FDR Nearly Destroyed the USA; Obama Using Same Policies

In referring to the original post,

Hose_Head wrote: By definition, this post's a troll. The OP has even left the discussion!

I suspect Hose_Head of being an old-timer like me. In the days of Usenet News and electronic bulletin boards, before web forums like this one, the term "troll" was not used as a general term of opprobrium as it is now. It wasn't a reference to the creature of Norse mythology and used to describe every sort of rudeness. It described posts that emulated a fishing technique: dangling the line after a moving boat to see if some fish would take the bait. Sometimes a good troll was admired for its cleverness, but after a while trolls always get tiresome. This business of slapping up the occasional conservative column, or joke, or Barney Frank fart video, and then waiting for some of us to signal approval and others to signal disapproval is boring and sad. A few say "right on!" and a few say "shame!". It seldom generates an interesting debate with facts and arguments. I suppose someone could go the other way and post Krugman's column every Monday, but I don't think that would win the poster many friends, even among Krugman fans.

Breathe Jimbo wrote: We should have let the banks and GM go down. Everything would have sorted itself out in a year.

Business and commerce rely on credit. I am a partner in a law firm that employs around 40 people, including us partners. In many ways such a firm is like any other small business. We rely on a line of credit based on a relationship with a bank that we have cultivated for decades. This lets us borrow reasonable amounts to pay bills on time even as our own collections fluctuate. If our bank had failed -- and it was one that received TARP funds -- I think we would have been ruined. Our clients rely on credit the same way we do, and inevitably many of them would have faced cash crunches that would have caused them to delay paying our bills, while we would have faced rent, payrolls, and other bills that eventually we couldn't have met. That story would have played itself out in hundreds of thousands of businesses. Maybe things would have sorted themselves out in a year, but I fear part of the sorting would be me selling apples (or the 21st Century equivalent, operating a web programming business from my kitchen table). Mistakes were made, but we averted a tragic, ugly mess. The prior administration shares in the credit for doing so.

kempo wrote: Big business have been leaving this country for years to move to Canada, Europe, and the far East to flee the 35% corporate taxes we have in the U.S. If the U.S. would drop corporate taxes to 20% like the rest of the world, the economy would boom. Lowering taxes increases tax revenue. It always has and it always will.

There is a web site called World Tax Rates 2010/2011, http://www.taxrates.cc, that shows corporate tax rates for most countries. A disclaimer notes that determining rates can be difficult, and I suppose some places may have differences between industries or locations, but the site didn't seem to have an ax to grind. Among the figures it gives for advanced countries or fast-growing countries:

Australia 30%
Canada 34%
China 25%
France 33.33%
Germany 33.3%
India 33.99%
Japan 40.87%
Mexico 30%
U.K. 28%

Most of those are a scooch less than that of the U.S., but it would take a pile of evidence to convince me that for years companies have been moving to Canada, say, for that 2 percent difference. In any event, it doesn't look like there is a world 20 percent standard. There were a few countries in the last decade that got a reputation for attracting businesses with especially low income tax rates, but some of those, like Ireland, are basket cases now.

In addition, it is notoriously the case that American companies do not, on average, pay anywhere close to 35 percent because of a broad variety of subsidies, shelters, and special breaks. There was an interesting story in the New York Times a few months ago, "U.S. Business Has High Tax Rates but Pays Less," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/busin ... rates.html. Perhaps the most interesting information was this:

In addition to being complex and uneven, the United States corporate tax code is inefficient and has become a diminishing source of revenue. Corporate taxes accounted for about 9 percent of all federal revenue in 2010. At $191 billion, they were equal to 1.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Most industrial countries collect more from companies, about 2.5 percent of output.

I would certainly like to see us close the loopholes and reduce the rate. Every sensible person would. But I'm not holding my breath.

PST wrote:

kempo wrote: Big business have been leaving this country for years to move to Canada, Europe, and the far East to flee the 35% corporate taxes we have in the U.S. If the U.S. would drop corporate taxes to 20% like the rest of the world, the economy would boom. Lowering taxes increases tax revenue. It always has and it always will.

