The Policy Positions that Have My Vote Going to Obama

[IndependntLogic]

I am an Independent. I voted for Reagan twice and Bush (the good one, not the idiot) twice. I strongly disapprove of a LOT Obama and the Dems have been up to over the years. So it's a matter of the lesser of two (or three) evils.

I really don't see much difference between Romney and Obama so for me, it comes down to 3 policy positions.

1. Too Big to Fail. Sure, the Dems contributed to the housing crisis. No dispute there. But Gramm-Leach-Bliley is what made the banks too big to fail. It undid Glass-Steagel and the very reasons we were given that AIG etc... couldn't be allowed to fail. The Dems tried to pass a stronger bill but the Repubs watered down Dodd-Frank etc... The Dems are again talking about strengthening DF / The Volcker Rule. The Dems and Romney have sworn to get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with.... nothing. WTF???

2. Offshoring Jobs and Revenues. The law that was originally passed to give legitimate deductions for a company moving from say, Ohio to SC, has given tremendous tax advantages for sending jobs overseas. The Dems want to clarify it and limit it to domestic moves only. The Repubs oppose this. Same with offshoring revenues. Right now, a product made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans, results in zero taxes through loopholes that allow techniques like the "Double Irish". The Dems want to close that loophole. Again, the Repubs oppose this.

So this is a thread about policy positions. Again, the extreme whackjobs on the Left or Right will just sling insults because they're so weak and lacking in knowledge on the issues, it's all they have. I'd love to see some decent posts on how policy positions influence voting decisions. I wish there were more people who think that way but even a few would be a refreshing change of pace from the usual.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am an Independent. I voted for Reagan twice and Bush (the good one, not the idiot) twice. I strongly disapprove of a LOT Obama and the Dems have been up to over the years. So it's a matter of the lesser of two (or three) evils.

I really don't see much difference between Romney and Obama so for me, it comes down to 3 policy positions.

1. Too Big to Fail. Sure, the Dems contributed to the housing crisis. No dispute there. But Gramm-Leach-Bliley is what made the banks too big to fail. It undid Glass-Steagel and the very reasons we were given that AIG etc... couldn't be allowed to fail. The Dems tried to pass a stronger bill but the Repubs watered down Dodd-Frank etc... The Dems are again talking about strengthening DF / The Volcker Rule. The Dems and Romney have sworn to get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with.... nothing. WTF???

2. Offshoring Jobs and Revenues. The law that was originally passed to give legitimate deductions for a company moving from say, Ohio to SC, has given tremendous tax advantages for sending jobs overseas. The Dems want to clarify it and limit it to domestic moves only. The Repubs oppose this. Same with offshoring revenues. Right now, a product made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans, results in zero taxes through loopholes that allow techniques like the "Double Irish". The Dems want to close that loophole. Again, the Repubs oppose this.

So this is a thread about policy positions. Again, the extreme whackjobs on the Left or Right will just sling insults because they're so weak and lacking in knowledge on the issues, it's all they have. I'd love to see some decent posts on how policy positions influence voting decisions. I wish there were more people who think that way but even a few would be a refreshing change of pace from the usual.

1. How did GLB make banks too big? Give details and actual examples of what you think happened so intelligent people might have a chance to either agree with you or point out what you are misunderstanding.
2. That is complete BS, there is no tax break for moving jobs out of the country because the US is the only country in the world that charges income tax on foreign earnings when you move them back into the country.
3. I thought you sad 3, did you forget how to count?

This thread is actually about your delusions.

 

[Texanmike]

I am an Independent. I voted for Reagan twice and Bush (the good one, not the idiot) twice. I strongly disapprove of a LOT Obama and the Dems have been up to over the years. So it's a matter of the lesser of two (or three) evils.

I really don't see much difference between Romney and Obama so for me, it comes down to 3 policy positions.

1. Too Big to Fail. Sure, the Dems contributed to the housing crisis. No dispute there. But Gramm-Leach-Bliley is what made the banks too big to fail. It undid Glass-Steagel and the very reasons we were given that AIG etc... couldn't be allowed to fail. The Dems tried to pass a stronger bill but the Repubs watered down Dodd-Frank etc... The Dems are again talking about strengthening DF / The Volcker Rule. The Dems and Romney have sworn to get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with.... nothing. WTF???

