What does the GOP have to offer?

[IndependntLogic]

Don't you know it was a typo?

The difference between a typo and ignorance is always easy to spot. For example if I see somenoe has typde a couple words that just have letters mixed up, that's probably a typo. Now, if someone doesn't know to add an apostrophe for the purpose of contraction, it's evident that's just ignorance or perhaps a lacking of familiarity with a certain language. I still screw up in Spanish and my Russian has gone right out the door, since I left the military. No one speaks it.
Oh. And I could NEVER spell that name! But names have nothing to do with language as they are independent of rules.
If you would like any further education, just let me know. I'm here to help. It's what I do. I help.

What kind of business? I can't imagine a serious business owner being for Obama. The dude has screwed over small business in the last 3 years. And btw, Mister "Independent Logic," why are you talking smack about my alleged party. At what point in these 10 or 15 posts have I been bragging about the Republicans? That's what this thread is about. You want to talk about all the ways the GOP has f'd up so that you can ignore the HUGE FAILURES of Obama. You're pathetic. Go eat your pudding dough boy.

Why am I talking smack about your "alleged" party? Are you not a Libertarian? OMG You're embarrassed to admit you're a Libertarian? Sorry to out you there buddy!

As far as why I returned fire? I own a business but you come off with your little bs about me wanting to be on the governemnt teet. Oops. So if you're going to be an asshole, don't get all shocked and sensitive is someone returns fire.
You have not bragged about Republicans. You have really posted zero of substance at all - except criticism of others.
As far as the Dems? Nancy Pelosi sucks. She is a hypocritical screech-hag who is as crooked as they come. Same with Harry Reid. Obamacare blows. It is a complete POS. NDAA is the single worst abomination in our country's history.
You were saying about being a Dem loving guy who wants to ignore Obama's failures?
Oops!

I'm independent. I always have been. And I assumed that you were talking smack about the Republicans; but talking smack about Libertarians is much much worse. They're not the reason we're in this mess.

Hmm. You're not willing to talk about this alleged business that you run. It must be more of an enterprise (if that) b/c real small business owners are well aware of the ways that Obama is screwing them over.

Yes, my criticism of Democratic policies over the last century is what I believe the crux of the problem is. It's idiots like you that look to superficial "doings" instead of analyzing what went wrong. That's the problem with Washington is that leaders are looking for 'acts' to hang their hats on to get the votes of the useful idiots. I'd be more than happy with leadership that looks at the books and says, "well this is unconstitutional, oh that's hurting us, yea we don't need that. I don't even think that's moral. Oh this is stifling competition. Oh, here's another burdensome regulation."

Yea, you want all this b.s. until we get to the point that cops are going up to kids and fining them for selling lemonade without a permit.

And yes, this is about you ignoring Obama's failures. You want to re-elect a failure. I'm sorry, but I'm not cool with that. You lose credibility when that is your stance. And to deflect from your lack of credibility, you want to talk about the Republicans and I've already told you in no uncertain terms that I'm not enamored with the Republicans.

Hmmm. I'm really concerned about whether or not you cool with whom I vote for. it keeps me up at nights. Okay j/k
So are you ever able to post without insult? Just curious. You came in at first, never posting anything and almost immediately insulting others - and then get upset and played the victim when others aren't sweet to you. Have you considered just discussing topics?
Oh and I don't hide behind the anonymity of the net. While others claim to be business owners, constitutional scholars or whatever, I prove it.
We've been in business over a decade. I employ others. We donate time and money to charity out of every dollar we receive. It's wonderful life. I have all these freedoms and live in my favorite country in the world! I am not a victim at all! Obviously, there are things I would like see improved in my country but I really like it here!
So what do you do?
So who are you voting for?

 

[BillyV]

I think you mean "Pimsleur".

Don't you know it was a typo?

The difference between a typo and ignorance is always easy to spot. For example if I see somenoe has typde a couple words that just have letters mixed up, that's probably a typo. Now, if someone doesn't know to add an apostrophe for the purpose of contraction, it's evident that's just ignorance or perhaps a lacking of familiarity with a certain language. I still screw up in Spanish and my Russian has gone right out the door, since I left the military. No one speaks it.
Oh. And I could NEVER spell that name! But names have nothing to do with language as they are independent of rules.
If you would like any further education, just let me know. I'm here to help. It's what I do. I help.

I'll admit it was a cheap shot, but if you plan on being a "Grammar Nazi", proofreading is a critical skill.

I'm still waiting to find out how you reconcile your statement that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment, with “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes,” all the way back in post #50.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't you know it was a typo?

The difference between a typo and ignorance is always easy to spot. For example if I see somenoe has typde a couple words that just have letters mixed up, that's probably a typo. Now, if someone doesn't know to add an apostrophe for the purpose of contraction, it's evident that's just ignorance or perhaps a lacking of familiarity with a certain language. I still screw up in Spanish and my Russian has gone right out the door, since I left the military. No one speaks it.
Oh. And I could NEVER spell that name! But names have nothing to do with language as they are independent of rules.
If you would like any further education, just let me know. I'm here to help. It's what I do. I help.

I'll admit it was a cheap shot, but if you plan on being a "Grammar Nazi", proofreading is a critical skill.

I'm still waiting to find out how you reconcile your statement that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment, with “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes,” all the way back in post #50.

He only does it when he has nothing to argue with.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Nah brah. I'm not buying that you have a great thriving business Independent Logic. It's just part of your fantasy profile. You're playing your own version of the Sims LMAO.

