So where did the other 11 trillion come from? And from 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs were moved to China and over 40,000 factories closed, which has been linked to at least a thousand times on this site. How does Obama increase the revenue when Republicans gladly watched jobs go and factories close? And where do you get a work force when Republicans defund education and block infrastructure renewal? Hell, even Marco Rubio was booed when he proposed, at the GOP debates, that we invest in daycare so both parents could work.
You simply can't get Republicans to answer these questions. They will say "But the stimulus was supposed to do that". Yea, a package Obama could only get passed because the wealthy were bribed by even more tax cuts.
And how does the GOP leadership feel about Obama's stimulus????
Obama criticizes Republicans who opposed stimulus, then claim credit for projects it funded
The dirty *****. And you guys know it. So what does that say about you people?
Can you explain to us what Republicans were supposed to do when those jobs left this country? We are not a dictatorship (yet).
Republicans supported companies moving jobs to China. After all the links so many people on the USMB posted how can you not know that? There were tax breaks and subsidies. Do you know why the Chamber of Commerce gives to Republicans 9 to one over Democrats? Do you know who funds the COC? And you guys expect us to link again and again when you refuse to read the links. And they aren't coming from left wing sites. If you notice, I even use the Christian Science Monitor which is hardly left wing. That's how come you guys can't learn. It's truly a determined ignorance.
And I posted FactCheck.org that explained it was all BS. The only tax breaks companies get moving overseas are the same breaks companies get moving from one city or state to another: moving expenses, that's it! I've seen no post from you or anybody else disputing that report. All you complained about is the hyperlinks no longer worked because the sites were not available.
You need to learn what tax write-offs are. Apparently you don't know. They don't amount to that much money--especially something as major as moving a company out of the country.
Ray a major company moves their manufacturing operations overseas.
Their expense is 50 million to move their operation to wherever.
They deduct the 50 million as business expense.
So 50 million is not much to you eh?
What about all the jobs and tax revenus lost when all those jobs go overseas?
The business gets a large write off, the country gets less income and the citizens get to suffer from having lost their jobs.
And you think all this is "good for us" eh?
You (like many leftists) don't understand what a write-off means.
If a company writes off 10 million dollars, it doesn't mean that they don't give the government 10 million dollars. What it means is that they still spend the 10 million dollars, but don't pay any taxes on it as income.
I deal with all kinds of write-offs and I wish everything I wrote off meant that it was money I didn't give to government. But there is no truth to it.
Now, once again, I present FactCheck.org:
FULL QUESTION:
When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?
FULL ANSWER:
It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:
Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.
But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are
taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the
highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005
report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.
We first
addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.
Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we
reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.
Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks