Huffington's take on skirt-ing issues and Palin

Home » Opinion » Daily Napablogger

Monday, September 08, 2008

Comment

By MICHAEL HALEY

Daily Napablogger

4 p.m. Monday, 9-8-08Must read of the day: Arianna Huffington has an interesting article today in the Huff Post that I really agree with. She says the main impact of Palin has been to totally take the focus off of substantive issues in the election campaign and on to whether her skirt is too short or not, etc.

Click here to read the full item

We need to get back on track discussing the economy and the Iraq War and war on terrorism, etc.

I don't agree with her assessment that McCain is another Bush, they differ in many ways, including support for the surge. Right now Republicans don't even need to worry about rebutting that with the total increasingly inane focus on Palin.

Fox News reports that two months ago Obama was leading in the polls on "who is best on the economy" by 20 points. Today that lead has shrunk to 3 percent. People don't want new taxes is my take, especially in the middle of a recession.

I don't think either of them has impressed with their economic plans, and if McCain were to come out with something "we can believe in," like a real plan to cut spending he may become unbeatable. That is the failing of the Bush administration, lowering taxes and raising spending at the same time, running up huge deficits.

The first one to come up with a believable plan to reverse that, and begin to prepare us to pay down the huge liabilities we are soon going to be forced to deal with, is going to have a big advantage in this election. So far neither has really done that.

66 comment(s)

Bill wrote on Sep 8, 2008 4:52 PM:

" You will have to start picking which liability to want to start paying down before you can get a tax reduction.

Where has the money gone in the last 8 years? The deficit has ballooned on a certain party's watch.

This of course is the blame game and the one place thing look really bad as a point of argument is the war spending and the reduction of taxes at the same time.

You can't just sugar coat "support the troops" and cut taxes or you are not being serious about controling deficits. "

napablogger wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:37 PM:

" Bill, I agree with you completely. If Bush had left the top marginal rate at 39.5%, which Obama is proposing, that would have brought in an average of $200 billion a year. Over six years that would be $1.2 trillion. Cost of Iraq war thus far-$1.2 trillion.

Instead, amount borrowed from China for the war deflating the dollar and leaving it to our children---$1.2 trillion. "

misfit wrote on Sep 8, 2008 6:12 PM:

" Totally agree. Sarah was chosen specifically for what the GOP is getting. Brilliant in a way...hopefully the American people will be smart enough to figure it out. Anyone voting McCain/Palin now, simply because she was added to the ticket is being used as well because, she lacks any substantive experience on the issues facing us now. They are keeping her sequestered away, doing homework and practicing, I'm sure, her canned answers to the questions that will be coming soon. I doubt however, that those questions will lend us any insight into her knowledge and grasp of the serious issues facing Americans. She is just a skirt that the lemmings of the world can hold onto and hide behind, Hockey Mommy that she is. "

glenroy wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:37 PM:

" Huffington, in my less than humble opinion, never made any sense when she was a conservative and she still doesn’t make sense as a liberal….she just makes lots of noise.

What the American people see in Palin, is someone they can directly relate to, not some plastic looking career politician. I would add, community organizing for ACORN cannot seriously be compared to managing even a smaller populated state like Alaska and likely voters know the difference. Palin over came obstacles Obama/Biden could not begin to comprehend, she successfully cleaned up her own party!

The American people are plenty smart….they known well tax increases have no effect on deficit spending…the most effective way to slow this uncontrolled growth is to cease enabling. How smart to you have to be to figure that out? I would also suggest, thanks in no small part to blogs like this one and radio talk shows, that the ‘likely voter’ realizes the balanced budget claims made by Clinton were dollar for dollar the result of gutting our conventional forces, as well as the intelligence agencies tasked with being our first line of defense. There was welfare reform, without correlating reductions in social spending which eats up some 60% of our 3 trillion dollar federal budget….the spending cuts were exclusively military/intelligence. Don’t forget accounting practices the Clinton Administration used to create the balanced budget allusion reclassifying revolving short and long term debt…Enronish.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the anti tax sentiment and I support reducing all levels of government spending…besides the lessons history has to offer. Virtually every recession and depressions in the past 125 years was preceded by a tax hike in one form or another…and that’s a historical fact. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Sep 8, 2008 10:42 PM:

" "People don't want new taxes is my take, especially in the middle of a recession."