What do I do? I have many ventures; but I'm not going to pretend that I'm a huge success like you are doing. Nothing you've said makes me think for one second that you know how to run a business. If you did, you would want the candidate that's going to lower your taxes, your payroll taxes, etc to help you expand and give jobs to even more worthy people.

As for who I'd vote for; well let's put it this way. Obama is the last person I'd vote for.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"We donate time and money to charity out of every dollar we receive." - That's just a stupid thing to say. Of course the money comes from every dollar you receive. Now if you said you were committed to donating 8 percent of your revenues to charity then that'd be different. That actually means something. And as long as we're on the subject of charity; Obama changed the law to limit the scope of charity write offs. Yes, he's given the finger to charity too. There's nobody he hasn't give the finger to. What do you expect from "the amateur" that literally gave McCain and Hilllary Clinton the finger.

 

[rdean]

What does the GOP have to offer?

Lots of stuff.

Bankruptcy - part of the economic policy

war - it's their foreign policy

hunger - feed the poor and they will breed

ignorance - slash funding for education because less money means better teachers

Your post is fluff and devoid of substance. This thread is about facts and specifics. So I invite you to offer any evidence that would support your claims. There is actually plenty to back up a couple of them.

You can't be serious. Remember Romney, let the housing industry bottom out. Let the auto industry die.

Attack Iran.

Republicans want to cut funding for daycare and school lunches.

We just saw Romney at a charter school. Duh! What was it he talked about.

Why do Republicans always need to be schooled on what their leaders are doing and saying? STOP WATCHING FOX NEWS! It's owned by foreigners and Arabs.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Don't you know it was a typo?

The difference between a typo and ignorance is always easy to spot. For example if I see somenoe has typde a couple words that just have letters mixed up, that's probably a typo. Now, if someone doesn't know to add an apostrophe for the purpose of contraction, it's evident that's just ignorance or perhaps a lacking of familiarity with a certain language. I still screw up in Spanish and my Russian has gone right out the door, since I left the military. No one speaks it.
Oh. And I could NEVER spell that name! But names have nothing to do with language as they are independent of rules.
If you would like any further education, just let me know. I'm here to help. It's what I do. I help.

I'll admit it was a cheap shot, but if you plan on being a "Grammar Nazi", proofreading is a critical skill.

I'm still waiting to find out how you reconcile your statement that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment, with “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes,” all the way back in post #50.

Oh it's all good amigo. Seriously, I wouldn't have poked fun at the Southern Retard if he hadn't come into the thread just being an asshole but usually that's all he does. So we're cool.
As far as the tax thing. I must have missed that challenge because it's one I never shy from. The average rate that a Global US company actually pays is around 17%. Many pay zero. GE for example, paid ZERO.
Yet they shipped hundreds of jobs to India.
Where the corporate tax rate is 33%.
Do you think they moved those jobs because of taxes?
There is an obvious answer but I like to give people a chance to think.

Nah brah. I'm not buying that you have a great thriving business Independent Logic. It's just part of your fantasy profile. You're playing your own version of the Sims LMAO.

What do I do? I have many ventures; but I'm not going to pretend that I'm a huge success like you are doing. Nothing you've said makes me think for one second that you know how to run a business. If you did, you would want the candidate that's going to lower your taxes, your payroll taxes, etc to help you expand and give jobs to even more worthy people.

As for who I'd vote for; well let's put it this way. Obama is the last person I'd vote for.

You have "many ventures". Sure you do, sweetheart.
I guess you weren't bright enough to understand the part about me not hiding behind anonymity. I'll leave that for cowards and liars who have claim to have "many ventures".
Now try reeeeal hard and you might figure out what I meant when I said I don't hide like you do and how you could figure out if I'm real or not.
Sine you seem unabe to handle issues and topics, you may now continue posting about me. It's cute.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Nah brah. I'm not buying that you have a great thriving business Independent Logic. It's just part of your fantasy profile. You're playing your own version of the Sims LMAO.

What do I do? I have many ventures; but I'm not going to pretend that I'm a huge success like you are doing. Nothing you've said makes me think for one second that you know how to run a business. If you did, you would want the candidate that's going to lower your taxes, your payroll taxes, etc to help you expand and give jobs to even more worthy people.

As for who I'd vote for; well let's put it this way. Obama is the last person I'd vote for.

You have "many ventures". Sure you do, sweetheart.
I guess you weren't bright enough to understand the part about me not hiding behind anonymity. I'll leave that for cowards and liars who have claim to have "many ventures".
Now try reeeeal hard and you might figure out what I meant when I said I don't hide like you do and how you could figure out if I'm real or not.
Sine you seem unabe to handle issues and topics, you may now continue posting about me. It's cute.

You are hiding behind anonymity though. I asked what your alleged business is and not only did you not tell me the name; you didn't even go into any details about your alleged business. What's the matter; can't think of lies fast enough?

And yes, I have my ventures and it's not my aim to impress you with them. You on the other hand, chose to mention your alleged small business and when I called you out on it; you had nothing to say about the scope of your presumably nonexistent small business.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The difference between a typo and ignorance is always easy to spot. For example if I see somenoe has typde a couple words that just have letters mixed up, that's probably a typo. Now, if someone doesn't know to add an apostrophe for the purpose of contraction, it's evident that's just ignorance or perhaps a lacking of familiarity with a certain language. I still screw up in Spanish and my Russian has gone right out the door, since I left the military. No one speaks it.
Oh. And I could NEVER spell that name! But names have nothing to do with language as they are independent of rules.
If you would like any further education, just let me know. I'm here to help. It's what I do. I help.

