On Mar 29, 2:43*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" *wrote in ...
There's a big difference between "low corporate taxes" and "no corporate
taxes". Do you think it's right for American corporations to pay NO taxes
based on money they make entirely within America?

Bingo. *America has a high rate of corporate tax (about to be the highest
once Japan cuts its rate) but since many corporations find ways to slide
around that tax rate it's not a realistic figure. *And when a company can
pay little or no tax at all, something is wrong. *The Obama administration
wants to cut the basic rate but also close the loopholes, that will draw
predictable screams of outrage from the Republicans no matter how good an
idea it is.

GE was a major contributor to Obama and he has no intention of
changing what GE has to pay.

"BobR" wrote in message
...

GE was a major contributor to Obama and he has no intention of
changing what GE has to pay.

No President chooses what tax rates anyone pays (although Reagan was pretty
good at getting some Democrats to go along with his suggested tax cuts).
But I'm sure we'd agree that Obama's chances of getting the current House of
Representatives to go along with anything he requested is somewhere between
slim and none.

GE splits its political donations roughly down the middle between the two
parties, although it's top recipient in 2010 was Ron Portman, R-Ohio. Of
course like all companies it tends to be most generous to members of
Congress who sit on committees with oversight over businesses GE is engaged
in.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
"BobR" wrote in message

GE was a major contributor to Obama and he has no intention of
changing what GE has to pay.

No President chooses what tax rates anyone pays (although Reagan was
pretty
good at getting some Democrats to go along with his suggested tax cuts).
But I'm sure we'd agree that Obama's chances of getting the current House
of
Representatives to go along with anything he requested is somewhere
between
slim and none.

The only way he could get tax breaks for GE is by demanding the House strip
them away. They can be counted on to oppose anything he proposes. B'rer
Rabbit politics.

GE splits its political donations roughly down the middle between the two
parties, although it's top recipient in 2010 was Ron Portman, R-Ohio. Of
course like all companies it tends to be most generous to members of
Congress who sit on committees with oversight over businesses GE is
engaged
in.

Hmmm. Sounds like they have the situation sewed up tight. Jeez, how did
corporate payoffs to Congress ever get so blatant that people just yawn when
they hear about it? No one on EARTH ever gave me money unless it was for
something I did or something they wanted me to do. How is Congress exempt
from this basic law of commerce?

--
Bobby G.

On Apr 3, 5:10*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"BobR" *wrote in message

...

GE was a major contributor to Obama and he has no intention of
changing what GE has to pay.

No President chooses what tax rates anyone pays (although Reagan was pretty
good at getting some Democrats to go along with his suggested tax cuts).

But a president does choose his advisors. And Obama just chose
Jeffrey Immelt
to head his new Council on Jobs and Competiveness.


But I'm sure we'd agree that Obama's chances of getting the current House of
Representatives to go along with anything he requested is somewhere between
slim and none.

As far as I can tell, Obama is MIA in the current budget battle.
BUT.... he didn't
have to be. Nor did he have to wait until now to get a budget
passed. That
budget was supposed to be passed last year, when the Democrats had
control
of not only the House, but the Senate. With the country going deeper
in debt
each month and our long term future at stake, it should have been job
#1.
What did Obama and the Dems do?
Why, nothing, both before the election and in the lame duck session
after.
Clearly, they had no interest in doing anything, so why start
complaining now?