In a Remarkable Show of Bi Partisanship... GE Pays No Tax on 14 Billion Profit.

[mtraininjax]

biggest deficits in the history of the world to that date.

Um, yeah, about that.....

[mtraininjax]

And then gave the banks another trillion in the bailout?

Seems I remember Paulson and Geithner telling Obama he had to bailout the banks or the corportations as you call them, or our economy would have crashed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html#

Under Bush, The deficit in the U.S. rose 4.9 trillion over his 8 years in office, so far Obama is over 3 trillion in a little more than 2 years and in fact his budget estimates call for over 5.9 trillion by the time he leaves office in 2012. Finally, we cannot afford you any longer Mr. Obama.

[mtraininjax]

New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.


The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.


The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.


Mr. Obama frequently lays blame for soaring federal deficits on his predecessor.

So much for his accountability!

[mtraininjax]

I don't ever want to hear another Bush Republican ever use the word "deficit" again.

For this, you will need to turn off CNN.

[BridgeTroll]

Even Reagan simply wanted the loopholes closed...

In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

so?

Reagan's foreign policy was brilliant, but he helped to destroy the US economy and drove up the biggest deficits in the history of the world to that date.

Reagan's thoughts on the economy helped us get where we are today (by the way he believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......I assume you share this belief?)

78%... I dont think so... pretty sure it was around 35.

[JeffreyS]

The president's bi-partisan commission was formed to attack the deficit came up with a plan that faced the hard truths. Democrats and Republicans both rejected it because neither is all that interested in solving the problem. That being said I believe what the Democrats spend on reap more rewards for our citizens.

[NotNow]

I don't.  Neither party has been responsible for years.  The huge central government experiment forced on us by the Supreme Court has been an abysmal failure.  Cut it all back to the enumerated responsibilities only.  Let the states handle everything else.  Nothing is being done to fix the problem, in fact, the problem is accelerating.  It is obvious to anyone with a brain that the current central government is incapable of solving its own budget issues.  Either we do it or face the calamity of economic collapse that will come with the current course.  

Our grandchildren will curse us.

[JeffreyS]

If we can stop the calamity that is one thing. If we can't let's come out of the bankruptcy with lots of infrastructure not with 700 military bases throughout the world we will have to abandon.

[Gators312]

...the middle class will still have to pay as the Corporations will pass on the cost.

Corporations pass on the costs of everything they do, including fat CEO pay packages, so that is hardly a reason for them not to pay their fair share in taxes.

I never said not to tax them, I just said the notion that the middle class will be magically be relieved of carrying the burden is false.

[cityimrov]

I think GE deserves all the tax cuts they can get.  They provide a benefit to the local community that very few companies out there can (such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc).  As I move into the conspiracy theory world, this is how I think it works.  I wished I had a chalkboard to write this on.  

A community with a mild unemployment rate wants jobs.  They want any job they can get.  They elect a politician on the platform "I'll bring jobs!".  That politician get's elected on that platform.  He then panics because he promised jobs and now he has to figure out a way to bring it.  This is where companies like GE, Boeing, etc comes in.  They go up to the politician and say, if you give us so and so dollars in "tax cuts", we'll open up a factory here and bring "jobs", the thing you promised to your angry electorate.  

The politician then says, "Great! I'll get the jobs if I give this company some money from the treasury."  So after the politician gives the company the treasury's money, the company goes over and builds a factory.  At this point, everyone is happy!  The people get's jobs.  The local construction company get's work.  The politician provided those jobs and can gets great advertisement to be elected to a higher office.  The company is happy because they "sold" jobs for a fee and made a tidy profit at the very beginning before even opening a single factory or office.  

What can go wrong with this picture?  

In short, politicians "buy jobs" using taxpayers money from companies that are willing to sell them for a "fee".  The taxpayer get's what they wanted, "jobs!"  Of course, most of them don't realize they are paying somebody to give them a job using their own money to provide that job that they are getting money from to pay for that job.  It get's complicated past this point.  Either way, a job is a job, right?

Even I can write these crazy conspiracy theories

[tufsu1]

I'm all in favor of reducing corporate income taxes...but that's going to take an understanding by the American people that personal income taxes will need to go up significantly....after all, we do have some of the lowest personal income tax rates in the developed world.

[BridgeTroll]

Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was designed to be tax revenue neutral, because individual taxes were decreased while corporate taxes were increased. As of 2011, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most recent major simplification of the tax code, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets.

The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. The "bubble rate" of 33% simply elevated the 15% rate to 28% for higher-income taxpayers.

[BridgeTroll]

You mentioned...

he believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......

He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.

I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.

[BridgeTroll]

You mentioned...

he believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......

He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.

I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.

Well no, Bridge Troll, aside from a couple of democrats like Gephart, lets see you back up this claim of it being quite the model of bipartisan politicking.

So lets say that the ideal model of 'bipartisan politicking' would result in broad support on both sides of the aisle.

Broad support would mean 60% of the votes from both parties.

So please show us where this claim you made is true.

How about 97-3 in the Senate... 292-136 in the House


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3356/is_n3_49/ai_n28674284/

On June 24, 1986, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by a vote of 97 to 3. If for only a brief period, this high degree of consensus on what the tax system should look like was astounding.

[FayeforCure]

Even Reagan simply wanted the loopholes closed...

Reagan could not win, what makes anyone think that Obama can win? You cannot win this, corportations will find a way out of it, that is why we have lawyers, and joke books on lawyers. do the one-time deal, get the money in and then claim its a WIN-WIN for the taxpayers of America and the American way of life, or whatever the changy people in Washington claim....

But hey!  I thought that wealthy people could be trusted to administer charity and the economy more effectively than the government!

Surely you don't believe that these corporations were only ever looking for a way to just avoid paying any taxes at all when they promised to do good works if they didnt have to pay taxes!>?

+1