I'll admit it was a cheap shot, but if you plan on being a "Grammar Nazi", proofreading is a critical skill.

I'm still waiting to find out how you reconcile your statement that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment, with “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes,” all the way back in post #50.

Oh it's all good amigo. Seriously, I wouldn't have poked fun at the Southern Retard if he hadn't come into the thread just being an asshole but usually that's all he does. So we're cool.
As far as the tax thing. I must have missed that challenge because it's one I never shy from. The average rate that a Global US company actually pays is around 17%. Many pay zero. GE for example, paid ZERO.
Yet they shipped hundreds of jobs to India.
Where the corporate tax rate is 33%.
Do you think they moved those jobs because of taxes?
There is an obvious answer but I like to give people a chance to think.

Nah brah. I'm not buying that you have a great thriving business Independent Logic. It's just part of your fantasy profile. You're playing your own version of the Sims LMAO.

What do I do? I have many ventures; but I'm not going to pretend that I'm a huge success like you are doing. Nothing you've said makes me think for one second that you know how to run a business. If you did, you would want the candidate that's going to lower your taxes, your payroll taxes, etc to help you expand and give jobs to even more worthy people.

As for who I'd vote for; well let's put it this way. Obama is the last person I'd vote for.

You have "many ventures". Sure you do, sweetheart.
I guess you weren't bright enough to understand the part about me not hiding behind anonymity. I'll leave that for cowards and liars who have claim to have "many ventures".
Now try reeeeal hard and you might figure out what I meant when I said I don't hide like you do and how you could figure out if I'm real or not.
Sine you seem unabe to handle issues and topics, you may now continue posting about me. It's cute.

Oh it's all good amigo. Seriously, I wouldn't have poked fun at the Southern Retard if he hadn't come into the thread just being an asshole but usually that's all he does. So we're cool.
As far as the tax thing. I must have missed that challenge because it's one I never shy from. The average rate that a Global US company actually pays is around 17%. Many pay zero. GE for example, paid ZERO.
Yet they shipped hundreds of jobs to India.
Where the corporate tax rate is 33%.
Do you think they moved those jobs because of taxes?
There is an obvious answer but I like to give people a chance to think.

Does someone always have to do your thinking for you? Is that why you say there's an obvious answer but you like to give people a chance to think? Here's my chance at allowing you too think.

How can I say what the Republicans have done since they were told to sit down and shut up? How can I pin point anything they have done since they had the door locked on them by the democrats. How can I point to anything they have done since Reid refused to let the senate vote on any thing the house passed in their short time controlling the house?
Here are the democrats accomplishments since 2007
credit down grade on their watch
Recession began on their watch
16 trillion dollar debt on their watch
Record number of people on food stamps on their watch
NDAA on their watch
Patriot act extension on their watch
Unwanted healthcare on their watch
High unemployment on their watch.
Millions of American jobs lost on their watch
The biggest Racial division since the 60's on their watch
The president feels congress does not have the authority to dictate to him and what he does on their watch.

 

[code1211]

In a thread asking why anyone would vote Dem, when they have no plans etc... I responded with several items that obviously required planning and were subsequently carried out. I also included a couple things that are still in the planning phase.
While i don't hold the Dems in high regard, I am quick to challenge post that lack substance or logic. One poster got rather hysterical, threw a bit of a fit at being challenged to cite specifics about what the GOP has accomplished / plans they have presented that are so vastly superior to those of the Dems, and why. He insisted I start a new thread because you know, direct answers and such, well gee.
So okay, here we go. If anyone can provide something even more intellectually substantive than the usual "Because Dems suck!" or "Obama wants to entitle votes into...." and other such prattle, I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. I will not stoop to the petty insults and labeling so common here. I just haven't seen much from the GOP that would incite anyone not already Faithful to The Cause, to vote for them. So I welcome specifics about their plans and accomplishments. Cheers!

See Scott Walker, Wisconsin.

The only job of government is to do the work assigned with the money available.

If they do less work or use more money, they have failed.

 

[BillyV]

The difference between a typo and ignorance is always easy to spot. For example if I see somenoe has typde a couple words that just have letters mixed up, that's probably a typo. Now, if someone doesn't know to add an apostrophe for the purpose of contraction, it's evident that's just ignorance or perhaps a lacking of familiarity with a certain language. I still screw up in Spanish and my Russian has gone right out the door, since I left the military. No one speaks it.
Oh. And I could NEVER spell that name! But names have nothing to do with language as they are independent of rules.
If you would like any further education, just let me know. I'm here to help. It's what I do. I help.

I'll admit it was a cheap shot, but if you plan on being a "Grammar Nazi", proofreading is a critical skill.
I'm still waiting to find out how you reconcile your statement that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment, with “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes,” all the way back in post #50.

Oh it's all good amigo. Seriously, I wouldn't have poked fun at the Southern Retard if he hadn't come into the thread just being an asshole but usually that's all he does. So we're cool.
As far as the tax thing. I must have missed that challenge because it's one I never shy from. The average rate that a Global US company actually pays is around 17%. Many pay zero. GE for example, paid ZERO.
Yet they shipped hundreds of jobs to India.
Where the corporate tax rate is 33%.
Do you think they moved those jobs because of taxes?
There is an obvious answer but I like to give people a chance to think.

