Bush or Kerry - No Americans!



Bikerman2004 said:
There is nothing in the tax code that expressly gives a tax credit or break for relocating overseas.

I agree with you on that why do you keep repeating it?

Bikerman2004 said:
I'm sorry, since when did GAAP dispense with tax code? Your example is rather poor.

My example is solid, you just assumed things I didn't say.

I didn't say GAAP dispenses with tax code. However, GAAP does define accounting standards which in turn define what profits are. Profits are what get taxed. Therefore GAAP indirectly effects taxes.
 
jitteringjr said:
I agree with you on that why do you keep repeating it?



My example is solid, you just assumed things I didn't say.

I didn't say GAAP dispenses with tax code. However, GAAP does define accounting standards which in turn define what profits are. Profits are what get taxed. Therefore GAAP indirectly effects taxes.
I didn't assume anything. These are your own words....

Sure, there is nothing in GAAP that says “Thou shall receive tax rewards for….” There is still a tax incentive to set up overseas......

If you meant something else then type something else. All I'm stating is that there is no direct(meaning intentional)tax breaks or credits for locating overseas. Limerickman thought there were specific breaks and credits for locating overseas. That was erroneous. Whether companies take advantage of loopholes that the government hadn't intended and haven't closed is another discussion.
 
Let me repeat what I said:

jitteringjr said:
Sure, there is nothing in GAAP that says “Thou shall receive tax rewards for….”

Nothing means zero, no, GAAP does NOT dispence tax code. Yet you assumed:

Bikerman2004 said:
since when did GAAP dispense with tax code?

Bikerman2004 said:
Whether companies take advantage of loopholes that the government hadn't intended and haven't closed is another discussion.

I disagree. I feel that it is part of this discussion. Here is what Limerick said:

limerickman said:
My understanding is that US companies get a tax break when they relocate jobs outside of the USA

Now, I didn't read anything that led me to believe that he said there were specific breaks and credits for locating overseas, but a loophole is a break nonetheless.

Now when he said:

limerickman said:
George Bush comes to us and tells us that we get a tax break if we outsource jobs.

That is not true and I agree with you on that part. My point is that there are loopholes that need to be closed. They however, are not George Bush's fault because they have been there longer than he has, but he still could put pressure on those 'that be' to change them. Do I think Kerry could do a better job?, well I am an American so I shouldn't comment either way because of the nature of this thread. “No Americans”
 
jitteringjr said:
Let me repeat what I said:



Nothing means zero, no, GAAP does NOT dispence tax code. Yet you assumed:





I disagree. I feel that it is part of this discussion. Here is what Limerick said:



Now, I didn't read anything that led me to believe that he said there were specific breaks and credits for locating overseas, but a loophole is a break nonetheless.

Now when he said:



That is not true and I agree with you on that part. My point is that there are loopholes that need to be closed. They however, are not George Bush's fault because they have been there longer than he has, but he still could put pressure on those 'that be' to change them. Do I think Kerry could do a better job?, well I am an American so I shouldn't comment either way because of the nature of this thread. “No Americans”
Well you finally got to the gist of the argument. Limerickman was trying to assign the blame to Bush. And yes he could pressure to close them but so could've the preceding presidents. I wasn't trying to argue with you, but I also knew what they were insinuating.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
Well you finally got to the gist of the argument. Limerickman was trying to assign the blame to Bush. And yes he could pressure to close them but so could've the preceding presidents. I wasn't trying to argue with you, but I also knew what they were insinuating.


No, I wasn't trying to assign the "tax break" notion to Bush.
I said that my understanding - and I stated that my understanding may not have been clear - was that US companies may be subject to getting a federal state tax credit/break when a US company sets up an overseas subsidiary.
This is what came across in the preseidential debates.
From the last exchange, I can see that there is no tax credit/break as I suggested.

However, the central point of my argument is that the USA under Bush has not be good.
I believe that Bush's handling of the US economy hasn't been as competent as it should have been.
 
I actually agree that Bush has not done the best job with the economy. He needs to accellerate tax cuts accross the board and make them permanent. Drastically Cut spending in useless departments like Ag, Ed, EPA & HHS, pull out of the UN, cut back on senseless foreign subsidies, privatize SS, elimanate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, push for effective tort reform, bust up the NAR & NEA, eliminate the BATF and resign and let Cheney run the country.

Well, that should open a few dozen cans of worms:)


limerickman said:
No, I wasn't trying to assign the "tax break" notion to Bush.
I said that my understanding - and I stated that my understanding may not have been clear - was that US companies may be subject to getting a federal state tax credit/break when a US company sets up an overseas subsidiary.
This is what came across in the preseidential debates.
From the last exchange, I can see that there is no tax credit/break as I suggested.

