Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (26582)	2/24/2010 9:19:31 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

Yes...it must be a drug interaction of some sort....he appears to have gone over the cliff.

To: Bill who wrote (26582)	2/24/2010 11:20:25 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

So... it would be more ACCURATE to describe you as "anti-tax" then as "anti-deficits". (You would rank "opposing ALL taxes" as MORE IMPORTANT to you personally then "opposing all deficits".) Whereas I, (who also never want to see 'taxes' in general raised either) would never-the-less rank "opposing chronic deficits" as AT LEAST of equal importance, if not of greater importance. Because, DEFICITS ARE TAXES in that money must be borrowed, interest on that borrowed money accrues, and the piper must (one day) be paid his due! Re: "The fact that you call me a big spender shows how out of touch you are with the discussions on SI." And, EXACTLY THE SAME would go, Bill, if you were to try to call me a 'big spender', which, (as anyone who knows me would know), I manifestly am not. <g> Still, I maintain what I said earlier: there is a big difference (in the area of "deficit reduction") between someone who is actually PREPARED to take strong medicine to reduce chronic federal deficits, willing to MANDATE THAT BUDGETS BE BALANCED, and letting the chips fall where they will as for the rest... willing to accept the American public's decisions about what programs they want and which ones they don't want to spend money on (example: Social Security or foreign wars? Farm price supports or inner city programs? etc., etc.), and someone who is NOT WILLING to put deficit elimination at the TOP of the pile, and NOT willing to abide with the program choices his fellow American citizens may make.... (Same would go with the topic of 'taxes'. Should they be 'level, flat' with no loopholes? I think so. Should ALL INCOME regardless of source be taxed exactly the same way? I think so. So, even WITHIN the area where the OVERALL AMOUNT of taxes remains UNCHANGED, there is still plenty to talk about insofar as 'what is fairer', 'what is more productive for the economy and society', etc., etc.) But, as far as the choice of MANDATING THAT THE GOVERNMENT NOT RUN DEFICITS, I believe it is fair to note that I assign Deficit Elimination the HIGHEST of priorities (whereas you may thing that it is "important" but you do NOT put it ahead of other policy considerations....) There lies the difference, Bill.

To: Bill who wrote (26582)	2/24/2010 2:15:27 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Senators Propose Big Corporate Tax Cut February 23, 2010, 7:04 pm dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com Calls to cut taxes on large corporations may seem odd given that the nation faces a $1.55 trillion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. But that is exactly what a couple of senators, one Republican and one Democrat, would like to see happen. They jointly introduced a bill in Congress on Tuesday that would cut the corporate income tax rate to a flat 24 percent from 35 percent by eliminating some tax breaks. “The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world,” Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said at a news conference to discuss the bill he wrote with Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “After this law goes into effect, which I certainly hope it will, we will be pretty much competitive with everybody who’s a major player in the corporate world but, certainly, the countries which are our primary competition in Europe and Asia.” Mr. Gregg said cutting the corporate tax rate to 24 percent would help spur the economy and encourage more investment at home, translating to more jobs. Currently, corporations with income exceeding $18.33 million are charged a flat 35 percent before deductions, although those with income less than that could have a portion taxed at rates as high as 39 percent. But the proposed tax changes are not necessarily a gift to corporate America. A key point of the plan would be the elimination of certain tax breaks for corporations, mainly for those working in the energy sector, and would also end the practice whereby a multinational company is only taxed on the income generated abroad when it comes back onshore. The senators argue that multinationals will lose the incentive of keeping their cash offshore, allowing for that money to be reinvested in the United States. “Senator Gregg and I are demonstrating that there is room for Democrats and Republicans to agree on tax reform,” Mr. Wyden said in a statement. “By simplifying the tax code and scaling back tax breaks for special interests, we can give everyone an opportunity to get ahead.” The bill proposes specific revenue offsets to the lost tax income like one that would legalize and tax Internet gambling. The Congressional Research Service estimated that those proposals would raise $662 billion over the next 10 years based on President Obama’s budget if fully enacted by Congress. But that is not enough to cover the lost tax receipts, the research service said, noting that the proposal would cost an extra $230 billion over 10 years. The bill moves to close that gap by cutting an average of $23 billion a year for the next 10 years from corporate and business-related spending and transfers. If Congress were to make those cuts, the Congressional Research Service said the bill would be deficit-neutral, but it warned that the estimates it made were “very rough.” Mr. Gregg and Mr. Wyden said they had worked over the last two years in writing the bill but had yet to gain the backing of other important senators. The bill may be taken up for debate as the Bush tax cuts expire later this year. – Cyrus Sanati Go to Press Release from Senators Judd Gregg and Ron Wyden »