2. Offshoring Jobs and Revenues. The law that was originally passed to give legitimate deductions for a company moving from say, Ohio to SC, has given tremendous tax advantages for sending jobs overseas. The Dems want to clarify it and limit it to domestic moves only. The Repubs oppose this. Same with offshoring revenues. Right now, a product made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans, results in zero taxes through loopholes that allow techniques like the "Double Irish". The Dems want to close that loophole. Again, the Repubs oppose this.

So this is a thread about policy positions. Again, the extreme whackjobs on the Left or Right will just sling insults because they're so weak and lacking in knowledge on the issues, it's all they have. I'd love to see some decent posts on how policy positions influence voting decisions. I wish there were more people who think that way but even a few would be a refreshing change of pace from the usual.

So wait. Taxing money that was made outside of the country, which will dissuade that money from ever coming back into the country, is a good idea?

Mike

 

[IndependntLogic]

I am an Independent. I voted for Reagan twice and Bush (the good one, not the idiot) twice. I strongly disapprove of a LOT Obama and the Dems have been up to over the years. So it's a matter of the lesser of two (or three) evils.

I really don't see much difference between Romney and Obama so for me, it comes down to 3 policy positions.

1. Too Big to Fail. Sure, the Dems contributed to the housing crisis. No dispute there. But Gramm-Leach-Bliley is what made the banks too big to fail. It undid Glass-Steagel and the very reasons we were given that AIG etc... couldn't be allowed to fail. The Dems tried to pass a stronger bill but the Repubs watered down Dodd-Frank etc... The Dems are again talking about strengthening DF / The Volcker Rule. The Dems and Romney have sworn to get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with.... nothing. WTF???

2. Offshoring Jobs and Revenues. The law that was originally passed to give legitimate deductions for a company moving from say, Ohio to SC, has given tremendous tax advantages for sending jobs overseas. The Dems want to clarify it and limit it to domestic moves only. The Repubs oppose this. Same with offshoring revenues. Right now, a product made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans, results in zero taxes through loopholes that allow techniques like the "Double Irish". The Dems want to close that loophole. Again, the Repubs oppose this.

So this is a thread about policy positions. Again, the extreme whackjobs on the Left or Right will just sling insults because they're so weak and lacking in knowledge on the issues, it's all they have. I'd love to see some decent posts on how policy positions influence voting decisions. I wish there were more people who think that way but even a few would be a refreshing change of pace from the usual.

So wait. Taxing money that was made outside of the country, which will dissuade that money from ever coming back into the country, is a good idea?

Mike

Apparently you don't understand what " made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans" means.

 

[Avorysuds]

You could always be a real man and vote for someone you like, even if they can't win... If you vote for a problem, even if it's "lesser" then you are still part of the problem. You have more options than Dem/Rep, in fact you can vote for a different Dem than Obama and a different Rep than Mitt.

No one is forcing you to vote either way, in fact no one is forcing you to vote at all... This is not a "If I had to pick one" situation.

 

[flacaltenn]

I stopped reading at:::

I really don't see much difference between Romney and Obama so for me, it comes down to 3 policy positions.

Figured that about quantified the accuracy of whatever psychic prediction this was gonna be..

 

[IndependntLogic]

You could always be a real man and vote for someone you like, even if they can't win... If you vote for a problem, even if it's "lesser" then you are still part of the problem. You have more options than Dem/Rep, in fact you can vote for a different Dem than Obama and a different Rep than Mitt.

No one is forcing you to vote either way, in fact no one is forcing you to vote at all... This is not a "If I had to pick one" situation.

I agree with that. I have never seen a politician I agreed with on everything - or even one that I didn't have several disagreements with.
I don't see anything about Romney worth voting for. I am a firm statist, so am diametrically opposed to the basic ideology of Libertarian candidates.
So while I'm not thrilled with either party and have the pipe dream that a 3rd Common Sense party would gain some real power, at this point, Obama and the Dems hold the policy positions I feel are best on the issues I feel are most important.

 

[Texanmike]

I am an Independent. I voted for Reagan twice and Bush (the good one, not the idiot) twice. I strongly disapprove of a LOT Obama and the Dems have been up to over the years. So it's a matter of the lesser of two (or three) evils.

I really don't see much difference between Romney and Obama so for me, it comes down to 3 policy positions.

