Skip to main content

According to data published by the GAO and cumilated by the Heritage Foundation and published at the Washington Examiner....regulations introduced during the first three years of the Obama presidency is costing businesses approximately $46B - that is Billions with a B.  There have been 106 major new regulations introduced during the first three years of the Obamanation as opposed to 28 during the same period as GWB, five times those of any previous president, However there have been 10,000 new federal regulations altogether, about the same as Bush, but no where near as costly ($8.1B compared to $46B), .

Yet, this administration would have us believe, (well only the stupid people), that they are a pro-business administration which is dedicated to bringing jobs and security back to America.  How long will the MSM perpetuate this lie?  At the current pace of job growth, 225K per month, it will take years to gain back what was lost in the past four years, and even 225K a month is barely a drop in the bucket when you realize that we have had a fairly mild winter and construction jobs have not been halted by snow and ice.

This analysis is being echoed by the US CHambers of Commerce and other business groups that agree that the actions of this admistration is stalling the economy and employment growth.  They are targeting energy companies and Wall Street and threaten to weaken an already anemic economy. The regulations have already been passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees on checking accounts and the red tape continues to grow.

Anybody but Obama this November. Everytime I stop to get gas and hear people telling me how much it is costing to fill their tanks, I tell them to remember that in November.  Four years ago, the Left saddled GWB and Cheney with high gas prices and Obama deserves the same.  Albeit, moreso, since a few of his policies are directly affecting the price of oil and utlimately gas at the pump.

Hillary in 2016?  Why not?  We've already had one "girly man" serving in office for the past 7 years, we might as well give her chance as well!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I was concerned then, but remember the Obama administration promised "change"?  Where is it?  The only thing he has changed has been more government regulations and more government jobs.  He has done nothing of substance, even when he had the Dem controlled Senate and House.

He is a paper tiger. And yes, I will vote for anyone who runs against him in the next election. I will use the Democrat mantra and plan to "vote for anyone but him"....heck....dig up Sadam and put him in a suit and I might vote for him before I would this guy.  What you fail to see is that he is doing his best to handcuff businesses and it will not get better under some of these regulations are repealed.

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Yea right.

Things are so bad that even GM only made $3billion in profit last years.

____________________________________________________

 

OB-RZ455_2taxfa_G_20120228162445

The Other GM Bail-Out

The $18 billion tax gift Obama didn't mention.

How can you claim a GM Profit. Gm may never have a legit profit. Even with the advantage of the Government Support, tax payer funding and the great loses many stock holders took at the Government re-work of the company. Give me a break. Even your not this ignorant Ditto. Or are you? Read This

http://online.wsj.com/article/...251461989702208.html

Corporations in the red, as GM was for years, are allowed to carry forward net operating losses that reduce their future tax liability when they are making money. GM had accumulated about $45 billion in such profit-shielding chits by 2008, with a book value of about $18 billion. When companies enter bankruptcy, carry-forwards disappear or are greatly limited under IRS section 382, which kicks in when ownership changes by more than 50 percentage points.

The point is to prevent companies from buying assets solely for tax arbitrage or tax avoidance. But starting in 2009, Treasury began to issue regulatory "notices" that suspend this law when it comes to Treasury-owned stock. The provisions also apply to AIG and Citigroup.

So when GM entered bankruptcy in June 2009, the government swapped the debt the auto maker owed it as a creditor for 61% of "new GM," while handing another chunk to the United Auto Workers. But new GM also inherited the accumulated net operating losses that would have turned into a pumpkin in normal bankruptcy.

 

Editorial board member Joe Rago on President Obama's speech today to the United Auto Workers.

In a 2011 working paper, J. Mark Ramseyer of Harvard and Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University argue that by manipulating corporate tax rules by fiat, "Treasury gave the firm (and its owners, including the UAW) $18 billion more in assets." Thus a Democratic Administration gave "a massive tax benefit to one of the party's biggest supporters." The other problem is that the move put Ford and GM's other competitors at a disadvantage, as bailouts always do.

Mr. Obama crowed yesterday about GM's "highest profits in its 100-year history." We'd be interested to hear how its effective tax rate compares with Warren Buffett's secretary's.

Skippy

Attachments

Images (1)
  • OB-RZ455_2taxfa_G_20120228162445
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Yea right.

Things are so bad that even GM only made $3billion in profit last years.

GM is showing a profit, but in reality they did not make a profit, as they did not include the monies promised to the Union or the Benefits that are yet to be paid.  When those are factoring into the mix, they lost $750K, according to one source last week.  This will be compounded next year, and if there is no substanial increase in sales, the numbers will be evn more dire next year.  They are being manipulated to make Obama look good, but you can only polish a turd for so long.

Ditzy's post:

 

"Corps rule America.

They are even "people" now."

 

Corporations pay billions to meet an increasing flood of regulations to keep the feds from their throats.  Obama's doing his best to limit the existing ones and ensure no more grow like Apple or Mircosoft.

 

As to  personhood, that is simply a legal fiction to ensure the corporation has a legal right to its name, and some protections, responsibilities liabilities under law, as only persons may engage in legal activities and business.

 

Legal personality allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity (a composite person) for legal purposes. Why a group of investors (shareholders) should be denied their rights if they form a group, is beyond me.  However, the left continues to treat their rights with disdain. 

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/boeing0211.pdf

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, Boeing reported $4.4 billion in pre-tax profits in 2010 but paid only 0.3% of its pre-tax income in federal income taxes. The year before it reported $1.5 billion in pre-tax profits, but paid no federal income tax at all and actually claimed an outright tax rebate of $132 million. In 2008, Boeing reported $3.77 billion in pre-tax profits and paid a 1.2% federal income tax rate. Thus, for the three-year period, Boeing earned pre-tax profits of $9.7 billion, but paid an effective tax rate of -0.8% and ended up with a net refund of $75 million.

And, Ditzy, your point is?  They paid their taxes due under the present system which is lobbyist rich and rationality free. 

 

Your one good idea was to end corporate taxes.  Then, tax dividends as regular income.  I'd stick to that, if I were you.  Simultaneously, legions of lawyers, CPAs, and lobbyists could be put to more productive work.  Remember GE's record of using 2,000 such to avoid paying taxes. 

Idiut.

 

 

there is the problem of the great stock market crash of 1929. While it occurred during a Republican administration, and while there were in fact a full eight years of Republican presidents preceding it, there were a lot of other factors involved as well. (McCall acknowledges this problem by including the observation that if you ignore the Great Depression a Republicans-only investment would now be worth $51,211 instead of $11,733.)

The question is, how representative, or how fragile, is the dramatic result shown in the Times? To help explore this I developed an interactive Demonstration that lets you play with the parameters and assumptions. Here’s what it looks like with the parameters set up to roughly mirror what the Times‘ Op-Chart showed. The differences are somewhat less dramatic (I’m using Dow Jones data while McCall used S&P data), but still very substantial, 10 to 1 in favor of Democrats.

Conveniently ignoring the objections raised in the same article"

 

"First, it gives each president "credit" for stock market performance from the first day of his administration. That’s not reasonable: it surely takes at least a few months if not years before a president’s actions can start to affect the performance of the market.

 

Second, it completely ignores dividends: in earlier financial eras dividends were much more important than capital gains, and ignoring them distorts the picture.

 

Third, it ignores inflation: If the stock market was shooting up during a given administration but inflation was also high, the stock market gains may not count for much. Anyone can print money, that’s easy.

 

Fourth, there is the problem of the great stock market crash of 1929. While it occurred during a Republican administration, and while there were in fact a full eight years of Republican presidents preceding it, there were a lot of other factors involved as well. (McCall acknowledges this problem by including the observation that if you ignore the Great Depression a Republicans-only investment would now be worth $51,211 instead of $11,733.)"

 

http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/1...-presidential-party/

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×