Will Liberals Listen to Clinton?

Here's the options for those who can't come up with an answer:

1. Clinton is right, he has a record of being instrumental in creating a strong economy while president.
2. Clinton is right, but didn't play much of a role building the economy while he was president.
3 Clinton is wrong, even though he knew what he was doing when he was president.
4. Clinton is wrong, and he was not instrumental in creating a strong economy while president.
5. Insert deflection here _____________________

Tower was wrong, it IS a valid question. Making the US more competetive to businesses overseas is the point. You can't lump all companies in the GE basket, they get plenty of help from your hero Obama.

Sorry, I don't see any answer in your list that I consider valid. Tower has answered for me. If you don't like it, tough.

What does Clinton mean when he said this?

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate.

You can twist the meaning any way you want, but he is saying that we need to make doing business in the US more competetive, which does NOT mean more expensive. Or is that just liberal jibberish?

Bill Clinton was also praising both Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney. Think he likes to jab Barack from time to time, especially since Hilary lost to Obama?

Dick Morris, Bill's former campaign manager, called it, "ADD". Pres. Clinton hates it when people aren't paying attention to him, so he likes to stir things up.

Back on topic, I doubt most of the Left will look at this seriously, but there are a certain percentage of moderates in the White House who are willing to take on more debt by reducing corporate taxes, and they might even win out, especially if the economy continues to grow at a low 1% rate.

I would love to see a less complex tax code, and fewer deductions, but Congress seems to always make it more complex every time they try to simplify.

CriticalBill wrote: What does Clinton mean when he said this?

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate.

You can twist the meaning any way you want, but he is saying that we need to make doing business in the US more competetive, which does NOT mean more expensive. Or is that just liberal jibberish?

I absolutely agree with Clinton that all loopholes and exemptions should be closed for corporations so that all corporations pay an effective rate of 25% without exception. It is time they are paying their fair share.

Yep, pass those increases through to the consumer. Brilliant!

Something the Dog Said wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: What does Clinton mean when he said this?

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate.

You can twist the meaning any way you want, but he is saying that we need to make doing business in the US more competetive, which does NOT mean more expensive. Or is that just liberal jibberish?

I absolutely agree with Clinton that all loopholes and exemptions should be closed for corporations so that all corporations pay an effective rate of 25% without exception. It is time they are paying their fair share.

So no tax breaks for buying electric cars like GE did?
No breaks for risking your capital on R&D?
No tax breaks for delivering free anti-HIV drugs to poor African patients?

My company donates older model medical meters to clinics in Latin America and Africa, would you want to see this stop?

We agree 100% Dog. And do you agree with Clinton's reasoning that we need to be more competitive in our tax rate to bring more businesses back to the US. The key word is "competitive". If you want to sell more products than your competitors who sell the same thing, do you raise or lower your prices?

And here's my last point. Lets say there are 10,000 big companies that do business in the US currently and are being taxed at 35%. Some companies like GE find loopholes and unfair deductions that let them slide on paying taxes while other companies can't take advantage of those same deductions or loopholes. So the net tax revenue turns out to be only 23% because of the ones who use the deductions and loopholes that others can't. Now you can kill those deductions and loopholes but you should also know who will pay the price...WE WILL.

Now if you want to attract new businesses to the US, would you try to make our tax rate more or less desireable to companies considering making a move here? And lets say lowering the tax rate from 35% to 25% increases the number of companies from 10,000 to 15,000 paying the lower rate and eliminating the loopholes for businesses that can use them, are we not far better off and do we not CREATE more jobs in this country? (non government jobs)

SS109 wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: What does Clinton mean when he said this?

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate.

You can twist the meaning any way you want, but he is saying that we need to make doing business in the US more competetive, which does NOT mean more expensive. Or is that just liberal jibberish?

I absolutely agree with Clinton that all loopholes and exemptions should be closed for corporations so that all corporations pay an effective rate of 25% without exception. It is time they are paying their fair share.

So no tax breaks for buying electric cars like GE did?
No breaks for risking your capital on R&D?
No tax breaks for delivering free anti-HIV drugs to poor African patients?

My company donates older model medical meters to clinics in Latin America and Africa, would you want to see this stop?

No, the free market system should be sufficient reward for risking capital on R&D, and philanthropy to poor African companies should be reward in itself (particularly when the "free" anti-HIV drugs are those that have expired in the US, or do not meet quality control standards in the US so they dump them on third world countries in order to gain tax breaks), likewise for older model medical meters, that would otherwise end in the rubbish.

CriticalBill wrote: We agree 100% Dog. And do you agree with Clinton's reasoning that we need to be more competitive in our tax rate to bring more businesses back to the US. The key word is "competitive". If you want to sell more products than your competitors who sell the same thing, do you raise or lower your prices?

And here's my last point. Lets say there are 10,000 big companies that do business in the US currently and are being taxed at 35%. Some companies like GE find loopholes and unfair deductions that let them slide on paying taxes while other companies can't take advantage of those same deductions or loopholes. So the net tax revenue turns out to be only 23% because of the ones who use the deductions and loopholes that others can't. Now you can kill those deductions and loopholes but you should also know who will pay the price...WE WILL.

Now if you want to attract new businesses to the US, would you try to make our tax rate more or less desireable to companies considering making a move here? And lets say lowering the tax rate from 35% to 25% increases the number of companies from 10,000 to 15,000 paying the lower rate and eliminating the loopholes for businesses that can use them, are we not far better off and do we not CREATE more jobs in this country? (non government jobs)

Again, I agree with Clinton, that we could afford to drop the tax rate to a flat 25% for corporations, if all tax breaks and loopholes are eliminated. The 35% tax rate is largely a farce as few companies, (i.e., large corporations) actually pay that rate. Revenue would actually rise if this was done.