1. Too Big to Fail. Sure, the Dems contributed to the housing crisis. No dispute there. But Gramm-Leach-Bliley is what made the banks too big to fail. It undid Glass-Steagel and the very reasons we were given that AIG etc... couldn't be allowed to fail. The Dems tried to pass a stronger bill but the Repubs watered down Dodd-Frank etc... The Dems are again talking about strengthening DF / The Volcker Rule. The Dems and Romney have sworn to get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with.... nothing. WTF???

2. Offshoring Jobs and Revenues. The law that was originally passed to give legitimate deductions for a company moving from say, Ohio to SC, has given tremendous tax advantages for sending jobs overseas. The Dems want to clarify it and limit it to domestic moves only. The Repubs oppose this. Same with offshoring revenues. Right now, a product made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans, results in zero taxes through loopholes that allow techniques like the "Double Irish". The Dems want to close that loophole. Again, the Repubs oppose this.

So this is a thread about policy positions. Again, the extreme whackjobs on the Left or Right will just sling insults because they're so weak and lacking in knowledge on the issues, it's all they have. I'd love to see some decent posts on how policy positions influence voting decisions. I wish there were more people who think that way but even a few would be a refreshing change of pace from the usual.

So wait. Taxing money that was made outside of the country, which will dissuade that money from ever coming back into the country, is a good idea?

Mike

Apparently you don't understand what " made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans" means.

No. I understand that quite well. I don't understand what you are promoting though. If you want to require people to make things here and sell them here then you need to make it illegal to import things into this country. Of course, that will result in nobody buying our exports and us not having things like lithium, which is not abundant in the US.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

You could always be a real man and vote for someone you like, even if they can't win... If you vote for a problem, even if it's "lesser" then you are still part of the problem. You have more options than Dem/Rep, in fact you can vote for a different Dem than Obama and a different Rep than Mitt.

No one is forcing you to vote either way, in fact no one is forcing you to vote at all... This is not a "If I had to pick one" situation.

I agree with that. I have never seen a politician I agreed with on everything - or even one that I didn't have several disagreements with.
I don't see anything about Romney worth voting for. I am a firm statist, so am diametrically opposed to the basic ideology of Libertarian candidates.
So while I'm not thrilled with either party and have the pipe dream that a 3rd Common Sense party would gain some real power, at this point, Obama and the Dems hold the policy positions I feel are best on the issues I feel are most important.

What part of the Libertarian ideology do you have a problem with? Why?

Mike

 

[Avorysuds]

You could always be a real man and vote for someone you like, even if they can't win... If you vote for a problem, even if it's "lesser" then you are still part of the problem. You have more options than Dem/Rep, in fact you can vote for a different Dem than Obama and a different Rep than Mitt.

No one is forcing you to vote either way, in fact no one is forcing you to vote at all... This is not a "If I had to pick one" situation.

I agree with that. I have never seen a politician I agreed with on everything - or even one that I didn't have several disagreements with.
I don't see anything about Romney worth voting for. I am a firm statist, so am diametrically opposed to the basic ideology of Libertarian candidates.
So while I'm not thrilled with either party and have the pipe dream that a 3rd Common Sense party would gain some real power, at this point, Obama and the Dems hold the policy positions I feel are best on the issues I feel are most important.

Fair enough, I hope I'm never arrogant enough to tell you or anyone who they should vote for.

You do realize that the only way a third party will ever come about is if people vote for them yes?

If Obama is going to win, it will be without your vote being the deciding vote. If enough people vote for a third party to actually cause Obama to lose you will be looking at a formidable third party by the next election.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am an Independent. I voted for Reagan twice and Bush (the good one, not the idiot) twice. I strongly disapprove of a LOT Obama and the Dems have been up to over the years. So it's a matter of the lesser of two (or three) evils.

I really don't see much difference between Romney and Obama so for me, it comes down to 3 policy positions.

1. Too Big to Fail. Sure, the Dems contributed to the housing crisis. No dispute there. But Gramm-Leach-Bliley is what made the banks too big to fail. It undid Glass-Steagel and the very reasons we were given that AIG etc... couldn't be allowed to fail. The Dems tried to pass a stronger bill but the Repubs watered down Dodd-Frank etc... The Dems are again talking about strengthening DF / The Volcker Rule. The Dems and Romney have sworn to get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with.... nothing. WTF???