Since 95% of the population won't have their taxes raised under Obama, this makes no sense at all.

McCain on the other hand, wants to reduce taxes on the rich even more than Bush already has. Plus, he wants to lower corporate tax rates when a GAO report just came out saying about 2/3 of corporations don't pay taxes at all. Yet they benefit from the (crumbling) infrastructure of the country. One of the reasons it's crumbling is the corporations not paying taxes. "

kevin wrote on Sep 9, 2008 8:32 AM:

" So why does the US have the HIGHEST corporate mean income tax as a percent of income IN THE ENTIRE CIVILIZED WORLD?? "

kevin wrote on Sep 9, 2008 8:38 AM:

" WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

He's YOUR candidate BH... "

Sandra wrote on Sep 9, 2008 8:40 AM:

" Oh Please...must read? I am a bit dissapointed. I certainly agree we should be taling about the issues. Where have I heard that idea before? Oh yea...all my posts in the last few days, thats where.
But to make the claim that Palin was brought in to distract? Well if that is so, it does not say much about the intelligence of the opposition, does it? Cause the dummies fell for it hook line and sinker....Nor does it say much for her supporters intelligence....As Misfit says, "Sarah was chosen specifically for what the GOP is getting. Brilliant in a way...hopefully the American people will be smart enough to figure it out. Anyone voting McCain/Palin now, simply because she was added to the ticket is being used as well because, she lacks any substantive experience on the issues facing us now."
Nope Misfit, and Huffington are right...we are all just a bunch of dummies who are voting McCain because Palin is just so darn cute, and spunky. Duh!
Personally I am a bit tired of being called stupid in this round about passive aggresive way.
America likes Palin, because she is someone who they can identify with. She has lived a similar life to most of America. Most people are not as judgemental as many in California seem to be. It is o.k. with them if she has a stance on abortion different than theirs, as long as she does not impose it on them. They see themselves in this person. They can relate to her.
Add to that her experience on reform, and being a govenor...well we like what we see. Call us dummies, stupid, whatever....I have a feeling we may be having the last laugh. "

Hear Ye wrote on Sep 9, 2008 9:34 AM:

" It's pretty obvious why he chose Palin. Huffington nailed it. The whole thing is a gimmick and for now it is working. Kinda makes one question McCains judgement if he can't take the role or potential role of the VP serious. Assuming they let Palin out of hiding to talk to the media like every other candidate I wouldn't be surprised to see the momentum shift when people find out she's not really much of a reformer (see her history of earmark money and the distortion of the bridge to nowhere) "

napablogger wrote on Sep 9, 2008 12:03 PM:

" bausfan, it is not just the income taxes, he is talking about the payroll taxes and especially the corporate taxes.

All those taxes will affect the economy and the people who will also be getting decreases in their income taxes. It is not everyone, the people at the bottom of the income scale probably don't care, but Obama needs some of the wealthier voters too to win.

But Obama is also making a tacit admission that raising taxes on the wealthy will affect the economy, and if the economy is hurt it will hurt the people at the bottom the most.

I actually think it is kind of a weak move by Obama. He didn't say which taxes he would not cut if we are in a recession, and he should have. He is therefore admitting that all taxes have a negative effect on the economy. "

napablogger wrote on Sep 9, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Sandra, I don't think McCain's intention in bringing her in was to distract, who knows, so I don't agree with Huffington on that point. But the main point, that she is a distraction from the issues is very true right now and the most important one I believe.

So you complained about not talking about the issues a couple of times and that is it? That is the most important issue, because all this foo fa rah is a distraction and it is propaganda, and we need to keep pounding away on that til it stops.

Palin is clearly not qualified for the VP job and saying that is not being judgemental, it is factual. "

glenroy wrote on Sep 9, 2008 12:40 PM:

" ‘95% percent of the people won’t have their taxes increased under Obama’s plan?’ Oh yea….well I know of another deal just like it, thousands of acres of ocean front property in Arizona for a mere couple dollars per acre ….and I’ll even throw in the Golden Gate Bridge…

Unless you’re a cave dweller, homeless or 100% self sufficient/delusional, everybody’s taxes will dramatically increase. Obama’s proposed spending is over 1 ‘trillion’ dollars and more likely closer to 1.5 ‘trillion’… huh…that’s at least 25% more than the current federal budget….and that’s doesn’t include his mentally challenged desire to nationalize medical care, nor his brilliant plan to pack on more gasoline taxes….and he’s even going to create 10,000,000 private sector jobs to boot….what a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away.