It’s unfortunate that an intelligent poster such as yourself would find it necessary to resort to condescension on such a regular basis. I guess a person’s insecurities do find their way into their writing style.
I have reposted the responses below; you may have missed my answers in blue to your positions in red.
As far as your answer above, you still haven’t listed a source for your “17%” average rate (formerly you used 15%), but again, GE and other US companies may “pay” zero taxes in any given year, but that doesn’t mean they “incurred” zero taxes during that period. In fact, GE’s financial statements for 2010 (the year everyone was screaming about) indicate that “Consolidated deferred taxes related to U.S. federal income taxes were an expense of $2,099 million in 2010” (from the 10K; it is public record). These are taxes based on income already earned that will be taxable in some future year. In addition, it had this to say:

Our consolidated income tax rate is lower than the U.S. statutory rate primarily because of benefits from lower-taxed global operations….. Our benefits from lower taxed global operations declined to $2.8 billion in 2010 from $4.0 billion in 2009 principally because of lower earnings in our operations subject to tax in countries where the tax on that income is lower than the U.S. statutory rate….. We expect our ability to benefit from non-U.S. income taxed at less than the U.S. rate to continue subject to changes of U.S. or foreign law……

So yes, the labor rate is a consideration, but with 1,000 full time tax accountants on staff, I doubt whether any significant decision is made at GE without considering the tax effects. And I have to believe that if the US had a lower corporate rate, GE and other multinationals would reconsider where they locate their facilities; it would at the very least make the lower wage rates (something I’m sure no one is advocating we adopt here) less of a factor.
Also, in fairness to GE and other multinationals, they have significant markets outside the US; we are a large market, but not the only market. Again from their 10K: “Revenues from customers located in the United States were $70,506 million in 2010….Revenues from customers located outside the United States were $79,705 million in 2010.” Hence, more foreign customers, the need to locate some facilities in those jurisdictions. Japan has the same "problem" with Toyota and Honda, employing those darn American workers!

You seem to think that a party has to be “for” something new to be viable; I disagree. Conservatives in general are “for” what we already have, a country that rewards hard work, innovation, intelligence and risk taking,
Okay a civil and intelligent post. I appreciate this. So please no I mean no offense when I state the the Dems could claim the exact same thing, just as legitimately.

Thanks for not offending my delicate sensibilities. I don’t agree; the Dems want to “improve” things through more government. Some of us don’t think their idea of “improvement” is positive for the country, and prefer the systems already in place.

“against” vast new entitlement and social engineering programs that cater to the lowest common denominator, and "against” unbending loyalty to green energy or excessive new environmental and other regulatory burdens.
What are the "new" entitlement programs? What social engineering? I'd love to see us off oil completely but for Conservative, not Liberal reasons.

Ummmm….Obamacare? Not a new entitlement?

So most are “for” a repeal of Obamacare, because it will cost a trillion dollars over the next ten years (at least, with $500 billion of new taxes).
That is what Repubs say. Dems say it will reduce the deficit. I'd like to see it repealed anyway though. But I think we do need SOMETHING as an alternative.

Whether or not it reduces the deficit is irrelevant. If I raise $1 trillion in taxes and spend 90% of it social programs, I can say that “reduces the deficit” by $100 billion. It doesn’t change the fact that you have still spent an additional $900 billion that either could have created wealth in the private sector or been paid directly against the debt.

That extra trillion dollars will come partly from Medicare (savings on fraud waste and abuse – right! Read: more deficit spending); taxes on medical insurance premiums (yes, for those of us who pay them), increased Medicare taxes on wages of higher income individuals and on investment income, and excise taxes on medical equipment and fees on pharmaceutical companies (which will be paid by medical insurance companies and, therefore, by those who pay for it), and the penalty on employers who choose not to offer health insurance (that should be good for business). And what will all that money buy? A free ride for anyone who now does not find it “convenient” to pay for health insurance;

You don't think there are people out there who simply can't afford insurane premiums?

Those who truly can’t afford it have Medicaid. If someone is not qualified for Medicaid because they make too much, then they just have not made it a priority.

redistribution on a massive scale.
There is always redistribution. It is just a matter of what direction or type of recipient benefits.

That’s a non-answer. Redistribution defined (dictionary.com) - Economics . the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs. Therefore, by this definition it can only go one way – from producers to non-producers (or perhaps lesser producers) Redistribution is a fact of life in civilized society; all citizens must have what they need to survive. There’s a difference between that and providing cradle-to-grave entitlements.

Should we have a safety net? Yes. Should we be subsidizing those who would rather not pay for their own well being? No. And just to be clear, I am not against the mandate (assuming it’s constitutional, which I’m afraid it probably isn’t); I think if we are going to run a health care system that denies no one care, it stands to reason that everyone will at some time in their lives end up using those services. A mandate is unnecessary if we simply deny services to those who can’t pay, but that will never happen (and rightly so). Anyway, Obamacare will lead inexorably to government-dominated and finally government-run healthcare, resulting in the destruction of the most innovative and finest healthcare system on the planet. Please no stats from the UN claiming otherwise; the US system is profligate with resources and is THE place to be if you are suffering from a serious illness. Somewhat expensive, yes, but you will not wait for service nor suffer from lack of available physicians, medical equipment or hospital space.

I had government health care in the military. It was fine. Not one officer I knew bought private insurance and I know none of the enlisted men did. I've also lived in three countries that had government health care. None of the horror stories occured in my personal experience and I am not a quick to believe the media claims as some.