However, the central point of my argument is that the USA under Bush has not be good.
I believe that Bush's handling of the US economy hasn't been as competent as it should have been.
 
limerickman said:
I believe that Bush's handling of the US economy hasn't been as competent as it should have been.


One of the biggest misnomers of American politics this that the President is responsible for the economy. That is just a BS method of trying to cajole the ill informed to "Vote for ME ME ME"

The truth of the matter is that the president does not have that much effect of the economy at all. I am not saying none, but it is way over rated especially come election time. You know who does have power, Greenspan and the Board of Governors. With the Internet our (U.S. economy) is more at the mercy of foreign economies than anything the president could ever do. Furthermore, the lag between any decision made by a president and the resulting equalization is longer than most presidents stay in office. Some decisions made during the early Clinton administration still haven't equalized in the economy. (i.e. NAFTA)

Where any president has power is in deficit spending, but that will only effect the economy in the long term future thanks to the 20-year notes and refinancing.

The economy is not a reason to pick one presidential candidate over the other. Picking one because of his position on abortion or on national defense is. I wish voters in our nation had to pass simple classes on economics and government structure before being allowed to vote. That way when the candidates claimed they were going to cut taxes and raise spending every where, they would know to raise the BS flag and not just follow blindly behind the fastest, smoothest talker.


Thats my Soap Box
 
jitteringjr said:
One of the biggest misnomers of American politics this that the President is responsible for the economy. That is just a BS method of trying to cajole the ill informed to "Vote for ME ME ME"

The truth of the matter is that the president does not have that much effect of the economy at all. I am not saying none, but it is way over rated especially come election time. You know who does have power, Greenspan and the Board of Governors. With the Internet our (U.S. economy) is more at the mercy of foreign economies than anything the president could ever do. Furthermore, the lag between any decision made by a president and the resulting equalization is longer than most presidents stay in office. Some decisions made during the early Clinton administration still haven't equalized in the economy. (i.e. NAFTA)

Where any president has power is in deficit spending, but that will only effect the economy in the long term future thanks to the 20-year notes and refinancing.

The economy is not a reason to pick one presidential candidate over the other. Picking one because of his position on abortion or on national defense is. I wish voters in our nation had to pass simple classes on economics and government structure before being allowed to vote. That way when the candidates claimed they were going to cut taxes and raise spending every where, they would know to raise the BS flag and not just follow blindly behind the fastest, smoothest talker.


Thats my Soap Box
Finally someone who actually gets it! Presidents can fine tune the economy, but they have no real effect on the economy. They either have the good luck to serve when the business cycle is up, or the misfortune to serve when the cycle is down.
 
Julian Radowsky said:
Blaming the action of the police on events of 9/11 is foolish and dangerous.
America wake up! You are living in a police state where you are so brainwashed and media programmed that you actually believe that you are free.

Police action at New York Republican convention

For more interesting pieces of info about the way your police state operates go here: Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote

Some very good points, at least someone sees that America is close to a police state.

No one has bothered pointing out that it doesnt matter who wins because they are on the same team. WHAT? What same team? They are both BONESMEN!!! Very, very elite club of rich guys from Yale bent on world domination. Heard of the NWO-new world order? From elder bonesman Bush Sr. who ironically gave his NWO order speech to the world on 9-11-90. FWIW Bonesmen believe in the philosophy of Hegel who believed in the STATE having ultimate control.
 
Meek One said:
Some very good points, at least someone sees that America is close to a police state.

No one has bothered pointing out that it doesnt matter who wins because they are on the same team. WHAT? What same team? They are both BONESMEN!!! Very, very elite club of rich guys from Yale bent on world domination. Heard of the NWO-new world order? From elder bonesman Bush Sr. who ironically gave his NWO order speech to the world on 9-11-90. FWIW Bonesmen believe in the philosophy of Hegel who believed in the STATE having ultimate control.
Better file this with the illuminati documents. Better known as the circular file.
 
Meek One said:
Some very good points, at least someone sees that America is close to a police state.

No one has bothered pointing out that it doesnt matter who wins because they are on the same team. WHAT? What same team? They are both BONESMEN!!! Very, very elite club of rich guys from Yale bent on world domination. Heard of the NWO-new world order? From elder bonesman Bush Sr. who ironically gave his NWO order speech to the world on 9-11-90. FWIW Bonesmen believe in the philosophy of Hegel who believed in the STATE having ultimate control.


Bikerman2004 said:
Better file this with the illuminati documents. Better known as the circular file.