Thankfully, Obama is on his way to being just another over hyped footnote. "

glenroy wrote on Sep 9, 2008 12:46 PM:

" And Obama wasn't a gimmick? Community organizer and all? "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 9, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Huffington? Since when is Huffington a reliable source for anything? "

Bill wrote on Sep 9, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Three years ago I thought that John McCain was the Republican’s only hope it appears I was right. I thought he could even temp me to vote for him mainly on his willingness to be inclusive. He has fallen far short of expectations in spite of his good character.
On The main issues of war, spending, healthcare, energy, the economy, immigration, foreign policy, conservation, education and government no significant thought is brought to bear only empty calls to change in the attempt to co-opt an opponents undercurrent. When he talks of Republican hats and American hats he only leaves the image of empty hats.

On the war he cannot promise “victory” in Iraq and a tax cut. The war is the largest current drain on government spending and nothing can be addressed until funding for the War on terror is honestly looked at. To achieve “victory” (an undefined term) along the lines McCain advocates trillions of additional dollars will need to be spent and, like
Bush, he is refusing to address this single salient feature.
Americans are overwhelmingly against the Iraq adventure yet the only leadership he can supply is that we will stay until victory over takes us. He does not address the cost of the war and without addressing this there is no economic discussion of any relevance.

The flippant solution would be to merely claim victory and walk away but at least McCain’s opponents have a guide for extricating our selves from Iraq. One cannot speak of foreign policy, economics, taxes, health care, energy, conservation, education or government responsibility unless the central issue of Iraq is solved.

Cries of “Victory” as our cause is not leadership especially while refusing to out line the costs of that “Victory” in both blood and treasure. "

jeeper16 wrote on Sep 9, 2008 4:39 PM:

" Let me see...... If only the rich folks get taxed, big corporations get taxed, big and small businesses get taxed, does that mean that the 95% of us regular folks getting the "tax break" not pay more in the long run??? Do you really believe that these folks who have to pay higher taxes are going to "eat" that extra expense? I think not. We all will be giving that tax break right back and then some! Prices for goods and services will go up substantially. It only makes common sense. These people and their stockholders will not absorb that cost which reduces their profit margins!! Think about it! We'll be paying Obama's tax on the "rich" for them. "

sickothis wrote on Sep 9, 2008 5:42 PM:

" jeeper16 - that's absurd. the voodoo economics of the bush term have been thoroughly debunked. Glenroy - check the econ figures now and tell me that Bush's plan worked. It's foolish. Unless you make more than $250k you are voting against your own interest. If you are making more than $250k, tell us. Cause then we know where you're coming from. If you're not, you simply a fool that doesn't understand the basics of the tax code. "

sickothis wrote on Sep 9, 2008 5:45 PM:

" And Bill, thank you. I have a felling we disagree on many issues, but you have been quite eloquent and pragmatic lately. Bravo. It would be nice to live in a world of thinkers... "

Sandra wrote on Sep 9, 2008 6:24 PM:

" NB, you state,"So you complained about not talking about the issues a couple of times and that is it? " Absolutely not a couple of times. I keep harping on it, and Big Brother at the the NVR keeps not posting my posts. Talked to Dan about it, but I was reminded of the "rules". I did not think I was breaking any rules, so was/am still perplexed at the posts on the "issues" not getting through..... And am still waiting on clarification as to why. One did not get through on your blog as well as a few others....makes me wonder if some one in big brother land is just annoyed by me period, so doesn't post anything with my name on it. I can picture him/her now, "Oh no, not HER again...." delete. ;) "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 9, 2008 10:14 PM:

" sickothis - so you are saying that corporations will not pass on the extra cost of high taxes to their customers? And you don't admit that customers will be the end payers of the huge tax increases? Talk about voodoo economics . . .

BTW, I am far on the down side of earning $250K but I am voting for my own interest in telling Obama to go back to Chicago and organize something else besides my life. "

Raven wrote on Sep 10, 2008 7:12 AM:

" since only 1/3 of all corporation are actually paying any taxes, there isnt much to pass on is there... "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 10, 2008 12:34 PM:

" So you are saying if the costs on 1/3 of goods and services people need go up, this will not affect people in the lower income brackets? Explain . . .