2. Offshoring Jobs and Revenues. The law that was originally passed to give legitimate deductions for a company moving from say, Ohio to SC, has given tremendous tax advantages for sending jobs overseas. The Dems want to clarify it and limit it to domestic moves only. The Repubs oppose this. Same with offshoring revenues. Right now, a product made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans, results in zero taxes through loopholes that allow techniques like the "Double Irish". The Dems want to close that loophole. Again, the Repubs oppose this.

So this is a thread about policy positions. Again, the extreme whackjobs on the Left or Right will just sling insults because they're so weak and lacking in knowledge on the issues, it's all they have. I'd love to see some decent posts on how policy positions influence voting decisions. I wish there were more people who think that way but even a few would be a refreshing change of pace from the usual.

So wait. Taxing money that was made outside of the country, which will dissuade that money from ever coming back into the country, is a good idea?

Mike

Apparently you don't understand what " made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans" means.

Basically, it means you don't understand economics.

 

[Ariux]

I am an Independent. I voted for Reagan twice and Bush (the good one, not the idiot) twice.

Th good one, not the idiot? You're an idiot.

 

[IndependntLogic]

So wait. Taxing money that was made outside of the country, which will dissuade that money from ever coming back into the country, is a good idea?

Mike

Apparently you don't understand what " made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans" means.

No. I understand that quite well. I don't understand what you are promoting though. If you want to require people to make things here and sell them here then you need to make it illegal to import things into this country. Of course, that will result in nobody buying our exports and us not having things like lithium, which is not abundant in the US.

Mike

<<Sigh>>

1. I do not want to require any person or company to make things here.
2. I do not want to make it illegal to import things.
You're from the South, are you? Okay let me dumb this down. Since you brought up a drug, I'll use one for an example.

See Abbott laboratories.
They make drugs!
They make Lexapro in the USA! (by choice)
Lexapro is sold ONLY in the USA.
Lexapro is made and sold 100% in the USA! (by choice of Abbott)
Lexapro makes BILLIONS in profits!
In the USA ONLY!
Abbott opened a small office in Ireland with 17 people.
Abbott now offhsores ALL the profits from Lexapro to Ireland! (If you don't understand "offshores", find one of those Liberal Elitists and ask them to explain it to you).
Hundreds of Billions of dollars are offshored through loopholes that offer techniques like the "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich".
Most Democrats, Independents and some Republicans think that since these profits are earned 100% in the USA, we should realize those revenues.
This would be very nice for that deficit thing.

If you're still confused or think that I want to oulaw breathing in Montana or whatever, let me know and I'll try to come up with even smaller words.

 

[tjvh]

And the Obama Administration did so well with spending OUR Tax dollars and off-shoring jobs at General Motors to China. That sort of makes reason #2 of the OP sound sort of silly, or misinformed doesn't it?

 

[Oddball]

There is no way in hell I'm voting for Obama

 

[flacaltenn]

Apparently you don't understand what " made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans" means.

No. I understand that quite well. I don't understand what you are promoting though. If you want to require people to make things here and sell them here then you need to make it illegal to import things into this country. Of course, that will result in nobody buying our exports and us not having things like lithium, which is not abundant in the US.

Mike

<<Sigh>>

1. I do not want to require any person or company to make things here.
2. I do not want to make it illegal to import things.
You're from the South, are you? Okay let me dumb this down. Since you brought up a drug, I'll use one for an example.

See Abbott laboratories.
They make drugs!
They make Lexapro in the USA! (by choice)
Lexapro is sold ONLY in the USA.
Lexapro is made and sold 100% in the USA! (by choice of Abbott)
Lexapro makes BILLIONS in profits!
In the USA ONLY!
Abbott opened a small office in Ireland with 17 people.
Abbott now offhsores ALL the profits from Lexapro to Ireland! (If you don't understand "offshores", find one of those Liberal Elitists and ask them to explain it to you).
Hundreds of Billions of dollars are offshored through loopholes that offer techniques like the "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich".
Most Democrats, Independents and some Republicans think that since these profits are earned 100% in the USA, we should realize those revenues.
This would be very nice for that deficit thing.

If you're still confused or think that I want to oulaw breathing in Montana or whatever, let me know and I'll try to come up with even smaller words.

When you belittle Southerners and LIE about Abott Labs in Ireland --- I get interested enough in this thread to WARN your pompous ass to do it's homework.. From their Ireland website..