There is a web site called World Tax Rates 2010/2011, http://www.taxrates.cc, that shows corporate tax rates for most countries. A disclaimer notes that determining rates can be difficult, and I suppose some places may have differences between industries or locations, but the site didn't seem to have an ax to grind. Among the figures it gives for advanced countries or fast-growing countries:

Australia 30%
Canada 34%
China 25%
France 33.33%
Germany 33.3%
India 33.99%
Japan 40.87%
Mexico 30%
U.K. 28%

Most of those are a scooch less than that of the U.S., but it would take a pile of evidence to convince me that for years companies have been moving to Canada, say, for that 2 percent difference. In any event, it doesn't look like there is a world 20 percent standard. There were a few countries in the last decade that got a reputation for attracting businesses with especially low income tax rates, but some of those, like Ireland, are basket cases now.

In addition, it is notoriously the case that American companies do not, on average, pay anywhere close to 35 percent because of a broad variety of subsidies, shelters, and special breaks. There was an interesting story in the New York Times a few months ago, "U.S. Business Has High Tax Rates but Pays Less," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/busin ... rates.html. Perhaps the most interesting information was this:

In addition to being complex and uneven, the United States corporate tax code is inefficient and has become a diminishing source of revenue. Corporate taxes accounted for about 9 percent of all federal revenue in 2010. At $191 billion, they were equal to 1.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Most industrial countries collect more from companies, about 2.5 percent of output.

I would certainly like to see us close the loopholes and reduce the rate. Every sensible person would. But I'm not holding my breath.

It is very difficult to compare taxes.We need to include direct taxes like a GST. Taxes on petrol and also payroll taxes.

I wasn't a supporter of Obama in the past election; and, I'm afraid that the only people to whom he brought "hope" live in Norway. But, once elected, I really wanted to support the guy. My main criticism of him has been that he gives way to the extremes on both left and right, when he should stand firm and act a bit more...presidential.

As for the economy, what do you expect after decades of exporting America's manufacturing jobs to the third world while importing an ever-increasing number of workers who will work for less? That's a mistake the Western Europeans generally do not make, whatever their political beliefs. The poor Americian consumer simply doesn't have much left with which to consume.

My rant for the day.

Vader wrote:"The soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut taxes now.

JFK

Federal Income Tax Rates 1960 Federal Income Tax Rates 1970

$100,000 - $120,000 75.0% $100,000 - $120,000 63.55%
$200,000 - $300,000 89.0% $200,000 - and over 71.75%
$400,000 - and over 91.0%

During the 1960s the United States experienced its longest uninterrupted period of economic expansion in history
How is it possible we had a booming economy in the 60s with tax rates on our job creators like these?

So Well wrote:If you aren't pro-business, what the heck are you?

An capitalist that looks at the long term picture.

Jeremy Grantham, is head of GMO, a privately held global investment management firm, managing $106 billion in client assets.

He was right about indexing, an investment strategy he took a lead role in inventing, when everyone else assumed that you should try to beat the market rather than join it, and about the long rally in small-cap stocks in the early 1970s, the bond rebound in 1981 and the resurgence of large-cap growth stocks in the early 1990s. He was also, well in advance, right about one bubble after another: Japan in 1989, tech stocks in 2000, the United States housing market and financial markets and global equities in 2008. Grantham’s quarterly letters, command a cult following of readers within and beyond the financial industry.

Grantham wrote:It seems to me that capitalism’s effectiveness moves along the spectrum of time horizons, brilliant at the short end but lost, irrelevant, and even plain dangerous at the very long end.

This from a UberCapitalist. Food for thought.

PST wrote:This business of slapping up the occasional conservative column, or joke, or Barney Frank fart video

So Well seems to be the 2nd biggest Attention Whore on this board.

I finally have gotten over the embarrassment of admitting that I voted for Obama in the first election I ever voted in. This uninformed decision that I made will never happen again.

Now I am following the candidates weekly starting 22 months before the election. I understand what the important issues are and I understand where the candidates say they stand on the issues.