Or that you are not concerned that people who work for those companies might lose their jobs as consumers don't buy the now more expensive stuff? (which will also then lower tax revenue as unemployment costs rise). Explain . . .

Send Obamanomics back to Chicago. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 10, 2008 12:37 PM:

" So you are saying corporations pay no tax, but it was pointed out to you, but you have ignored because it doesn't suit your purpose, the fact that corporations do pay taxes: property tax, employment tax, Social Security and Medicare tax, unemployment tax, sales tax, etc. Explain why that is not important . . .

They can't pay those taxes if they don't sell something. "

Raven wrote on Sep 10, 2008 2:07 PM:

" no, I am saying that despite all your hue and cry about how much corporations are buckling under their tax burden, one 1/3 of them are actually paying any taxes....not my statement, the GAO says so...

and many of those taxes are then able to be deducted from any federal tax obligation, so are they really paying those taxes? "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 10, 2008 9:07 PM:

" I did NOT say that corporations are buckling under their tax burden. That's YOUR fabrication. You are obviously confusing the present situation with Obamanomic disaster.

Also Raven, you have to actually pay something for it to be deductible. And being deductible, these taxes are not dollar for dollar credits, but are offsets to profit which only partially lower their federal tax. So yes, corporations actually do pay taxes! Surprise, Surprise! If you don't understand this, please don't ask me because you won't believe anything I say. Go to NVC and take Econ 101 Remedial. "

NVGal wrote on Sep 11, 2008 12:21 PM:

" The GOA report on corp taxes that I believe everyone is referring to looked at the effective US tax rate that US corporations paid and found that the WA effective tax rate is 25.2%. While it is true that about 33% of US corporations having a positive income pay less than 5% in taxes, this is due to the Foreign Income tax credit - which eliminates foreign taxes paid in other countries. The US does not tax this income twice. So it is not true that American corporations do not pay taxes, they do, they just pay taxes in other countries because that is where they make their income.

Also, if you look through the report at the charts with other countries effective tax rates, you can see that 25.2% is one of the highest when compared to other countries. The report also states that the tax rate of other countries “appears to be an influence” for US businesses. (to put it bluntly, US corps will leave and make there income somewhere else in this age of globalism, this is my opinion, not the opinion of the report).

So if we want corporations to pay more taxes here in the US, the rate needs to come down not up, or capital and income goes to China, where the tax rate is a whole lot lower. "

ice wrote on Sep 11, 2008 6:38 PM:

" Hey... Arianna Huffington was relevant when umm... You know... Oh wait, that wasn't her. "

kevin wrote on Sep 11, 2008 8:59 PM:

" I think NVGal should be Sarah's VP in 2012! "

misfit wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:38 AM:

" I'd like to see how wealthy these corporations or individuals would be without the backs of their workers. Let's just acknowledge that, they could not make their money without some help from their underlings. That seems like a lot of power the underlings have.
Should this type of warfare on the middle class continue, there will be riots in the streets within a few short years. "

misfit wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Kevin...What a simple solution. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 12, 2008 10:20 AM:

" More mindless blather about evil corporations.

Not that I agree with a lot of what goes on in the corporate world (including coporations in other countries). I don't think the excessive executive compensation is right, along with many of the other practices that go on.

But profit is not a four letter word. Many investors prefer corporate stocks and bonds for their retirement funds. Most people would choose active participation in managing their retirement dollars, rather than putting them in a sinking fund called social insecurity.

Corporations need workers, and workers need jobs. Without companies and corporations, who are you going to work for? And for all you "tax the corporations" lefties, who are you going to tax? Are we all to become self-employed whatever your occupation is? That's not going to work. You want to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater, and that is not the solution.

I believe corporate charters need to be rewritten, among other things (300 words doesn't begin to cover all my points - you'll have to wait for the book). Corporations are not inherently evil, sometimes evil people get control, just like they do in government (there's a surprise). And if the evildoer in government is an unelected bureaucrat, it is almost impossible to get them rooted out.

