was not being a better storyteller...
With U3 unemployment above 8%, and real unemployment around 11%, and stories would have just make the last 3 years all better.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 … 69679.html
A better story to inspire us and make us feel optimistic about the 8/11% unemployment rate.
How about, not opening America's doors to foreign investment with cutting corporate tax rates to a competitive level, and offering additional tax incentives for new and small businesses?
How about following a market-based approach to regulations, where certain regulations are relaxed during slow growth and recession, and tightened back(not that I even agree with this) up during normal growth?
Does it really take a genius to figure out what investors are going to prefer?
We can invest our money in a business here, and be taxed at 30%, or invest in a business there, and be taxed at 15%. Hmmm.
What about creating programs to put entrepreneurs in touch with multinational investors for business funding?
There are so many things that could be done to actually fix the problems, rather than make people feel good in spite of the problems.
I agree with you JaxsonRaine, a rational investor will go where he will have increased profits. Although many corporations have designed special loopholes into the law so they don't really pay those rates, its the less politically connected that suffer.
Not related but I see you on the forum a lot, why don't you write more Hubs.
I don't write hubs because I'm just on the forums in between work. If I were that concerned with money, I could do a lot better for myself writing articles and selling them for $5-$10.
I enjoy debating, and it makes the day go by more quickly.
It would be great to simplify our tax code and simultaneously lower the corporate tax rates. Putting in a territorial system would also remove a lot of the incentives to try and play around with numbers.
That being said, even big corporations still pay fairly high tax rates. GE pays around 24% on its normal operations side, and 20% on its financial services side. If they weren't so good with their taxes, those numbers would probably be closer to 27% and 35%, respectively.
According to Congressional Budget Office US corporations effectively paid 12.1 % tax in 2011, which is apparently a 40 year low, while profits, as a percentage of GDP, were close to the highest in the same period. It's not so much that they are 'good with their taxes' as that they are given a 'wide variety of tax breaks', resulting in the US having, as a share of the economy, 'the second lowest corporate tax in the developed world'.
http://ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive … ions_p.php
What should annoy people is not the tax rate on the so called "corporations", but the government welfare and bailouts they receive, especially the falsely labeled "too big too fail" ones.
There are those that support welfare for the rich, as a "strengthening measure'' while decrying welfare for the poor because it apparently "makes them weak". Go figure.
LoL yeah, I wonder if they notice their hypocrisy, or they're true believers in how deserving they are.
Survival of the fittest for the masses, socialism for the rich.
The best viewpoint, in my opinion, is to support everybody when they are struggling, but don't let anybody leech.
If someone gets a tax break, or some form of welfare, there must be stipulations attached. We don't do a very good job of that though, for the poor or the rich.
Corporations(some) have paid low taxes the last two years because of the recession. The tax rates haven't changed, corporations are just enjoying tax breaks on their losses. If a new corporation started up today, it would not pay 12%, because it would have no carry-over losses. The 25.6% rate is what an average new corporation would pay, and what existing corporations will pay after their losses are accounted for.
Giving tax breaks when companies are losing money is a good thing. It allows them to breathe until they get back on their feet. It doesn't mean that our tax rate dropped.
Cool I've made enough to buy me a snicker on sale so far.
Still I would enjoy an article length argument from you, but its up to you of course.
Maybe I'll write some here soon, dunno.
I've put together a good amount of information on why our healthcare system is so expensive, that could make quite a hub.
Although, I'm more inclined to start my own website than put my content in the hands of someone else.
The trouble with Obama is he's the lesser of two evils in people's minds, they like his liberal view but he's not good in other ways. Is Mitt Romney better? Those are the two choices (am I right?)
His biggest mistake was not putting an R next to his name. If so, he could have gone to Crawford, Texas for a whole month at a time if he wanted to. He could even have let 9/11 happened and no one would have blamed him.
People clearly don't remember that on his watch a Nigerian terrorist was stopped from potentially blowing up a plane bound for America. Under the watch of Obama, Osama Bin Laden was successfully taken out.
Under the watch of Obama, the war in Iraq was ended. People now have wider access to healthcare. If a member of the GOP had done this, there would be no doubt as to whether or not he would be re-elected.
Unfortunately, all it takes to discredit Obama is Sarah Palin babbling on about death panels.
Meanwhile, back at the topic...
It's sad that you can't talk about Obama without liberals changing the subject to Bush.
Get over the past. Some of us aren't happy with hardly any of our leaders. Pointing blame at the past will never help.
As long as the current GOP is offering nothing different from the GOP of the Bush years, then it is not only legitimate but necessary to look at what occurred during those years as a predictor of what could occur again under the same policies.
When the GOP starts to recognize their own hypocrisy, maybe the left will let the past go. But until Obama stops getting blamed for the economy and "lowering our credit rating", it is important to point out that Bush was made a hero for doing some of the exact same things.
In all seriousness, his biggest mistake was trying to work with the GOP in good faith. Clearly, he should have just told them what he was going to do, do it and let the GOP cry all they want in the absence of any semblance of policy from the GOP.
by Josak3 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that...
by Cassie Smith4 years ago
I can't wait for the Obama Administration to spin this one. Did they say something about the economy recovering?
by Marwan Asmar4 years ago
Many say Ronald Regan, former US President in the 1980s, knew how to look into the camera and please everyone. Do you agree.
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/25/mor … a-economy/In true 1984 double speak the WH is pointing to the CBO report on the economy as proof their policies are working! Lol! Really? Working to do what? Destroy...
by DTR00056 years ago
With unemployment still hovering around 10%, should the new "Freshman Class" in the House of Represenatives be hellbent on killing Obamacare or more concerned with job creation?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.