So, no answer to my question. . . Is there a specific policy you can name that had a deleterious effect on the employment rate?

There is not merely one policy but the entire cluster of B.O.'s political worldview. Private business, the greatest economic engine in the world is denounced as being unpatriotic for not glibly paying a greater and greater tax burden for runaway federal spending. (The sneaky secret is no corporation actually pays taxes... they cannot and remain profitable. They simply pass them along to their customers and in some cases to their shareholders.) From Obamacare, to Cap and Trade, to essentially shutting down coal and oil exploration, to favoritism with big labor, to a bow and apologize foreign policy, to constantly throwing more and more money at a problem that cannot be solved from the lofty heights of Mt. D.C., B.O. has undermined the confidence of a majority of those with the actual talent and resources to pump up our economy and real jobs base. I personally know many business owners and managers unwilling to add jobs until they see how the body of B.O. policies are going to play out. Having Democrat control of the WH, the Sentate and House are not good for business at this time.

I'm guessing that's what he's getting at. But we shouldn't be surprised, that's what the President keeps telling us.

 

Ace, could it have anything to do with him and the Dems not passing the right policies? Just a thought.

 

Which policy had the deleterious effect on the employment rate?

 

I am not blaming Bush, but if you want me to agree that it is Obama's fault tell me what policy he had that was bad.

 

The Bush Tax Cuts are still in place, so that is not it. Bailing out the banks and GM, etc. kept a lot of people from being laid off. Stimulus was too small to create a whole lot of jobs, but it certainly was not a job killer.

Which policy had the deleterious effect on the employment rate?

 

I am not blaming Bush, but if you want me to agree that it is Obama's fault tell me what policy he had that was bad.

 

The Bush Tax Cuts are still in place, so that is not it. Bailing out the banks and GM, etc. kept a lot of people from being laid off. Stimulus was too small to create a whole lot of jobs, but it certainly was not a job killer.

It's the uncertiany that he has created. Business just flat out doesn't trust the powers that be and therefore there has been virtually no expansion or investment in business thus no creation of jobs. In some cases it has caused a loss in jobs. If you want to create jobs the best way to start is cut the corporate tax rate. Make this country ecnomically competitive with other counties for starting a business or opening a manufacturing facility.

One of the great no-brainers of business and economy is if you want something to grow and thrive, you reduce taxes (penalties) on that product or activity, and if you want it to slow or halt you increase taxes on it.

 

We don’t tax tobacco and liquor because we want more and more people to abuse them.

 

We don’t add taxes to attract corporate growth. Every state in the union understands that to attract a new manufacturing plant like a Toyota, the state has to reduce the penalties for doing business within that state’s borders. The benefits of thousands of jobs and millions (ultimately billions) in increased income taxes on those wages and a much higher quality of life for citizens with increased buying power generating increased sales tax revenues FAR outweigh the petty and punitive direct taxation on the corporation itself.

 

The longer money remains in circulation, the more tax revenue it generates every time it changes hands. By reducing taxes, encouraging business/jobs growth resulting in more spending by all of us with good jobs the more the federal, state and local governments rake in in tax revenues. I see this theory in practice for communities in Texas, Florida and other “non-personal income tax” business friendly states. They are thriving from overwhelming activity while others such in such “progressive” bastions as New York and California wither.

 

You can argue all you want. The facts are clear and compelling.

So you're saying if the president had said "I know the economy is bad, we'll do nothing and see how that works," that you guys and the rest of the Republicans would have sat back and said "hey, that's a good plan. I like it."

 

I may have gone with tax reform, enforcement of current laws regarding business and the borders, drilled for our own oil and let the American worker be the economic engine that gets us out of our economic doldrums. Government, as history has shown, causes more problems than it cures.

 

For 37 years I was a Democract. I did switch to the party of Reagan, but really think of myself as a conservative. Too many Republicans are no better than

Obama-Reid- Pelosi Democracts.

One of the great no-brainers of business and economy is if you want something to grow and thrive, you reduce taxes (penalties) on that product or activity, and if you want it to slow or halt you increase taxes on it.

 

We don’t tax tobacco and liquor because we want more and more people to abuse them.

 

We don’t add taxes to attract corporate growth. Every state in the union understands that to attract a new manufacturing plant like a Toyota, the state has to reduce the penalties for doing business within that state’s borders. The benefits of thousands of jobs and millions (ultimately billions) in increased income taxes on those wages and a much higher quality of life for citizens with increased buying power generating increased sales tax revenues FAR outweigh the petty and punitive direct taxation on the corporation itself.

 

The longer money remains in circulation, the more tax revenue it generates every time it changes hands. By reducing taxes, encouraging business/jobs growth resulting in more spending by all of us with good jobs the more the federal, state and local governments rake in in tax revenues. I see this theory in practice for communities in Texas, Florida and other “non-personal income tax” business friendly states. They are thriving from overwhelming activity while others such in such “progressive” bastions as New York and California wither.

 

You can argue all you want. The facts are clear and compelling.

 

This economic recession BEGAN (i am not laying blame) under the tax cuts that were enacted 7?? years ago. Why were there not millions and millions of jobs created under the tax cuts? Cap and Trade has not, and probably will not pass, and the tax cuts have not been rescinded and the talk, IF they are is that it will be only on the top 2.5%. That 2.5% will not and cannot create that many jobs. ObamaCare has not cost a job, and I am not sure about the moratorium on drilling, I will look that up.

