse.html

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... losse.html

A nice chart from last year, which does absolutely nothing to recount what I said. The unemployment rate has risen from less than 7%, to 10%, then slid back to 9% during Obama's Presidency.

Bush gained jobs during his Presidency. Obama has LOST OVER 3 MILLION JOBS since his Presidency began.

Do you ever disagree with the President on any economic issue? Do you really think he's done a GOOD job? Seriously? I mean, at least I can say Bush wasn't a good President in regards to the economy. I don't drink a party's Kool-Aid. My caveat is only that Bush was better than Obama in regards to the economy. And yes, Clinton was better than Bush. Economic statistics prove this.

Even measures you may care more about like the gap between the rich and the poor, or poverty levels have worsened under Obama. You can't say it's Bush's fault anymore. This guy in office is a enormous failure, probably even worse than Carter.

This isn't a game of defending your sports team, or your favorite grape soda brand... I'm trying to be objective and you are simply siding with your leader like a sheep.

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....

What has he done again to fix it? Where again did the stimulus money go?

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ok, 8 years of bush fucking it up and pissing away a surplus and hemmoraging jobs, and 2 years of obama trying to fix it. somethng doesn't add up....

What has he done again to fix it? Where again did the stimulus money go?

it saved the economy from total collapse, but yeah it did nothing :roll: i am not repeating myself in yet another thread about the benefits/detriments of the stimulus....look it up yourself.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... losse.html

A nice chart from last year, which does absolutely nothing to recount what I said. The unemployment rate has risen from less than 7%, to 10%, then slid back to 9% during Obama's Presidency.

Bush gained jobs during his Presidency. Obama has LOST OVER 3 MILLION JOBS since his Presidency began.

Do you ever disagree with the President on any economic issue? Do you really think he's done a GOOD job? Seriously? I mean, at least I can say Bush wasn't a good President in regards to the economy. I don't drink a party's Kool-Aid. My caveat is only that Bush was better than Obama in regards to the economy. And yes, Clinton was better than Bush. Economic statistics prove this.

Even measures you may care more about like the gap between the rich and the poor, or poverty levels have worsened under Obama. You can't say it's Bush's fault anymore. This guy in office is a enormous failure, probably even worse than Carter.

This isn't a game of defending your sports team, or your favorite grape soda brand... I'm trying to be objective and you are simply siding with your leader like a sheep.

You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.

When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.

brandon10

Byrnzie wrote:

Michele Bachmann on Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0nN_hAiWY


Check out the fucked-up make-up job. Looks like she applied it with a paintbrush.

I can't get over how fucked up this woman is. She keeps repeating in her speech that "the american people want her to support Israel". It's like if she says that enough then she will actually believe it to be true.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... losse.html

A nice chart from last year, which does absolutely nothing to recount what I said. The unemployment rate has risen from less than 7%, to 10%, then slid back to 9% during Obama's Presidency.

Bush gained jobs during his Presidency. Obama has LOST OVER 3 MILLION JOBS since his Presidency began.

Do you ever disagree with the President on any economic issue? Do you really think he's done a GOOD job? Seriously? I mean, at least I can say Bush wasn't a good President in regards to the economy. I don't drink a party's Kool-Aid. My caveat is only that Bush was better than Obama in regards to the economy. And yes, Clinton was better than Bush. Economic statistics prove this.

Even measures you may care more about like the gap between the rich and the poor, or poverty levels have worsened under Obama. You can't say it's Bush's fault anymore. This guy in office is a enormous failure, probably even worse than Carter.

This isn't a game of defending your sports team, or your favorite grape soda brand... I'm trying to be objective and you are simply siding with your leader like a sheep.

You may be "trying" to be objective, but you're not doing a good job at it. Your disdain for Obama is clouding your judgement, and I'm saying this because you have a background in economics. With this background I'm assuming you're aware that there are many variables at play with regard to the economy; things occur from decisions made by politicians in the past, market forces past and present, global economics, things the prez has no control over, etc. You're putting the entire crappy economy on Obama''s shoulders. As much as I'd like to blame the current recession on Bush Jr. 100%, I know that wouldn't be valid because of these other factors at play. I also know that I can't say Bush's policies aren't still effecting the economy. The economy doesn't get reset every presidential election.

When you say economic statistics "prove" anything, you're again not being objective. There can be a correlation that suggests cause and effect, but at that point people start to apply theory, and theory is always debatable.

I actually somewhat agree to this: I don't necessarily think a President is to solely to blame for an economy's performance. The Fed, for instance, is also to blame, which gets at why Keynesian economics (practiced now by the FED and our administration) is so bad. But, the reality is Presidents do get blamed. It's a harsh reality, but it's real. Bush got blamed, as will Obama.

What I don't agree with is that you can not gauge an economy under one President and compare it to another. The economy right now is miserable, and yes, I can say that the economy is worse now than it was at anytime under George Bush. And the term recession doesn't really show how bad it is. If you use the textbook definition of recession to look at our economy, we're no longer in recession. Yet, we still haven't gained back what we've lost since Obama took office. Not in jobs, not in housing, production and not even in the stock market. We haven't even gotten back to where we were during the Bush Presidency. That's just facts. Hard to live with if Obama's your boy, but unfortunately for your side, it's a real data.