I didn’t disparage any other country’s system, and people are usually happy with it right up to the time they need treatment for a complex or serious illness and are required to wait, sometimes with disastrous consequences. How often do you hear about that in the US? Also, these other countries benefit from the profitability of the American market; the onslaught of new drugs and therapies would drop to a trickle without the margins afforded them in this country.

Most are also “for” a reduction in statutory corporate income tax rates to enhance competitiveness; you can say that “no one pays the statutory rates”, but you would be incorrect. The largest corporations often can avoid them to some degree by making use of deductions and credits, but many are not available to the general mid-size business. In any case, those larger corporations are also the companies that are more easily able to offshore American jobs.
There is a flaw here but I think we're close in our thinking. I would do the opposite. Global Corporations (there really is no such thing as a big American company any more) pay an average of 15%. Many pay zero taxes. They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes. Think about it. The tax rate in India is 33%. Do you think they move jobs there because of the tax rate or because there is virtually no regulation and th average wage is $2 a day? Think about that. So i would take away all their tax breaks and subsidies - BUT I would give them to companies that met two qualifications: 100% American employees and 100% of revenues reported and paid in the USA. Think about what THAT owuld do for the deficit and unemployment.

Global corporations pay varying rates depending on the markets they are in; I’m not sure where this “15%” figure comes from, but I don’t think it’s relevant without some idea of the mix of foreign and US earnings and taxable income. None incur “zero taxes”; that’s just a fallacy. Some pay zero taxes in given years due to deferral strategies and carryover losses from other years. Look at the “deferred tax” component of a profitable company’s financial statements; that’s where you’ll find the income tax expense to be paid in future years.
Now you say on the one hand, “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes”, and in the next line you say that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment. You can’t have it both ways; either taxes are a consideration or they are not.
I also am not a proponent of stopping US companies from penetrating foreign markets. Does anyone think Japan is unhappy that Toyota and Honda manufacture cars in the US? Why then should we be unhappy when GM and Caterpillar manufacture for the China market? Many of the more lucrative executive, engineering and design components required stay in the US, just as Japanese engineers benefit from Toyota and Honda.

Reduce the top rate to 25% (as Mitt has suggested), eliminate many of the “give away” deductions that have evolved over the years and let them all compete equally. Do the same with individual rates, or you will create an “accountants’ full employment act” to manipulate income from personal to corporate earnings. And for the record, most conservatives are “for” supporting our most productive citizens, not badgering them about “fair share” (to which there is never any limit) to support our least productive citizens. Again, safety net, yes; permanent entitlement, no.

Most are “for” exploiting our domestic resources to the fullest, fossil as well as alternative. “Against” cap and trade or other confiscatory policies; the environmental policies of the West have simply moved the pollution to low-wage foreign countries that care less about the environment and therefore do more damage, then send back the resulting products. That’s not a solution; it’s just a bigger problem. Solar and wind energy are fine, but they are not a solution; reliance on them will just lead to poverty and misery until and unless they are competitive in all ways with carbon-based fuels.

I am all for solar etc... and every technology I can think of, started out inefficient and expensive and then got better and cheaper. Hell, i remember having to pay for a cell phone the sie of a brick and I couldn't even go on the net with it. besides, I like anything that could possibly bankrupt the Middle East. )

That’s true, there’s a time lag before a new technology is really commercially viable. But while that was happening, we kept our land-line phones and cellular was a novelty. The Dems would have us eliminate the land-lines while the cell phones are still bricks, or make the land-lines incredibly more expensive to make the cell phone more competitive. That’s what they want to do with cap and trade and other excessive environmental policies.

Most, finally, are “for” smaller, smarter government. We have, what, three agencies of the federal government responsible for protecting salmon at different stages? That’s lunacy, and a sign of the truth of Reagan’s comment that “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!” A government that gives us only what we need, not everything we want; a right-sized government that spends no more than it takes in (yes, a balanced budget amendment is the only way that will ever happen; pretty sure the Republican House took a vote on that) and expects and encourages its citizens to take care of their own problems. We have serious debt problems, and are careening toward a financial precipice. That’s enough for me not to vote “for” the policies of the liberals, no matter how reasonable their arguments may sound.

I have yet to see a Republican administration reduce the size of government. I mean, they always talk a good game but I don't recall any of them do it. Help me out with that one!

Well, I understand the Republican platform is to eliminate three major agencies from the outset: Commerce, Education, and……….ummmmm…….I’ll get back to you on the other one.
It’s true that government has yet to be downsized during my lifetime. However, given our current situation and the forces pulling at the Republican Party, I believe they are the most likely to reduce, or at least moderate the growth, of government. The Dems have shown that they have little interest in smaller government.

And, of course, because “Dems suck!”

Okay, that I can get behind! But so do repubs. I can't think of anything they have accomplished that makes me say "Well okay, THAT was really good!". And I don't see much that impresses me from them.

Both parties are flawed; we have to choose those that most closely reflect our opinions.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Nah brah. I'm not buying that you have a great thriving business Independent Logic. It's just part of your fantasy profile. You're playing your own version of the Sims LMAO.

What do I do? I have many ventures; but I'm not going to pretend that I'm a huge success like you are doing. Nothing you've said makes me think for one second that you know how to run a business. If you did, you would want the candidate that's going to lower your taxes, your payroll taxes, etc to help you expand and give jobs to even more worthy people.

As for who I'd vote for; well let's put it this way. Obama is the last person I'd vote for.