Can't trash that. I mean, you gotta love conspiracy theorists. They provide us with hours of hilarious entertainment.
 
jitteringjr said:
Can't trash that. I mean, you gotta love conspiracy theorists. They provide us with hours of hilarious entertainment.

I guess you guys are comfortable knowing that the FDA gave the ok for human chip implants (gotta know where you are), your OnStar system in your car (gotta know where you are), your strip in your passport (gotta know where you are), the strip in your precious new dollars (gotta know where you are), Patriot Act and spy on your neighbor (in case we don't know where you are). NO, all of this is made up. The STATE isn't trying to keep track of you.
Lemmings are fun to watch too.
 
Meek One said:
I guess you guys are comfortable knowing that the FDA gave the ok for human chip implants (gotta know where you are), your OnStar system in your car (gotta know where you are), your strip in your passport (gotta know where you are), the strip in your precious new dollars (gotta know where you are), Patriot Act and spy on your neighbor (in case we don't know where you are). NO, all of this is made up. The STATE isn't trying to keep track of you.
Lemmings are fun to watch too.


All this for free. You should have to pay for this quality entertainment. Yet, through the help of conspiracy people, its free.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
Finally someone who actually gets it! Presidents can fine tune the economy, but they have no real effect on the economy. They either have the good luck to serve when the business cycle is up, or the misfortune to serve when the cycle is down.

I disagree with this premise.

The Republicans advocate a low tax economy.
The Republicans advocate an isolationist policy.
The Republicans advocate less social spending.

Each category - in an economic sense - is predetermined by the goverment.
To say that Bush has no hand in the economy is a lie.
In a macro economic sense - goverment sets criteria.
It sets the criteria for taxe, interest rate and inflation policies.
No entity - either public or private can set these macro economic conditions.
It is the goevrment who set these circumstances.
So to conclude that Bush (and his policies) have no influence over the economic performance is not true.

Look, the US deliberately devalued the dollar in real terms to try to stimulate
the economy : to get consumers to spend.
No entity, except goverment, has the power to do this.
Ditto interest rates (Greenspan is go in a certain direction by the goverment of the day).
Ditto inflation policy.
 
limerickman said:
I disagree with this premise.

The Republicans advocate a low tax economy.
The Republicans advocate an isolationist policy.
The Republicans advocate less social spending.

Each category - in an economic sense - is predetermined by the goverment.
To say that Bush has no hand in the economy is a lie.
In a macro economic sense - goverment sets criteria.
It sets the criteria for taxe, interest rate and inflation policies.
No entity - either public or private can set these macro economic conditions.
It is the goevrment who set these circumstances.
So to conclude that Bush (and his policies) have no influence over the economic performance is not true.

Look, the US deliberately devalued the dollar in real terms to try to stimulate
the economy : to get consumers to spend.
No entity, except goverment, has the power to do this.
Ditto interest rates (Greenspan is go in a certain direction by the goverment of the day).
Ditto inflation policy.
Never said the government(Bush) doesn't have a hand to play in the economy. They just don't have as big a role as you claim. At least not in the US. Maybe in Europe where socialism is more the norm and many companies are nationalized. Interest rates fine tune the economy. Tax cuts fine tune the economy. The private sector as a whole sets the macro economic condition.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
Never said the government(Bush) doesn't have a hand to play in the economy. They just don't have as big a role as you claim. At least not in the US. Maybe in Europe where socialism is more the norm and many companies are nationalized. Interest rates fine tune the economy. Tax cuts fine tune the economy. The private sector as a whole sets the macro economic condition.

Once again, you make a lot of generalisations.

The goverment in the USA, Ireland, Australia or anywhere, sets the macro economic conditions for their sovereign territory.
Whether you work for Rupert Murdoch or whether you work in a state body,
is frankly immaterial.
The goverment in each country set the conditions in which companies have to conduct business.

Nationalised industries ?
I think your text books are out of date, Biker.
Nationalised industries was the flavour in the 1960's - not now.

Macro economic conditions are not set by any private company.
Microsoft don't set the US interbank interest rate : it is set by Greenspan.
Microsoft don't set the inflation policy of the goverment of the day, it is the
Treasury Secretary.
Microsoft don't set the income tax levels, the goverment set those rates of income tax.
The private sector then have to conduct business within those macro conditions.
 
limerickman said:
Once again, you make a lot of generalisations.

The goverment in the USA, Ireland, Australia or anywhere, sets the macro economic conditions for their sovereign territory.
Whether you work for Rupert Murdoch or whether you work in a state body,
is frankly immaterial.
The goverment in each country set the conditions in which companies have to conduct business.