Abbott in Ireland
Abbott is one of Ireland's leading health care companies, employing almost 4,000 people. Abbott Ireland manufactures and markets a broad range of health care products including medical devices, and pharmaceutical, diagnostic and nutritional products. Abbott has eight manufacturing facilities located in Clonmel, Cootehill, Cork, Donegal, Longford and Sligo and a third party manufacturing management operation in Sligo. It has commercial operations in Dublin and shared services in Dublin and Westport. Abbott has been operating in Ireland since 1946.

Five business units are represented across eight manufacturing sites with commercial operations in Dublin and Westport. The manufacturing facilities are:

Abbott Diabetes Care in Donegal
Abbott Nutrition in Cootehill and Sligo
Abbott Pharmaceuticals in Sligo and Cork
Abbott Diagnostics in Longford and Sligo
Abbott Vascular Devices in Clonmel
Abbott’s investment in Ireland has mirrored the global success of Abbott worldwide and we remain strongly focused on ensuring that our Irish operations continue to play an important role within the worldwide corporation.

17 PEOPLE???? Us Southerners may be slow talking, but don't think that's because we're slow thinking..

 

[Texanmike]

Apparently you don't understand what " made in the USA, sold ONLY in the USA and ONLY to Americans" means.

No. I understand that quite well. I don't understand what you are promoting though. If you want to require people to make things here and sell them here then you need to make it illegal to import things into this country. Of course, that will result in nobody buying our exports and us not having things like lithium, which is not abundant in the US.

Mike

<<Sigh>>

1. I do not want to require any person or company to make things here.
2. I do not want to make it illegal to import things.
You're from the South, are you? Okay let me dumb this down. Since you brought up a drug, I'll use one for an example.

See Abbott laboratories.
They make drugs!
They make Lexapro in the USA! (by choice)
Lexapro is sold ONLY in the USA.
Lexapro is made and sold 100% in the USA! (by choice of Abbott)
Lexapro makes BILLIONS in profits!
In the USA ONLY!
Abbott opened a small office in Ireland with 17 people.
Abbott now offhsores ALL the profits from Lexapro to Ireland! (If you don't understand "offshores", find one of those Liberal Elitists and ask them to explain it to you).
Hundreds of Billions of dollars are offshored through loopholes that offer techniques like the "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich".
Most Democrats, Independents and some Republicans think that since these profits are earned 100% in the USA, we should realize those revenues.
This would be very nice for that deficit thing.

If you're still confused or think that I want to oulaw breathing in Montana or whatever, let me know and I'll try to come up with even smaller words.

So that we don't have any confusion, I'm from the south. I also grew up all over the world. I speak 4 languages and have brokered multi-national transactions in both the commodity and finished products market.

Now to clear up your ignorance. Notice I didn't capitalize lithium? For someone who is going to attempt to insult my education based on the region of the country I live in I would expect an understanding of the relevance of capitalism and the concept of proper nouns. I wasn't talking about the drug "Lithium", I was talking about the element, lithium. You know, the one that has a big Li under a small 3 on the periodic table? Its in most of the re-chargeable battery powered devices you use (cell phones, laptops etc). The point of my post (which was completely lost on you) was that when you add taxes you are discouraging investment in this country period. You get additional revenue from the income tax provided by the jobs that Abbot provides in the US.

But lets get back to your drug issue. What exactly would you like to do? Would you like to tax the manufacture of Lexapro? For the record, Lexapro is taxed. It is taxed at the point of sale. Are you saying that you are not benefiting from the manufacture of Lexapro? Are Americans not benefiting from the medicinal effects of Lexapro? If you decided to tax it then Abbot would have two options. They would either have to raise their prices (not a benefit to Americans) or they would need to cut into profits. You are not going to get a net gain by taxing Lexapro.

If you want the extra tax revenue, don't hide behind taking it from the "evil corporation" just take tax it from the people. They are going to pay it either way.

Understand?

Mike

 

[tererun]

There are a number of positions which keep me from considering the so called conservative party, or republicans.