I also understand what their track record is and have a good estimate of whether they will perform up to expectations once in office. (BTW, What were the expectations for Obama? That he would be a black President, looks good, and reads the teleprompter well?)

I became immediately disappointed with Obama just after his inauguration. Then after my mistake I spoke with my dad and grandad. Both told me they suspected I had voted for Obama despite everything I had heard at dinner tables with them (they voted for Barr/Root in 2008 believing McCain/Palin were jokes).

But they were eager to point me to some good reading material. One of the first people they recommended was Walter E. Williams. They wanted me to first read some biographical information about Walter that they had collected over the years. Then I read a couple of his books and now try to catch every column he writes. He is rock solid. I don't believe anyone who is not familiar with his writings can consider themselves an informed citizen and voter.

Along with some other writings my elders recommended, I had a big change in world view especially about individual freedom, what makes a prosperous society, and what types of government and economic systems favor the poor.

If the 2012 election were being held today I would vote Gary Johnson for President. Most of you are probably so poorly informed you don't know who Gary is. He is speaking to the National Press Corp luncheon today from 1:05 to 2:05 on C-SPAN TV. My DVR is set to catch him.

A lot will happen with the Presidential candidates before next year's election and I will continue to follow them (although Bachmann and Palin I have already ruled out and Romney would only get my desperation vote to get Obama out).

Keep yourself informed on both sides. I read Krugman and Friedman regularly mainly to understand how wrong they are and I even watch MSNBC occasionally.

PST apparently "60 Minutes" was lying about the world wide average of 20% corporate taxes on their show this past Sunday. What caught my eye was Ireland's 12% corporate tax rates. I don't remember the figure but they said if the U.S. dropped their corporate tax rate to a competitive rate it would bring home tens of thousands of jobs and billions in assets.

I am not a business person and I don't have a lot of money invested in the stock market. I'm just and old retired cop who draws a nice retirement. I am just lucky to live in one of the 6 States who has a surplus in revenue. The only reason we have a surplus is because it is against the law for our State to spend more than it takes in. It's a great concept. You know most of us do that with our personal budget. If it wasn't for that law our politicians would have us deep in debt like the other 45 States.

Like I said I don't have a lot of money invested in the stock matket but my retirement system does. It owns oil companies, coal companies, and all of the companies that this Administration hates and goes out of it's way to destroy. These companies have made millions for my retirement system over the years. Now if any of you people out there are cops, fireman, teachers, etc. you had better twice think before you go along with the destroy Exxon Mobil crowd.

ShortSeller wrote:...So Well seems to be the 2nd biggest Attention Whore on this board.

Of course, this begs the question.....who is first?

kempo wrote:PST apparently "60 Minutes" was lying about the world wide average of 20% corporate taxes on their show this past Sunday. What caught my eye was Ireland's 12% corporate tax rates.

I watched that out of one eye and even the very liberal Leslie Stahl seemed to understand that low tax rates attract business, encourage investment, and create jobs. You are right about Ireland at 12% and several of the examples of corporate tax rates were 16.5% which is less than half the U.S. rate of 35%.

I think it is immoral for governments to place any income tax on corporations. First, it is a double tax because the employees and shareholders are ultimately paying for the income tax. The employees pay the tax in form of lower wages, fewer hours, and fewer jobs and then the employees pay again with a tax on their income. The shareholders pay the company's income tax in form of lower dividends and lower stock value. Then they pay income tax again when they receive dividends. This is double taxation on the common man as employee and the common man who holds shares in a 401k or pension plan.

Second, an income tax on corporations is politicians' sneaky way of taxing employees and shareholders. It is a hidden tax because most employees and shareholders are not aware of how much the tax is and how much they are paying for it.

Income taxes on corporations should be abolished. Foreign investment would bring ten million new good jobs to the U.S. if this happened. Cisco CEO stated on that same Sixty Minutes show that they have $40 billion dollars in accumulated overseas earnings that they would love to invest in the U.S. were it not for the 35% corporate income tax.

