Can someone seriously explain this to me.

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3216218
Right, what they need to do is (if they insist on taxing the banks anyway) is devise a tax that is on Net profit + executive compensation. In order to decrease the tax, the bank merely needs to open lines of credit to decrease net profit which would drive small business. Small business is what drives the country. But, the way they want to tax will actually decrease lending IMO.
Uhhhh, the executive compensation is already taxed. If you tried to double tax certain salaries I don't think the plan would even make it to the supreme court before it was struck down.
Agreed. And some of the things they want to do they need to explain better as to what it is & why it will help. Some things truly should help, but they are seen as agenda items due to poor explanation.
Well the problem is there was ZERO give and take on the part of the Dems and now the Republicans are going to be very reluctant to get into bed with them.
I think the Republicans are in a great position to force the Democrats hands and do something that will not only be good for the country but also politically. If the Pubs were to say we will support a bill that ends pre existing prohibitions and caps but must also include some real tort reform and buying across state lines the people would love it.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3216263
Uhhhh, the executive compensation is already taxed. If you tried to double tax certain salaries I don't think the plan would even make it to the supreme court before it was struck down.
Maybe I said that wrong, what I meant was net profit before paying out administrative expenses. This would give incentive to minimize profit (obviously wall street wouldn't like it, but wall street does not equal economy). Also, I should reiterate that I'm not for it, just giving an example of how it would work better...
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3216263
I think the Republicans are in a great position to force the Democrats hands and do something that will not only be good for the country but also politically. If the Pubs were to say we will support a bill that ends pre existing prohibitions and caps but must also include some real tort reform and buying across state lines the people would love it.
I would have thought the reps would be smart enough to jump on "correct" reform immediately, but I'm probably be wrong...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3216288
Maybe I said that wrong, what I meant was net profit before paying out administrative expenses. This would give incentive to minimize profit (obviously wall street wouldn't like it, but wall street does not equal economy). Also, I should reiterate that I'm not for it, just giving an example of how it would work better...
I would have thought the reps would be smart enough to jump on "correct" reform immediately, but I'm probably be wrong...
You would have to do that for every corporation out there. The way around that would be to pay out a large stock dividend which aint bad either, I like those high dividend payers.
The Pubs were on board with stuff like buying across state lines and tort reform for years. Not sure what they will do now. Like I said I have my own ideas but nobody listens to me

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3214242
Even our trade deficit has increased steadily.....Meaning people are looking for cheaper items.....meaning the jobs within country will countinue to decline.
This idea I think is flawed. Until this government created recession we've had huge trade deficites with full employment numbers.
Business doesn't like uncertainty. And I think Obama is providing plenty of uncertainty...

 

[reefraff]

Bloomburg which could hardly be considered a right wing outfit did a poll. 77% of investors see Obama as too anti business. You aren't going to see a lot of growth if people are being cautious about investing.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3216458
Bloomburg which could hardly be considered a right wing outfit did a poll. 77% of investors see Obama as too anti business. You aren't going to see a lot of growth if people are being cautious about investing.
Investing does generally signal a growing economy, but it does not equal a growing economy, consumers buying stuff equals a better economy.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3216352
This idea I think is flawed. Until this government created recession we've had huge trade deficites with full employment numbers.
Business doesn't like uncertainty. And I think Obama is providing plenty of uncertainty...
Meh...
On the one hand, you're right - business does not like uncertainty.
On the other, it wasn't Obama who created the uncertainty. He inherited it.
Bush provided plenty of uncertainty, but he inherited it too - not just from Clinton, but from his father...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3216586
Investing does generally signal a growing economy, but it does not equal a growing economy, consumers buying stuff equals a better economy.
Given the "finity" of stuff, perhaps another economic model is worth investigating.
Infinite growth is impossible.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3216586
Investing does generally signal a growing economy, but it does not equal a growing economy, consumers buying stuff equals a better economy.
If those with the capital to start up or expand businesses are timid about putting the money to work you will not have growth period. If there aren't any jobs where are consumers getting the money to spend?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3216593
Meh...
On the one hand, you're right - business does not like uncertainty.
On the other, it wasn't Obama who created the uncertainty. He inherited it.
Bush provided plenty of uncertainty, but he inherited it too - not just from Clinton, but from his father...
Yes but Bush had the attitude that lower taxes and reasonable regulation was the way to grow the economy. Obama thinks it's government intervention and spending. Which do you think business fears more?

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3216594
Given the "finity" of stuff, perhaps another economic model is worth investigating.
Infinite growth is impossible.
I agree. It seems that as of late we have also stopped creating stuff at an increasing rate and just reshuffled money within the economy. Plus the leakage of wealth that is occurring b/c of the trade deficits doesn't help...

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3216759
Yes but Bush had the attitude that lower taxes and reasonable regulation was the way to grow the economy. Obama thinks it's government intervention and spending. Which do you think business fears more?
Don't fool yourself, Bush loved big spending. But the question I have is this: Healthcare & Banks aside, how is Obama anti-business? What has he done to create uncertainty in any sector other than these?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3217160
Don't fool yourself, Bush loved big spending. But the question I have is this: Healthcare & Banks aside, how is Obama anti-business? What has he done to create uncertainty in any sector other than these?
Demonizing corporations in general and setting an anti business tone. He has attacked banks, insurance companies, oil companies, utilities and automakers and you don't think others are worried he will eventually come to them? I really don't know what deal he made with the pharmaceuticals but while they make profits in the 15 to 25% range he attacks insurers who make 3 to 5%. Unless you are making Berkenstocks out of recycled bean curd you gotta be worried.