So ther equation of Corporation = Evil is just a mindless knee-jerk response. What do you have in mind as an alternative? Or do you just want to complain about it without offering anything? "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:54 AM:

" Barack Obama's tax plan will result in lower taxes for over 80% of American families. Obama's tax plan is more responsible and fair than that of McCain. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 13, 2008 11:25 AM:

" Obama's plan will raise prices on nearly everything and cause great loss of jobs, which will hurt 100% of lower income people and not bother the rich at all.

NObama - keep the change! "

badlandgrl wrote on Sep 13, 2008 2:48 PM:

" I think maybe Huffington could never make it in politics and she's jealous of Sarah Palin who is 10 times the woman Huffington could ever dream of being. Governor Palin, is just like most of us normal mothers, who have to multi-task. Maybe the problem is that we should have had one of us in the Oval Office the last decade, we would not be in the situation we are in. Most of us don't take any crap and clean house in every respect very well. When are you people going to start thinking, when you raise taxes on coorperate America, the increase will be in turn passed down to us, so we will be less able to afford what they are selling and they will be more likely to relocate their bsinesses to other countries........worsening the situation we are already in. Why doen't you librals find some trees to sit in! "

Sandra wrote on Sep 13, 2008 3:25 PM:

" trees to sit in.....very funny "

NVGal wrote on Sep 13, 2008 3:48 PM:

" Obama's tax plan takes the milk from one families table and gives it to another family. That's not fair. I'd rather my government give me the tools like a good education and fair trade and lower taxes so that I can not only buy my own milk, but I can buy my own dairy, run it and employ 50 people. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Trickledown economics did not work during the 1920s, 1980s or during the present decade. During each of those three decades, GOPers supported policies that caused massive redistribution of wealth from the working/middle classes to the wealthiest Americans. GOP economic policies supported by McCain will help create a class-based society with even less upward social mobility. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Obamanomics will cause middle and lower economic group Americans to lose their jobs, while at the same time raising prices. Only the rich benefit from that. Far better to help keep Americans working.

Transfer of wealth is a Democrat philosophy. When Teddy K shares his wealth with me then I just might believe in it. Until then . . . NObama - keep the change! "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 14, 2008 1:23 PM:

" Unemployment has grown while President Bush has been in office. GOP policies have led to increased unemployment and underemployment. Bush/McCain support economic policies that advocates for large corporations to export their jobs overseas. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 14, 2008 1:24 PM:

" I doubt that NVGal will be purchasing a dairy any time soon. If the dairy industry were completely deregulated, many dairies in California would shut down very quickly. "

NVGal wrote on Sep 14, 2008 7:13 PM:

" Each time the middle class brings out their credit card they distribute earnings to the wealthy. They don’t understand how they stagnate their own wages or the power of their own pocket book. And the opposite of those jobs going overseas and staying in the US is that companies have to hold onto those jobs, pay higher wages, invest in capital projects that no longer meet their needs to be able to grow and proper and be creative in a global world. This results in companies going bankrupt or worse, government bailouts. So under Obama’s plan we now have a higher deficit and high unemployment. Nice.

The US must continue to be a fierce competitor in this global world, and it is time that Americans step up to the plate. Trying to stop the surge of globalization is like being in denial. We are still out in front, we can still make a difference, but the more time that goes by, the more power other countries will have over us. "

kevin wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:50 PM:

" Madison, do you ever fact check anything you say?

Under Bill Clinton's term, unemployment was as high as 7.8%. Under President Bush the highest it got was 6.3%. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 15, 2008 6:48 AM:

" President Clinton inherited a 7.4% unemployment rate from Bush I. When Clinton left office, the unemployment rate was 3.9%. In order to maintain a standard of living, Americans work longer hours, more mothers work full-time, and credit cards are maxed out. What must Americans do next to balance their personal accounts? I fear that if Senator McCain is elected, Americans will face a lower standard of living in the years ahead. Corporations don't care about creating jobs; therefore, it's up to citizens to defend themselves and each other by regulating business through fair trade laws. "

NVGal wrote on Sep 15, 2008 1:41 PM:

" MJH - I agree that their needs to be more social responsibility when it comes to corporations, that can happen from the bottom up, but first people have to understand the role of a corporation in the US. Corporations are not in business to create jobs, or to help families, they are in business to make money for their owners. Most companies believe that the best way to make money for their owners is to best serve their customers and community, but still will push the envelope as much as they can without being illegal. There are good companies and bad companies, but no company will ever create jobs just because it is good for the middle class. They would be bankrupt.

