and that's the point I was I getting to in the first post on this topic. I admitedly don't know much about tax rates overseas vs. here. I do not that manufacturing jobs have been shipped to places like china now for a long time. you know what else, I know some overseas companies actually operate over here. however I do understand that there are logistical reasons for that. and I'm not anti lowering the corporate tax rate, but i just know that the corporate tax rate is a miniscule reason about why jobs have been lost. especially when you're talking about the rust belt.
I'm not sure where this came from, but both Obama and Hillary (as well as Rangel, who's going to be in charge of the House tax reform effort next year) have all talked about lowering corporate tax rates while also trying to close various loopholes.
It's odd that some of the same people who are against welfare are in favor of giving welfare in the form of tax breaks to corporations.
Thankfully Rangel will have to work around a pending McCain veto when he tries to raise capital gains taxes on 100 million Americans.
Not if Democrats have a 60 vote majority. Which is looking more and more like a distinct possibility!
speaking of outsourcing, has anyone ever heard of an insurance company flying you overseas to have a surgery?
ITs not really odd. Its a dispute over the spending of scarce resources. Chances are if you prefer to spend it one way you may not approve of the other way.
I see your point, and in itself it might not be odd, except for the arguments used. It just seems strange that the argument often used against welfare is that people need to be responsible for themselves. Why shouldn't corporations also need to be responsible. Furthermore often the same people are talking about more capitalism being good which be total government having their hands off, but when they are giving special tax breaks and incentives, they are skewing the market. It seems to be a case of applying some standards only to others.
Drat! Foiled again!! I was thinking filibuster Anyway back on topic. Does Hillary stand the possibility of a back lash by saying that people in PA aren’t, in fact, bitter about government and the state of the nation? I think she might want to be a bit careful in her arguments as it might show that it is indeed her that is out of touch with voters by saying everything is hunky dory.
Now that is quite a bit of spin. I don't think Clinton is saying that everythign is hunky dory but that people believe in religion and like guns for other reasons than just because they are bitter about the economy.
oh my god, he didn't say people believe in religion and guns because of the economy either. he said they cling to them, big difference. and even though he shouldn't have said it, there is some sociological truth to this in the case of religion. but that's a whole nother topic.
Maybe, but I do find it amusing that Hillary has now become a gun expert and is taking shots (of Crown Royal) to get in touch with the common man.
To a certain point I agree but Obama isn't running for sociologist and chief. The problem with the statement is that it was ill thought of and a mistake for a candidacy that is supposed to be about unity. The sentiments might have some truth but they could've been better phrased and more thought should've been considered.
If there's a backlash anywhere, it would be for this nonsense. Hillary just isn't very good at exploiting mistakes by opponents. These comments had all the possibility to be used to her advantage, and she's really made a mess of it. First by going on about how she understands people so well and grew up shooting things, etc, and then by saying when she last when to church was irrelevant to the campaign. It's like she gets so excited by a wide open dunk that she tries to showboat and misses it. So far, the polls have shown no impact nationally by this story. PA may be different but everything we're hearing is the media saying people would be insulted but when they interview people in these small towns, none of them seem to be insulted. Where I think it could hurt him is with the "I sorta like Obama, but I'm not totally convinced" voters - the same ones that were probably affected by the Rev. Wright story. Both stories are ultimately not too relevant to anything, but they are definitely cringe-inducing.
I've tried unsuccessfully to find a primary source for that claim (I've found a ton of secondary sources, but they are all over the map on the actual change), so I retract it. From his own issues page, the only talk about tax reform is ending non-existent loopholes for energy companies and companies that outsource, and incentives (no clue whether they are tax cuts or subsidies) for companies that create new jobs in the US. More info about that here. This is standard in the world. Taxes are paid where the profit is made, not where the owners live. If Obama really wanted to change the tax structure to promote domestic job growth, he would replace some or all of the revenue from corporate taxes and payroll taxes with tariffs. It would increase the price of goods and hurt the unemployed, but it would be very good for domestic job growth.