The use of trickle down over trickle up economics. Giving large breaks and assistance to rich people who can already afford everything they want does not increase demand. They are already purchasing what they need and want. Giving money for food and the basics of life to the poor people actually generates jobs and demand. Poor people drive some of our biggest employers presently. These poor people also include elderly living on fixed incomes. Without these monies these people simply cannot buy food or goods from legitimate businesses. Food stamps and social security drive our food production industries, our cheap good markets like walmart, and things like our utilities. One can make the argument some of these companies buy foreign produced items, but places lie superstores are the biggest employers in the US, and you see them everywhere employing hundreds of people in your town. This is based on real economics of consumption. Poor people and the middle class are far larger populations that have to consume certain goods, and due to their numbers their consumption far surpasses any consumption the rich are even capable of. Our fuel and energy markets are demand driven by the purchasing power of the poor and when you cut that you send us further downward on the spiral of unemployment because less demand means cutting the jobs we have. Without welfare and social security your cut the throats o the biggest employers left in the US. The only way you do not do that is to actually employ those people which we do not have the jobs to do presently. The only way to make that sort of employment come about is to create the demand that only the poor and lower middle class can make. Mitt is blind to this fact.

2. Social programs: Often social programs like education, garbage and waste handling, law enforcement, and fire protection have no return profit. You cannot quantify how many crimes were deterred by police presence. You cannot quantify the revenue gained by a better educated workforce. You cannot tell the actual property saved by waste disposal or putting out fires. These are jobs in our community, and they are needed services for all of us. Do the republicans think we are going to line up in bucket brigades to save a mansion? Are we going to risk our lives confronting a person mugging the rich guy of his sports car? These are services our government provides that have failed time and again as private industries to handle the actual needs of society. These jobs are handled by the government because there is no profit in doing them. Still, if you cut them you lump another bunch of unemployed on a job market that does not have enough jobs. Mitt wants to just put these people out on the streets and hope someone in private industry pics up the slack and does a thankless and profitless job out of the goodness of their heart. That is just stupid talk.

Moral wars. It just costs a lot of money to enforce laws which have no societal value because of religious values. It costs money to enforce laws which restrict the times you can buy alcohol. It costs money to keep gays from marrying and make all these political campaigns to eliminate that. It costs money to prevent a mosque from going up in your neighborhood. It costs money to jail a guy for smoking a joint on his coutch because you hate drugs. I am not saying stop laws that punish things lie assault, theft, vandalism, and do damage to society, but I don't want to spend money to make sure some guy cannot buy a budweiser on sunday morning. I don't need to spend money to make sure two dudes do not get married.

This is a recent one: Mitt has spent a lot of time talking about frivelous and wasteful spending he wants to cut, but we never heard a word about how we could get 77 thousand more dollars a year from him that we take off his tax bill so his wife can have a ballarina horse. It is his legal right to take that, but that sort of pointless spending on a hobby that generates no tax revenue and only goes to people who can afford to have a horse whose sole purpose is to do shitty dances. I he wantds me to start trusting him then he should start demanding we eliminate those sorts of tax breaks and collect money rich guys use to make hobbies they can afford cheaper. Long before we starve an old couple for taking away their social security because we cannot afford it, or starve a family by taking away their food stamps Mitt can pay for his own dancing ponies.

Obama may not be the greatest president ever, but it isn't like the republicans were screaming their heads off opposing 77 thousand dollar tax credits for dancing horses for rich people. They are certainly not my heroes, and they are definitally not conservative. If we cannot afford important social programs like education, police, and fire protection then we fucked up, but those should be the last things we get rid of and Mitt clearly nows of quite a few tax loopholes which help people who need no help.

 

[IndependntLogic]

And the Obama Administration did so well with spending OUR Tax dollars and off-shoring jobs at General Motors to China. That sort of makes reason #2 of the OP sound sort of silly, or misinformed doesn't it?

The Obama Admin off-shored jobs in the private sector?

Hmmm. And you're saying other people sound silly and misinformed?

So you have nothing on policy position? Yeah, there's a big surprise.

There is no way in hell I'm voting for Obama

So you have nothing on policy position? Yeah, there's a big surprise.

 

[Ariux]

So wait. Taxing money that was made outside of the country, which will dissuade that money from ever coming back into the country, is a good idea?

How about taxing money made in the US, but moved out of the country? E.g. consider a company like Apple which has numerous patents, which they assign to an off-shore entity in a tax haven. This way when American companies pay royalties to Apple, Apple doesn't pay any income tax on those profits.

Or for that matter, when any foreign company sells anything in the US? Let's go back to the Constitution and tax imports. Most "free trade" countries do it through VAT taxes with American products sold in their countries. The US is getting scammed.