 

MACED along with the Herald - Leader did a summer long series on Tax Incentives provided by the states, and the facts are certainly not clear on whether or not those incentives attract businesses.

This economic recession BEGAN (i am not laying blame) under the tax cuts that were enacted 7?? years ago. Why were there not millions and millions of jobs created under the tax cuts? Cap and Trade has not, and probably will not pass, and the tax cuts have not been rescinded and the talk, IF they are is that it will be only on the top 2.5%. That 2.5% will not and cannot create that many jobs. ObamaCare has not cost a job, and I am not sure about the moratorium on drilling, I will look that up.

 

MACED along with the Herald - Leader did a summer long series on Tax Incentives provided by the states, and the facts are certainly not clear on whether or not those incentives attract businesses.

The fact that Toyota is in Georgetown, tripling the county population, providing millions in wages and by extension income taxes after Martha Layne Collins was skewered by the Herald Leader for giving away the store must have escaped their indepth investigation. :lol:

The fact that Toyota is in Georgetown, tripling the county population, providing millions in wages and by extension income taxes after Martha Layne Collins was skewered by the Herald Leader for giving away the store must have escaped their indepth investigation. :lol:

 

:thumb:

Which policy had the deleterious effect on the employment rate?

 

I am not blaming Bush, but if you want me to agree that it is Obama's fault tell me what policy he had that was bad.

 

The Bush Tax Cuts are still in place, so that is not it. Bailing out the banks and GM, etc. kept a lot of people from being laid off. Stimulus was too small to create a whole lot of jobs, but it certainly was not a job killer.

The passing of Obamacare is one of the policies that I blame him for. I feel it's already had a negative impact because it's affected growth.

I'd say his overstated demonization of business and his anti-business attitude are holding back investment and growth. Businesses are concerned about increased taxes and escalated costs of new regulation.

 

 

For the record, I don't blame only Obama, I also blame the Bush administration, the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and senate over the last several years. My gripe with Obama is he only wants to blame Bush, one of the many reasons I feel Obama is a very poor leader.

This economic recession BEGAN (i am not laying blame) under the tax cuts that were enacted 7?? years ago. Why were there not millions and millions of jobs created under the tax cuts? Cap and Trade has not, and probably will not pass, and the tax cuts have not been rescinded and the talk, IF they are is that it will be only on the top 2.5%. That 2.5% will not and cannot create that many jobs. ObamaCare has not cost a job, and I am not sure about the moratorium on drilling, I will look that up.

 

MACED along with the Herald - Leader did a summer long series on Tax Incentives provided by the states, and the facts are certainly not clear on whether or not those incentives attract businesses.

And for the record... the only people "uncertain" whether tax cuts grow the economy are the same individuals chained to the political ideology of bigger more powerful more intrusive central government. They cannot admit they are simply wrong. The fact that the mere mention of tax hikes along with a healthcare bill laden with increased taxes and regulations on business has smothered any growth should be clear to any willing to see.

The fact that Toyota is in Georgetown, tripling the county population, providing millions in wages and by extension income taxes after Martha Layne Collins was skewered by the Herald Leader for giving away the store must have escaped their indepth investigation. :lol:

 

It is not a given that Toyota would not have come without the incentives. Let me state unequivocally that I believe in tax incentives, especially for new businesses that you would not be getting the taxes on anyway. What the study showed was that you could not provide a "but for" statement with the incentives.

This economic recession BEGAN (i am not laying blame) under the tax cuts that were enacted 7?? years ago. Why were there not millions and millions of jobs created under the tax cuts? Cap and Trade has not, and probably will not pass, and the tax cuts have not been rescinded and the talk, IF they are is that it will be only on the top 2.5%. That 2.5% will not and cannot create that many jobs. ObamaCare has not cost a job, and I am not sure about the moratorium on drilling, I will look that up.

 

MACED along with the Herald - Leader did a summer long series on Tax Incentives provided by the states, and the facts are certainly not clear on whether or not those incentives attract businesses.

 

Since you're looking things up, check out the mass closings of auto dealerships. Those two specific policies alone cost tens of thousands of jobs.

It is not a given that Toyota would not have come without the incentives. Let me state unequivocally that I believe in tax incentives, especially for new businesses that you would not be getting the taxes on anyway. What the study showed was that you could not provide a "but for" statement with the incentives.

This is patently absurd Ace.

 

If tax incentives work for "new businesses" they also work for existing or "old" businesses too. The more money is coaxed into the national economy from those controlling it, and the longer it remains in circulation trading hands, the more our government AND our citizens will benefit.

 

Obama is on a reckless course to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs... and our current economy proves it.

Since you're looking things up, check out the mass closings of auto dealerships. Those two specific policies alone cost tens of thousands of jobs.

 

What would have happened to those dealerships had GM and Chrysler gone bankrupt. That is ONE dog that won't hunt in this debate. The Auto Bail-Out was a good thing, hands down.

This is patently absurd Ace.

 

If tax incentives work for "new businesses" they also work for existing or "old" businesses too. The more money is coaxed into the national economy from those controlling it, and the longer it remains in circulation trading hands, the more our government AND our citizens will benefit.

 

Obama is on a reckless course to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs... and our current economy proves it.

 

You are suggesting that the money disappears when it is collected in taxes.

 

It is not absurd. The state put together an awesome tax incentive package for Harley Davidson to move from the NE. Harley used it as leverage against the Union, got concessions and stayed. If it was really about the tax package they would have come, because the tax incentive package was way better than what they have now.