These ideas, if implemented, will be a boon to the poor, the middle class, and the unemployed. I hate to say it, but they will also be a boon to Unions who will benefit from higher employment and higher demand for labor.

These policies would not benefit me directly as I operate as a sole proprietorship and pay the same personal income tax rates that everyone else does. But they would benefit me indirectly as the economy would grow rapidly. This would also generate more revenue for the Treasury and if we cut down our ruinous government spending and wars, we can start to pay down our national debt and build prosperity for all individuals.

Study some economics, study the history of economics, study free societies, study the candidates, and let's not make the mistakes in the voting booths that we have made for the last 12 years.

NightMonkey wrote:

kempo wrote:PST apparently "60 Minutes" was lying about the world wide average of 20% corporate taxes on their show this past Sunday. What caught my eye was Ireland's 12% corporate tax rates.

I watched that out of one eye and even the very liberal Leslie Stahl seemed to understand that low tax rates attract business, encourage investment, and create jobs. You are right about Ireland at 12% and several of the examples of corporate tax rates were 16.5% which is less than half the U.S. rate of 35%.

I think it is immoral for governments to place any income tax on corporations. First, it is a double tax because the employees and shareholders are ultimately paying for the income tax. The employees pay the tax in form of lower wages, fewer hours, and fewer jobs and then the employees pay again with a tax on their income. The shareholders pay the company's income tax in form of lower dividends and lower stock value. Then they pay income tax again when they receive dividends. This is double taxation on the common man as employee and the common man who holds shares in a 401k or pension plan.

Second, an income tax on corporations is politicians' sneaky way of taxing employees and shareholders. It is a hidden tax because most employees and shareholders are not aware of how much the tax is and how much they are paying for it.

Income taxes on corporations should be abolished. Foreign investment would bring ten million new good jobs to the U.S. if this happened. Cisco CEO stated on that same Sixty Minutes show that they have $40 billion dollars in accumulated overseas earnings that they would love to invest in the U.S. were it not for the 35% corporate income tax.

These ideas, if implemented, will be a boon to the poor, the middle class, and the unemployed. I hate to say it, but they will also be a boon to Unions who will benefit from higher employment and higher demand for labor.

These policies would not benefit me directly as I operate as a sole proprietorship and pay the same personal income tax rates that everyone else does. But they would benefit me indirectly as the economy would grow rapidly. This would also generate more revenue for the Treasury and if we cut down our ruinous government spending and wars, we can start to pay down our national debt and build prosperity for all individuals.

Study some economics, study the history of economics, study free societies, study the candidates, and let's not make the mistakes in the voting booths that we have made for the last 12 years.

Amen Brother!

SleepyT wrote:

ShortSeller wrote:...So Well seems to be the 2nd biggest Attention Whore on this board.

Of course, this begs the question.....who is first?

Maybe it is ShortSeller? He has already established himself as an ass under the name Mike6977 (search.php?author_id=57648&sr=posts) and now seems to want to start over calling himself ShortSeller.

ShortSeller
Also Posted As:
(Mike6977)

Night Monkey...I like what you have to say politically....if you decide to make a run for it, I'll vote for you!

Hi Everybody

First of all let me congratulate So Well on achieving what he set out to do - indulge his hobby of part-time Troll.

He is good at it it, and we can all learn from him - what to do and what not to do.

Are you feeling bored ?

Wanna practise your debating skills ?

or improve them ?

or get some ?

or who cares

So Well gives us all an opportunity to do this every so often.

It's almost as good as a real Troll post

Just don't get him started on your recent dental work, or the thread could get into some very dark waters

cheers

Mars

It looks like you have a BS in B.S. This looks like you to want make this your forum. You sure are trying hard to tell us all how intelligent you are. What are you running for or from??? I had you pegged from the first time I heard from you. A KNOW IT ALL. What country are you from?

Simplistic view:

The number 1 rule in attracting businesses and investments:
Make it more desirable for a business to locate here (or an investor to invest here) than elsewhere.

Having taxes higher here than elsewhere is contrary to rule number 1.