You have "many ventures". Sure you do, sweetheart.
I guess you weren't bright enough to understand the part about me not hiding behind anonymity. I'll leave that for cowards and liars who have claim to have "many ventures".
Now try reeeeal hard and you might figure out what I meant when I said I don't hide like you do and how you could figure out if I'm real or not.
Sine you seem unabe to handle issues and topics, you may now continue posting about me. It's cute.

You are hiding behind anonymity though. I asked what your alleged business is and not only did you not tell me the name; you didn't even go into any details about your alleged business. What's the matter; can't think of lies fast enough?

And yes, I have my ventures and it's not my aim to impress you with them. You on the other hand, chose to mention your alleged small business and when I called you out on it; you had nothing to say about the scope of your presumably nonexistent small business.

Hmmm. Geee. If you were intelligent you might think to just look on someone's profile. With all the clues, a moderately intelligent person would have figured that out, easily. Then there's you. With your uh "many ventures"

 

[IndependntLogic]

Sorry about deleting so much but this got so big, I could barely find your new post:

BillyV Wrote:
It’s unfortunate that an intelligent poster such as yourself would find it necessary to resort to condescension on such a regular basis. I guess a person’s insecurities do find their way into their writing style.
You know what? You're absolutely right. There are a couple assholes who came into this thread with nothing of substance and nothing but insults. They have yet to make a cogent point and I guess I stooped to their level.
I offer my sincere apologies to you. It is difficult to find someone who post reasonable, intelligent and civil posts. And I don't have to agree with someone to respect their viewpoint.


I have reposted the responses below; you may have missed my answers in blue to your positions in red.
As far as your answer above, you still haven’t listed a source for your “17%” average rate (formerly you used 15%),

I believe it was Forbes or Newsweek who did the first story but CNN is the easiest to find now: Study: Many corporations pay no income taxes - Nov. 3, 2011
It was 17.% on average.

but again, GE and other US companies may “pay” zero taxes in any given year, but that doesn’t mean they “incurred” zero taxes during that period. In fact, GE’s financial statements for 2010 (the year everyone was screaming about) indicate that “Consolidated deferred taxes related to U.S. federal income taxes were an expense of $2,099 million in 2010” (from the 10K; it is public record). These are taxes based on income already earned that will be taxable in some future year.
This is assuming they bring it back or that GE never once has a loss. Let's say one year they lose $100M domestically. Guess how much of that money they will bring back to the penny that year? $100M. Thus they still pay zero taxes when they bring it back. And seriously, you're using the PR piece from GE??? Well, at least you cited verifiable fact - which puts you FAR above most here.

In addition, it had this to say:
So yes, the labor rate is a consideration, but with 1,000 full time tax accountants on staff, I doubt whether any significant decision is made at GE without considering the tax effects. And I have to believe that if the US had a lower corporate rate, GE and other multinationals would reconsider where they locate their facilities; it would at the very least make the lower wage rates (something I’m sure no one is advocating we adopt here) less of a factor.

So once the tax factor is so low, that it offsets no environmental or labor regulations and an average national wage of $2 a day, they'll come back! I'm not holding my breath...

Also, in fairness to GE and other multinationals, they have significant markets outside the US; we are a large market, but not the only market. Again from their 10K: “Revenues from customers located in the United States were $70,506 million in 2010….Revenues from customers located outside the United States were $79,705 million in 2010.” Hence, more foreign customers, the need to locate some facilities in those jurisdictions. Japan has the same "problem" with Toyota and Honda, employing those darn American workers!

This is a VERY valid point! And one with which I agree wholeheartedly. But offshoring say, tech support for American consumers to India, has nothing to do with supporting GE's consumer base in India.

While you make valid points and support them, it is still my belief that the main reasons Execs decide to offshore American jobs has a lot more to do with a $2 / day working wage than taxes that they may or may not ever have to pay.

 

[code1211]

In a thread asking why anyone would vote Dem, when they have no plans etc... I responded with several items that obviously required planning and were subsequently carried out. I also included a couple things that are still in the planning phase.
While i don't hold the Dems in high regard, I am quick to challenge post that lack substance or logic. One poster got rather hysterical, threw a bit of a fit at being challenged to cite specifics about what the GOP has accomplished / plans they have presented that are so vastly superior to those of the Dems, and why. He insisted I start a new thread because you know, direct answers and such, well gee.
So okay, here we go. If anyone can provide something even more intellectually substantive than the usual "Because Dems suck!" or "Obama wants to entitle votes into...." and other such prattle, I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. I will not stoop to the petty insults and labeling so common here. I just haven't seen much from the GOP that would incite anyone not already Faithful to The Cause, to vote for them. So I welcome specifics about their plans and accomplishments. Cheers!

Scott Walker saved Wisconsin.

Mitch Daniels saved Indiana.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You have "many ventures". Sure you do, sweetheart.
I guess you weren't bright enough to understand the part about me not hiding behind anonymity. I'll leave that for cowards and liars who have claim to have "many ventures".
Now try reeeeal hard and you might figure out what I meant when I said I don't hide like you do and how you could figure out if I'm real or not.
Sine you seem unabe to handle issues and topics, you may now continue posting about me. It's cute.

You are hiding behind anonymity though. I asked what your alleged business is and not only did you not tell me the name; you didn't even go into any details about your alleged business. What's the matter; can't think of lies fast enough?

And yes, I have my ventures and it's not my aim to impress you with them. You on the other hand, chose to mention your alleged small business and when I called you out on it; you had nothing to say about the scope of your presumably nonexistent small business.

Hmmm. Geee. If you were intelligent you might think to just look on someone's profile. With all the clues, a moderately intelligent person would have figured that out, easily. Then there's you. With your uh "many ventures"

Or you could have said so from the start. And actually, I have one primary venture that is two plus years in the works and a couple back-up plans. But as I stated, it never was my aim to divulge my personal ventures on a public message board. It should be a revolutionizing event for myself and the world; but if not then I still am devising practical means of sustaining myself.

BTW - Way to blackball "religious charities." That's doesn't reflect well on your firm.

And I take it from what I read, that you're not earning above the $250K threshold. Maybe you'd change your mind on Obama if you were more successful LOL.

 

[BillyV]

Sorry about deleting so much but this got so big, I could barely find your new post:

BillyV Wrote:
It’s unfortunate that an intelligent poster such as yourself would find it necessary to resort to condescension on such a regular basis. I guess a person’s insecurities do find their way into their writing style.
You know what? You're absolutely right. There are a couple assholes who came into this thread with nothing of substance and nothing but insults. They have yet to make a cogent point and I guess I stooped to their level.
I offer my sincere apologies to you. It is difficult to find someone who post reasonable, intelligent and civil posts. And I don't have to agree with someone to respect their viewpoint.


I have reposted the responses below; you may have missed my answers in blue to your positions in red.
As far as your answer above, you still haven’t listed a source for your “17%” average rate (formerly you used 15%),

I believe it was Forbes or Newsweek who did the first story but CNN is the easiest to find now: Study: Many corporations pay no income taxes - Nov. 3, 2011
It was 17.% on average.

but again, GE and other US companies may “pay” zero taxes in any given year, but that doesn’t mean they “incurred” zero taxes during that period. In fact, GE’s financial statements for 2010 (the year everyone was screaming about) indicate that “Consolidated deferred taxes related to U.S. federal income taxes were an expense of $2,099 million in 2010” (from the 10K; it is public record). These are taxes based on income already earned that will be taxable in some future year.
This is assuming they bring it back or that GE never once has a loss. Let's say one year they lose $100M domestically. Guess how much of that money they will bring back to the penny that year? $100M. Thus they still pay zero taxes when they bring it back. And seriously, you're using the PR piece from GE??? Well, at least you cited verifiable fact - which puts you FAR above most here.

Well, no, it's not a PR piece; it's from their 2010 audited financial statements. These are certified by KPMG, one of the largest US accounting firms (Big 4). It's about as close as you can get to fact as possible; there are severe penalties for misstating items in an audited public company statement, from the SEC and now the PCAOB. It's not amounts they need to "bring back;" those do not create a deferred tax. It's items like accelerated depreciation where you get a bigger break up front and a smaller break later, ending up evening out to zero. And yes, they will use whatever is legally at their disposal to reduce their US as well as foreign taxes to a minimum; to do less would be a breach of fiduciary duty to their owners (probably most of us).

In addition, it had this to say:
So yes, the labor rate is a consideration, but with 1,000 full time tax accountants on staff, I doubt whether any significant decision is made at GE without considering the tax effects. And I have to believe that if the US had a lower corporate rate, GE and other multinationals would reconsider where they locate their facilities; it would at the very least make the lower wage rates (something I’m sure no one is advocating we adopt here) less of a factor.

So once the tax factor is so low, that it offsets no environmental or labor regulations and an average national wage of $2 a day, they'll come back! I'm not holding my breath...

Also, in fairness to GE and other multinationals, they have significant markets outside the US; we are a large market, but not the only market. Again from their 10K: “Revenues from customers located in the United States were $70,506 million in 2010….Revenues from customers located outside the United States were $79,705 million in 2010.” Hence, more foreign customers, the need to locate some facilities in those jurisdictions. Japan has the same "problem" with Toyota and Honda, employing those darn American workers!

This is a VERY valid point! And one with which I agree wholeheartedly. But offshoring say, tech support for American consumers to India, has nothing to do with supporting GE's consumer base in India.

Very true, but I suspect most US companies would prefer not to outsource those kinds of functions; they are not generally very customer friendly. Just think about the last time you needed computer support and you were talking to "Joe" who was clearly speaking from Bombay. The cultural differences make it difficult for that person to relate to an American on the other end of the line. If there was a reason to keep them here (a tax break could be helpful), I think they would be willing to pay a little more. But yes, for a price it sometimes makes fiscal sense for those kinds of functions to be in a low wage country. They aren't completely random, though; I've never reached a call center in Mexico, so maybe the low wages are not the only issue. From personal experience I can tell you the Asian markets like India are very difficult and frustrating to deal with; backwards rules and every document requires so many stamps (yes, rubber stamps; they are very popular outside the US) that you can barely read it. We often joke about saving the jobs of "ten Indian stampers" with each legal or financial document we execute in India.

While you make valid points and support them, it is still my belief that the main reasons Execs decide to offshore American jobs has a lot more to do with a $2 / day working wage than taxes that they may or may not ever have to pay.

Well, we may never know whether it would have made a difference, but it certainly won't send them in the other direction.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You are hiding behind anonymity though. I asked what your alleged business is and not only did you not tell me the name; you didn't even go into any details about your alleged business. What's the matter; can't think of lies fast enough?

And yes, I have my ventures and it's not my aim to impress you with them. You on the other hand, chose to mention your alleged small business and when I called you out on it; you had nothing to say about the scope of your presumably nonexistent small business.