Nationalised industries ?
I think your text books are out of date, Biker.
Nationalised industries was the flavour in the 1960's - not now.

Macro economic conditions are not set by any private company.
Microsoft don't set the US interbank interest rate : it is set by Greenspan.
Microsoft don't set the inflation policy of the goverment of the day, it is the
Treasury Secretary.
Microsoft don't set the income tax levels, the goverment set those rates of income tax.
The private sector then have to conduct business within those macro conditions.
Everyone of the things you list only fine tune the economy. They do not drive the economy. The government can help stimulate areas that they deem need it. Maybe you should quit looking at the US economy thru the European model.
If tax rates effect the economy, please explain why the economy grew despite the fact taxes were increased in the 90's.
If inflation policy(interest rates) drive the economy, how come when they were at record low levels, the economy still went into a recession(tech bust).
Thats is correct about nationalization. Now companies are just heavily subsidized eg Airbus.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
Everyone of the things you list only fine tune the economy. They do not drive the economy. The government can help stimulate areas that they deem need it. Maybe you should quit looking at the US economy thru the European model.
If tax rates effect the economy, please explain why the economy grew despite the fact taxes were increased in the 90's.
If inflation policy(interest rates) drive the economy, how come when they were at record low levels, the economy still went into a recession(tech bust).
Thats is correct about nationalization. Now companies are just heavily subsidized eg Airbus.

The reason why an economy goes from prosperity to recession, is a multifaceted issue.

This was not the issue which we were discussing.
What we were discussing was Bush's influence (or lack of influence - as you contend) upon the US economy.

My contention is that all goverments - of whatever political persuasion - set
the macro economic conditions for an economy.
In the 1970's, the world economy was in a state of prosperity.
But in 1973 OPEC decided to increase the price of oil and thus the world went in to recession in 1974.
In 1979, the same thing happened.
In the USA and Britain, Thatcher and then Reagan adopted the Milton Friedman - monetarist model - to get them out of their respective recessions.
No amount of Microsofts/Dells/Boeings could implement policies to reverse the
recessions.
The goverment - in it's control of the overall macro economic conditions -
create the envoirment for companies to prosper.
Read your history of the USA between 1970-1990 and you'll see this.

Tax rates affect every economy.
In the 1970's - the Labour goverment in Britain had a top tax rate of 98% for the highest income earners.
Yes, 98%.
The flood of capital out of Britain almost bankrupted the country.

With regard to an economy going in to recession - despite record low level interest rates - there may be several reasons as to why an economy may still
go in to recession.
Ordinarily, one would assume that low interest rates would encourage businesses to borrow to invest and to grow jobs.
However, business will not borrow to invest, if the return on that investment
is not assured.

The fact that the US economy soared in the 1990's was multifaceted.
Initiatives like NAFTA, buoyant worldwide demand for US goods, the tech boom, the fall of Communism, globalisation, all contributed to US economic success in the 1990's.
This is why an economy will grow - depsite higher rates of taxes.
And the reverse applies.

The bottom line here is that the politicians create the circumstances for economic prosperity.
If the conditions are right ........

As you are a Republican, I would have thought that you would have been aware of Milton Friedman, Thatcher and Alan Walters etc.
Thatcher - whether one agrees or disagrees with her politics - recognised that it was the goverment who create the conditions for economic prosperity,
for the local grocery shop to thrive, for the creation of jobs etc..........
 
Limerick you are as wishy washy as John Kerry.

You said this:

limerickman said:
I believe that Bush's handling of the US economy hasn't been as competent as it should have been.

Thus placing overall blame of the U.S. economy on Bush to which we replied, the president does not have as much control over the economy as most people think. He can only fine tune it.

Then you go off for paragraph after paragraph proving our point, but still saying we are wrong. Here the your examples:

limerickman said:
The Republicans advocate a low tax economy.
The Republicans advocate an isolationist policy.
The Republicans advocate less social spending.

the US deliberately devalued the dollar in real terms to try to stimulate
the economy

Microsoft don't set the US interbank interest rate : it is set by Greenspan

The bottom line here is that the politicians create the circumstances for economic prosperity.

The President has the power to either veto or not veto any bill passed by congress and the senate. That is all. He has no power over the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and he is not the "government." The President can only "fine tune" the economy. You claim he is the government like our president is a dictator with supreme control. umm NO not.

None of these were or are done by the President, yet you personally blamed the president. Instead of spouting off irrelevant facts and arguing over things we didn't say, take an extra minute or two to read (and comprehend) what was said before you go on another tangent.

Oh by the way, the inflation policy of the government of the day is set by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors not the Treasury Secretary.
 

Similar threads