Thread: GOP had secret meeting on innauguration night to figure out how to grind country to a halt

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Just addressing Reagan tripling the national debt.

Reagan added 1.656 trillion to the total national debt in 8 years - 207 billion per year
Bush I added 1.224 trillion to the total national debt in 4 years - 306 billion per year
Clinton added 1.401 trillion to the total national debt in 8 years - 175 billion per year
BushII added 6.102 trillion to the total national debt in 8 years - 762.5 billion per year
Obama added 3.580 trillion to the total national debt in 2.5 years - 1.43 trillion per year

Reagan did add to the debt, but he accomplished much more with that new debt than Bush II or Obama.

We all know that escalating debt is not just a matter of spitting out a number.
Why are we handing out untold amounts of money to Asian nations to build their infrastructure?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I understand where you are coming from and before Rush switched gears on Obama's first day in office I expounded the same ideals.
There are millions of educated Americans who have been dumped upon the garbage heap of American history; I am one of them.
This action, for the first 25 years or so resulted in progressively improving stock market returns.
Now the sh!t has hit the fan and everybody is afraid to admit their paradigm of easy stock market success wasn't due to their own brilliance.

One of the major reasons employment has not picked up as rapidly as with other recessions is the failure to allow business the right to bring money made overseas back into the country without charging exorbitant taxes. Right now (unlike in 2004) that would produce lots of jobs because employers don't want to expand only to the tune of part of their money already taxes overseas.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

One of the major reasons employment has not picked up as rapidly as with other recessions is the failure to allow business the right to bring money made overseas back into the country without charging exorbitant taxes. Right now (unlike in 2004) that would produce lots of jobs because employers don't want to expand only to the tune of part of their money already taxes overseas.

I believe that was done once already and the MNCs put that non-taxed money to use by lobbying for more off-shoring and business-visas.
Businesses do not operate on that basis of tit-for-tat.
They operate on how to many more money and who can blame them.

I would prefer we simply treat de facto non-US corporations as though they were foreign entities.
That would hopefully limit their access to US Reps and tax payer contract.
I see no reason why we should send 98% of the money we give to IBM to their India headquarters and not see that money circulate through it's country of origin.
Actually, when I think about it, all money in the US currently originates from China.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I believe that was done once already and the MNCs put that non-taxed money to use by lobbying for more off-shoring and business-visas.
Businesses do not operate on that basis of tit-for-tat.
They operate on how to many more money and who can blame them.

Partly but mostly untrue. The error was letting the money back in without taxes during a boom period.(2004)

I would prefer we simply treat de facto non-US corporations as though they were foreign entities.
That would hopefully limit their access to US Reps and tax payer contract.
I see no reason why we should send 98% of the money we give to IBM to their India headquarters and not see that money circulate through it's country of origin.
Actually, when I think about it, all money in the US currently originates from China.

One thing I do agree with is outlaw lobbying.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Partly but mostly untrue. The error was letting the money back in without taxes during a boom period.(2004)

Wow!
True or not true.
That answer is quite ambiguous.

And how can I not pay taxes during a boom year?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Wow!
True or not true.
That answer is quite ambiguous.

And how can I not pay taxes during a boom year?

We were discussing bring back corporate money from overseas, not individuals. During periods of boom, remitting the taxes for the benefit of the government serves no purpose. Remitting those taxes during a slow down or recession does two things: 1. It makes the business more inclined to help the government during recovery and 2. It gives the business more money to invest in expansion which means jobs. Please try to keep up.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

We were discussing bring back corporate money from overseas, not individuals. During periods of boom, remitting the taxes for the benefit of the government serves no purpose. Remitting those taxes during a slow down or recession does two things: 1. It makes the business more inclined to help the government during recovery and 2. It gives the business more money to invest in expansion which means jobs. Please try to keep up.

This is how I keep up...Trust, but verify.
I don't trust any corporations to follow through with an agreement based on a handshake.
And, by the way, Obama's agreements with corporations are always missing certain obvious clauses that keep them, so to speak, honest.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

This is how I keep up...Trust, but verify.
I don't trust any corporations to follow through with an agreement based on a handshake.
And, by the way, Obama's agreements with corporations are always missing certain obvious clauses that keep them, so to speak, honest.

I trust corporate America far more than I do Obama's administration.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

I trust corporate America far more than I do Obama's administration.

Corporate America always manages to survive.
Presidents come and go.
Policies seem to pretty much remain the same.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

We all know that escalating debt is not just a matter of spitting out a number.
Why are we handing out untold amounts of money to Asian nations to build their infrastructure?

I'm guessing more foolish spending by government. Need to cut this crap out; we can't afford it anymore.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Partly but mostly untrue. The error was letting the money back in without taxes during a boom period.(2004)One thing I do agree with is outlaw lobbying.

I agree. Lobbying is that bane of the government. If elected officials want to find out which positions best represent their constitutents they should go and talk to their constituents rather than consult polls or give a lobbyist the time of day. The foolish spending above it probably related to some lobbying.

I don't understand why corporations should have the same legal standing as people (corporations are typically more involved in lobbying than individuals). Yes, corporations have similar legal capabilities and responsibilities as people, but they are not people and they should not be treated the same as people in the eyes of the law and the courts. I think that people should be valued more than corporations.

Lobbying isn't the issue nor would it be a large concern if the government were smaller and less involved in everyone's lives.

Originally Posted by Lost Time

Lobbying isn't the issue nor would it be a large concern if the government were smaller and less involved in everyone's lives.

Finally! Someone that 'gets it'

Originally Posted by Lost Time

Lobbying isn't the issue nor would it be a large concern if the government were smaller and less involved in everyone's lives.

If the government were smaller and less involved in everyone's lives, lobbying wouldn't be worth it.

Its big government that CAUSES lobbying to be worth it. Then, in a vicious cycle, the lobbying makes government intrude more and get bigger, which then feeds the system.

The only candidate running to stop such idiocy (as a side-effect of his main policies) is Paul.