Business Experts Have Explained That Barbara Boxer’s and the Democrat Party’s Job-Killing Policies Are To Blame For Jobs Leaving America:
Job-Killing Policies, Including Higher Corporate Tax Rates And More Regulation, Are To Blame For Companies Outsourcing Labor To Other Countries.
The list of companies who have given up on the United States as a viable place to successfully run their business’ both small, medium and large is mind numbing.
Additional reasons U.S. companies outsource is that our own government pursues policies that drive investment and job creation offshore: excessive taxes, needless regulations, lengthy permit processes, a decreasing supply of U.S. citizens with technical and engineering degrees, and a general governmental misunderstanding of how to support private-sector jobs.
Neither Obama or his current administration have a clue on how to create jobs in the private sector and equally important driving them out of the country.
Link
Comment below from your linked op-ed piece, which basically just quoted
huge business owners that the GOP is trying to protect. They could give a shit about the little guy or middle America. They just held up tax cuts for 90% of the people to ensure that the top 10% get to keep their Bush era tax cuts as well.
Sure - because the Bush regime was so all-fired hell-bent on keeping American jobs in America, too (i.e: NOT)!
It's the corporate gangs which OWN the government, not the other way around!
Who do you think lobbies whom, to ensure that they CAN legally out-source all the domestic jobs and so down-size the domestic labor force, in order to "save money" on OUR "expensive" salaries, and so to "increase THEIR corporate profits"?!
Corporations hardly pay ANY taxes as it is, and they are ALL owned by the Banksters, who pay absolutely NO taxes at all!
Recently, starting with Salesman Bush and then quickly doubled by his equally corporate-sponsored replacement, Salesman Obama, we saw OUR tax monies GIVEN away to both the banksters as "Bail-outs" AND to their copororate minions as "Stimulus funds!"
"OUR" government pays OUR taxes TO the Banksters and to the Corporations!!!
SO It's pretty darned obvious who owns whom!
...and THEN, tards like you come along and write trashy sales-pieces like this for your sales-masters!
Who do you think you're kidding?!
;-(http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/n ... 138494.eceMr. Explainer Guy tackles the Bush tax cutsBy Howard Troxler, Times Columnist
In Print: Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Q. Hey, Mr. Explainer Guy, this was so much fun the other day that I thought I'd go for a bigger topic. Can you explain this "Bush tax cut" business?
A. Sure. But you mean the Bush tax hikes.
Q. Hmm, no, I don't think so. Everybody's talking about the Bush tax cuts.
A. It's the same thing. They made a deal in Washington a few years ago to cut taxes on everybody — then to jack them back up on Jan. 1, 2011.
Q. That sounds like a tax cut to me.
A. Yeah, they were cuts then. But now they're tax hikes. Hey, I'm just telling you the deal they made.
Q. All right, sheesh, you want to call it something different than everybody else in the world, go ahead. But what does it mean?
A. Under the 2003 deal, everybody's tax rate got cut by a few points, no matter what bracket they were in.
The lowest rate dropped from 15 percent down to 10 percent. The highest rate dropped from 39.6 percent down to 35 percent. Everybody in between got a cut, too.
Q. Anything else?
A. We also got higher deductions, a better break for having kids, lower taxes for selling our assets ("capital gains") and other goodies, too.
Q. Why did they cut taxes then, but say they had to go back up on Jan. 1, 2011?
A. Because the Republicans didn't have enough votes to do it permanently. So they did it under funky rules that allowed it for just a few years.
Q. So now the deadline is here, and Congress is fighting over whether to keep these lower taxes?
A. Actually, the Democrats have already caved on the main point and agreed that most people should be able to keep these tax cuts.
But the Democrats have still been trying to let the tax cuts expire for the richest 2 percent of Americans.
Q. And the Republicans?
A. They insisted that the top two brackets keep their tax cuts, too. That's everybody making more than $200,000 a year as an individual and $250,000 as a couple.
Q. So the Republicans were holding up the deal to stick up for rich guys?
A. That's the Democrat spin, but it didn't catch fire. Class warfare isn't working.
Q. If we keep these tax cuts, doesn't that make our debt worse?
A. Yep, by an extra $3.7 trillion over the decade. Or just a mere $3 trillion if we stick it to the rich guys.
Q. On the other hand, wouldn't it hurt to let tax rates go up in a bad economy?
A. That's exactly what the Republicans say. Makes sense to me.
Q. So what's going to happen?
A. Looks like they'll make a deal in Congress for another "temporary" extension of these lower tax rates for a couple more years.
The Republicans will win the big fight now — they'll keep the tax cuts for the richest two brackets.
The Democrats will get some kind of consolation prize, like extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans that were going to expire.
Q. That doesn't seem too bad. We're still hittin' the rich guys for 35 percent, the rest of us get to keep lower tax rates, and as a side benefit, millions get more short-term help.
A. I agree. On the other hand, the debt keeps going up and the ship will keep sinking, unless we do something about spending.
Q. Can you fix that, too?
A. Yes, but I'm out of space.
Now, can we get back to the topic at hand? Why is the GOP so damn scared of gay people? And Whooter, how do you come to the conclusion that gay people cost more money? Although I concede that I'd pay good money for a great gay to come in and redecorate my house. Ever notice that whenever a certain area of a city/town starts to become populated by gays that the house values begin to rise?