Hmmm. Geee. If you were intelligent you might think to just look on someone's profile. With all the clues, a moderately intelligent person would have figured that out, easily. Then there's you. With your uh "many ventures"

Or you could have said so from the start. And actually, I have one primary venture that is two plus years in the works and a couple back-up plans. But as I stated, it never was my aim to divulge my personal ventures on a public message board. It should be a revolutionizing event for myself and the world; but if not then I still am devising practical means of sustaining myself.

BTW - Way to blackball "religious charities." That's doesn't reflect well on your firm.

And I take it from what I read, that you're not earning above the $250K threshold. Maybe you'd change your mind on Obama if you were more successful LOL.

You're just not too bright are you? Let's see. I make an average of $55 - $100k per placement (this would be why we can pay $10,000 referral fees). And you give what to charity? You volunteer your time to what worthy cause? You do what that makes you worth paying attention to?
Oh hell, nevermind. You post nothing of substance, you're not too bright and you're basically just a negative asshole who has not once had the character to say "Well i may not agree with opinion X but I can respect it.
There are too many solid posters to waste time bickering with a small-mind losers like you. Off to ignore with you! I such wonderful things happen to you, that some day you manage to be positive!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Hmmm. Geee. If you were intelligent you might think to just look on someone's profile. With all the clues, a moderately intelligent person would have figured that out, easily. Then there's you. With your uh "many ventures"

Or you could have said so from the start. And actually, I have one primary venture that is two plus years in the works and a couple back-up plans. But as I stated, it never was my aim to divulge my personal ventures on a public message board. It should be a revolutionizing event for myself and the world; but if not then I still am devising practical means of sustaining myself.

BTW - Way to blackball "religious charities." That's doesn't reflect well on your firm.

And I take it from what I read, that you're not earning above the $250K threshold. Maybe you'd change your mind on Obama if you were more successful LOL.

You're just not too bright are you? Let's see. I make an average of $55 - $100k per placement (this would be why we can pay $10,000 referral fees). And you give what to charity? You volunteer your time to what worthy cause? You do what that makes you worth paying attention to?
Oh hell, nevermind. You post nothing of substance, you're not too bright and you're basically just a negative asshole who has not once had the character to say "Well i may not agree with opinion X but I can respect it.
There are too many solid posters to waste time bickering with a small-mind losers like you. Off to ignore with you! I such wonderful things happen to you, that some day you manage to be positive!

You want to make this about who gives the most money to charity? Just two years ago, I was volunteering 25 hours a week. You think you can throw around money and that makes you special? That's the same philosophy of these bogus corporations who think they can throw their morsels back to the people while f'ing em in the ass in the meantime.

As for your business; I'm happy for you that you seem to be successful. Possibly it's too easy for you, because you clearly don't have a very high value on the money you earn and you want to support candidates who are more than willing to waste your money.

 

[BDBoop]

Or you could have said so from the start. And actually, I have one primary venture that is two plus years in the works and a couple back-up plans. But as I stated, it never was my aim to divulge my personal ventures on a public message board. It should be a revolutionizing event for myself and the world; but if not then I still am devising practical means of sustaining myself.

BTW - Way to blackball "religious charities." That's doesn't reflect well on your firm.

And I take it from what I read, that you're not earning above the $250K threshold. Maybe you'd change your mind on Obama if you were more successful LOL.

You're just not too bright are you? Let's see. I make an average of $55 - $100k per placement (this would be why we can pay $10,000 referral fees). And you give what to charity? You volunteer your time to what worthy cause? You do what that makes you worth paying attention to?
Oh hell, nevermind. You post nothing of substance, you're not too bright and you're basically just a negative asshole who has not once had the character to say "Well i may not agree with opinion X but I can respect it.
There are too many solid posters to waste time bickering with a small-mind losers like you. Off to ignore with you! I such wonderful things happen to you, that some day you manage to be positive!

You want to make this about who gives the most money to charity? Just two years ago, I was volunteering 25 hours a week. You think you can throw around money and that makes you special? That's the same philosophy of these bogus corporations who think they can throw their morsels back to the people while f'ing em in the ass in the meantime.

As for your business; I'm happy for you that you seem to be successful. Possibly it's too easy for you, because you clearly don't have a very high value on the money you earn and you want to support candidates who are more than willing to waste your money.

/sulk?

 

[IndependntLogic]

You're just not too bright are you? Let's see. I make an average of $55 - $100k per placement (this would be why we can pay $10,000 referral fees). And you give what to charity? You volunteer your time to what worthy cause? You do what that makes you worth paying attention to?
Oh hell, nevermind. You post nothing of substance, you're not too bright and you're basically just a negative asshole who has not once had the character to say "Well i may not agree with opinion X but I can respect it.
There are too many solid posters to waste time bickering with a small-mind losers like you. Off to ignore with you! I such wonderful things happen to you, that some day you manage to be positive!

You want to make this about who gives the most money to charity? Just two years ago, I was volunteering 25 hours a week. You think you can throw around money and that makes you special? That's the same philosophy of these bogus corporations who think they can throw their morsels back to the people while f'ing em in the ass in the meantime.

As for your business; I'm happy for you that you seem to be successful. Possibly it's too easy for you, because you clearly don't have a very high value on the money you earn and you want to support candidates who are more than willing to waste your money.

/sulk?

Well he came in and said nothing. A lot. Then he displayed his talent: The ability to critcize others without ever making a point. Not exactly a Dale Carnegie graduate
I try not to get caught up with or stoop down to the level of people of his type but hey, I'm human and have much to work on.
I just put him on ignore. Like a few others here, he's just not worthy of consideration.