Many of the Americans that you trying to help are shareholders, many of us in the middle class own stock through our 401ks, many more have brokerage accounts that we save for our kids college, etc. So you don’t have to be “wealthy” to receive benefits.

If you are part of the middle class that now has a large amount of credit debt, you will find it extremely hard to move forward regardless of who is president. These past 10 to 15 years were a gift, but it will not be repeated. The trick now is to open up trade as much as people can handle. It is horrible that we as American’s are not prepared for this. This is not the fault of any American president, Bush was not there with the middle class American pushing pens in our hands telling us to sign next to the X. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 15, 2008 2:14 PM:

" If Obama is elected we will face a lower standard of living from the increased prices we will pay to make up for the increased taxes on business.

Mothers working full time and maxed out credit cards were happening often under Clinton, this is not a Bush-blame issue. The only reason there was economic growth during Clinton's years was because of the dot com boom, which was a false bubble. Clinton gets credit for economic prosperity that he does not deserve.

NObama - keep the change "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 15, 2008 11:03 PM:

" Corporations receive legal and economic benefits not extended to other types of companies or individuals in exchange for living up to certain responsibilities to the communities in which they operate. Corporations even claim the civil rights that real, live citizens do. Unfortunately, during the past thirty years, corporations have successfully shifted their tax burden to working individuals. Higher corporate tax rates might force CEOs and shareholders to cut their profit margins, but communities would benefit, not be hurt. Too many corporations don't pay any taxes at all. Many corporations even refuse to pay their taxes and choose to negotiate through teams of attorneys for out-of-court settlements with state governments to reduce their tax burdens even further. A large percentage of civil lawsuits are filed by corporations against other corporations because they often don't even treat each other fairly. We need fair economic policies and strict regulation of corporations. GOP deregulation mania has proven to have failed in helping stabilize or grow the American economy. GOPers don't deserve another chance to fix the economic problems they've created. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:15 PM:

" OK everyone. Corporations pass along every cost or expense along to the purchaser. Everything is figured in and a target percentage of profit makes the final price. Now things can happen, unexpected costs such as the runup of fuel prices can happen faster than price changes can be enacted. Or sales could be lower than expected, causing loss of volume purchasing that was in the plan. But the idea is, nothing is "absorbed", there is no such thing whether you like the idea or not.

Then there is this "only 1/3 of corporation pay taxes" stuff. It would certainly make sense to try to get more corporations to pay taxes, yet the lefties say prices won't go up since only 1/3 pay taxes. They are mixing up the "now" with the "then". Or is it a creative interpretation of reality to achieve a point?

But even if only 1/3 of the businesses pay taxes (they all do, it has been pointed out about payroll, property, and other taxes, and those, NB, are not absorbed but figured into overhead, please) then we can expect roughly 1/3 of prices to rise. The other business could either raise prices to create more "prft" (that four letter word) or keep prices low and force the 1/3 out of business. Either way, middle and lower economic class Americans will lose jobs and/or pay higher prices because of this smoke and mirrors tax cut.

The only ones who will benefit will be the rich, who can pay the higher prices. We can do better. That's why I say

NObama - keep the change! "

NVGal wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:41 PM:

" MJH – please let me be clear, if the corporate income tax rate is raised, companies will not take a hit to their margins, they will not reduce executive pay, they will not be doing all the good and wonderful things you want them to do. They will however raise prices, layoff lower wage workers, etc in order to make up their tax difference. Corporations are not in business to help the communities around them. They are in business to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. These days they can do that in whatever country they chose.

All corporations pay taxes. Read the GOA report on multi national corporations that was released in August, they all pay. There is no “only 1/3 of corporations” that pay. 100% of corporations that earn an income pay taxes, period. "

NVGal wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:46 PM:

" MJH -Read my post on this thread on Sept 11, 12:21 pm on the GOA report and corporate taxes. "

Raven wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:56 PM:

" interesting NVGal, cuz the first page of the report has chart showing the percentages of corporation that have no tax liability and in ranges from above 60 to nearly 70 percent between 1998 and 2005. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:19 PM:

" Let's see, the president in 1998 was . . . "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:51 PM:

" Corporate income tax rates ought to be the same as the income tax rates on real work done by real live citizens. "

Raven wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:48 AM:

" go ahead, say it ppf..... "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:12 AM:

" and the president in 1999 was . . . "

glenroy wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:41 AM:

" ….there is no such thing as no tax liability because minimum taxes are paid in advance and are not refundable….all corporations have a minimum tax….secondly all corporations pay matching employee taxes….most pay state taxes. I’m one of the lucky ones who pays more in taxes than I earn….and I don’t earn anywhere near a fireman wage….libs for whatever reason are either oblivious or lairs about this countries tax rates because when you add them all up…income, state, federal, property, corporate, medicare, SSI, workers comp…..it’s doing nothing but killing job growth….and a tax is a tax no matter how it’s disguised.

The best that can be said about Obama’s ‘economic’ plan is that if it is ever implemented, it will make virtues of ‘voodoo economics’ perfectly clear. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:54 PM:

" and the president in 2000 was . . . "

Raven wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:29 PM:

" glenroy maybe you should explain that to the GAO.....it is their statement not mine...

and the president in 2001 through 2005 was/is.... "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:22 AM:

" GOPers are in a tough spot now. McCain has announced his support for the expensive bailout of AIG. McCain has criticized regulators for not doing their jobs. GOPers who worship the free market are now squealing about the necessity to regulate more. The deregulators are calling for government subsidies and more regulations! I suppose we're all socialists now! "

NVGal wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:09 PM:

" Raven - I'd be curious to know what report you are looking at, the one that I am referring to is the on Multi National Corporations effective tax rate and is dated in Aug. 2008. I would be interested in reading the one that says that corporations have no tax liability. There is no chart on the first page that refers to what you are referring to on the report that I am looking at. "

Raven wrote on Sep 20, 2008 6:17 AM:

" Titled "comparisons of reported tax liabilities of forerign and us controlled corporations 10998-2005," gao-08-957..

but you can find it it any number of web sites and newspapers "

a teacher wrote on Sep 21, 2008 5:54 PM:

" Hey Kevin, under Bush, the average family income has dropped by $2000 since he started in office. Under Clinton it rose $7000.

I guess everyone must be enjoying their jobs at Walmart now that the republicans have been in control. "

NVGal wrote on Sep 21, 2008 7:49 PM:

" Raven -You are correct in saying that 70% of corporations have no tax (federal) liability, as this report states. But if you are reading it as saying 70% of corporations don’t pay taxes, that is completely erroneous. I don't know if you have read through the report, but page 8,9 and 10 help to understand the why's. Basically because of net losses or no income. Also, if you look at the corporations that have $250 million in assets or more, more of those corporations have federal tax liabilities.

This report studied the tax liability of foreign controlled US corporations and compared federal tax liability against US controlled corps. So it does not go into detail on the US controlled corporations and what is behind their tax liabilities. The report does touch on new corporations, which typically take time to make money, and the time period does encase the time of the dot com era – lots of startups with lots of net losses. Also losses can be carried forward on federal returns. This reports does not break down in detail the size, industry etc of the US controlled corporation.

Also, Glenroy is right, since the report that you are referring to only looked at federal returns, it did not look at tax liabilities from property taxes, state taxes, or payroll taxes, all of which still need to be paid regardless if the company has a loss or not. "

NVGal wrote on Sep 21, 2008 7:58 PM:

" a teacher - my income rose 40% under Bush. I don't work at Walmart and used all of the opportunities that were presented to me. I live in the town that I grew up in and went to public schools and a state college. I am not special and there is no magic formula or secrect clubs. "

Raven wrote on Sep 22, 2008 5:24 PM:

" NVGal, if your income grew 40 percent under Bush you are one of the lucky ones....

According to the fed, real hourly wages fell for most low- and middle-wage workers by 1 - 2 percent last year and have not increased since 2000 after adjusting for inflation. In addition, the Federal Reserve recently reported in its Survey of Consumer Finances that average income for American families declined 2.3 percent between 2001 and 2004 after adjusting for inflation. "

NVGal wrote on Sep 22, 2008 7:56 PM:

" Luck had nothing to do with it. I just used the same system that is available to everyone. "

Raven wrote on Sep 22, 2008 8:55 PM:

" so the reason incomes declined for all these people is their own fault?...is that what you are saying? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: