The data is very misleading on corp tax rates as most large corporations were forced to move their tax base to other countries. This is how Google for example gets away with paying 1.5% in corp taxes. The fact is, we have the 2nd highest corp tax rate in the world to Japan. The effective tax rate is lower because of the economic fascism that exists in this country. Sorry to ruin a good erection for you free thinker.
america the low tax country.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
I think to be totally accurate it is by the time his first term is up.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=4210
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt
This is what I was thinking about:
"Palin would have been correct if she had said the same thing that Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said last fall, that "the budget submitted by Obama will add more to the debt than the outstanding debt of the previous 43 presidents combined." We rated that True."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...palin-says-obama-has-accumulated-more-debt-p/
He did run up almost as much debt in his first two years as Bush did over 8 years.
"In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion â a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year â or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt
"Palin would have been correct if she had said the same thing that Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said last fall, that "the budget submitted by Obama will add more to the debt than the outstanding debt of the previous 43 presidents combined." We rated that True."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...palin-says-obama-has-accumulated-more-debt-p/
He did run up almost as much debt in his first two years as Bush did over 8 years.
"In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion â a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year â or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt
We don't need more "new ideas" at the moment. "New ideas" are what created most of this garbage. New ideas are fine when they address current ideas which aren't working. However, many of our "old ideas" worked far better than our current ones. For example, many people don't make the connection between the fact that we've imported millions of poor, relatively unskilled and uneducated 3rd worlders into our nation, and the fact that we are now relatively less prosperous than before we imported millions of 3rd worlders. Many people don't see the connection between multiracial societies, and interracial violence and conflict. We never had a "drug epidemic" until we created drug laws and declared a "war on drugs". For the vast majority of our existence we've had lower taxes than we now have, yet we've never had the economic problems we currently do. Yet for some reason people don't make the connection that the economic problems we're having have little to nothing to do with taxation... Perhaps it's time to take a look forward, and consider going back to what worked. It's fine to consider new ideas for issues which are problematic, but it makes little sense to consider new ideas when something is perfectly fine. Particularly if the new idea is less functional than the old idea, it may be worthwhile to consider going back to what was working previously and reconsidering before striking out on yet another "new idea". If it aint broke...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was somewhat more sober, admitting that the recovery was proving to be "uneven" and "frustratingly slow." Yet he gave no hint of being willing to helicopter in a third round of fiscal stimulus â at least not yet. "Monetary policy," he said, "cannot be a panacea." Or as Goolsbee put it, it's time for the private sector to "stand up and lead the recovery."
(See what Goolsbee's resignation means for the economy.)
If only. There may be $2 trillion sitting on the balance sheets of American corporations globally, but firms show no signs of wanting to spend it in order to hire workers at home, however much Washington might hope they will.
(SNIP)
"While the Administration is taking a sort of "move along, nothing to see here" approach, Republicans are trying to pin every economic problem on Obama in the run-up to the 2012 election. Let's be clear: the slow growth the U.S. is experiencing is not an Obama-specific problem. Many of the ingredients in it were already baked into the economy and were simply laid bare by the financial crisis."
(SNIP)
"But at the same time, the growth problem is Obama's. Every President inherits his predecessor's economy; indeed, it's often what gets him the job. It's then up to the new guy to change the numbers as well as the debate. Now it looks as if Obama is losing that debate. The Republicans have pulled off a major (some would say cynical) miracle by convincing the majority of Americans that the way to jump-start the economy is to slash taxes on the wealthy and on cash-hoarding corporations while cutting benefits for millions of Americans. It's fun-house math that can't work; we'll need both tax increases and sensible entitlement cuts to get back on track. Yet surveys show 50% of Americans think that not raising the debt ceiling is a good idea â that you can somehow starve your way to economic growth."
(SNIP)
"All this sounds complicated, and it is. But it's important to understand that our economy has changed over the past several decades in important and profound ways that politicians at both ends of the spectrum still don't get. There are half a billion middle-class people living abroad who can do our jobs. At the same time, technology has allowed companies to weather the recession almost entirely through job cuts"
(SNIP)
"There is a fundamental disconnect between the fortunes of American companies, which are doing quite well, and American workers, most of whom are earning a lower hourly wage now than they did during the recession. The thing is, companies make plenty of money; they just don't spend it on workers here."
(SNIP)
"American firms generated $1.68 trillion in profit in the last quarter of 2010 alone. But many firms would think twice before putting their next factory or R&D center in the U.S. when they could put it in Brazil, China or India. These emerging-market nations are churning out 70 million new middle-class workers and consumers every year. That's one reason unemployment is high and wages are constrained here at home. This was true well before the recession and even before Obama arrived in office. From 2000 to 2007, the U.S. saw its weakest period of job creation since the Great Depression.
Nobel laureate Michael Spence, author of The Next Convergence, has looked at which American companies created jobs at home from 1990 to 2008, a period of extreme globalization. The results are startling. The companies that did business in global markets, including manufacturers, banks, exporters, energy firms and financial services, contributed almost nothing to overall American job growth. The firms that did contribute were those operating mostly in the U.S. market, immune to global competition â health care companies, government agencies, retailers and hotels. Sadly, jobs in these sectors are lower paid and lower skilled than those that were outsourced. "When I first looked at the data, I was kind of stunned," says Spence, who now advocates a German-style industrial policy to keep jobs in some high-value sectors at home. Clearly, it's a myth that businesses are simply waiting for more economic and regulatory "certainty" to invest back home."
(SNIP)
"Entrepreneurship is still one of America's great strengths, right? Wrong. Rates of new-business creation have been contracting since the 1980s. Funny enough, that's just when the financial sector began to get a lot bigger. The two trends are not disconnected."
(SNIP)
"One way to do that is by considering a third-rail term: industrial policy. It's a concept that needs to be rebranded, because Democrats and Republicans alike shudder at being associated with something so "anti-American." In fact, good industrial policy can be a useful economic nudge. It's not about creating a command-and-control economy like China's but about the private and public sectors coming together at every level, as in Germany, to decide how best to keep jobs at home."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2076568,00.html#ixzz1PFWAQUL1
It isn't a tax issue. It is definitely a spending issue. When you spend more than you take in guess what?? You're in debt! If you stay in debt long enough interest is going to kill you. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT!!! Congress better get a reality check QUICK!
And if you make this an argument about Dems vs. Rep, you're clueless! They are BOTH at fault.