Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I think it was Lehman Brothers(I'm not sure, which is why I said I think) was one of the biggest contributors to President Obama's campaign. In turn they were also the biggest contributor to Mitt Romney's campaign.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's typical. Large corporations usually contribute to both parties (and certainly to both major party presidential candidates), so that no matter who wins, they'll be owed. With the ridiculous Citizens United decision, that will only increase, along with more difficulty in discovering exactly who is giving. Also, at the point when a candidate looks more likely to win, the giving goes up. When Obama's lead in the polls started to look insurmountable, his corporate contributions ticked up accordingly.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Of course no matter who's in the White House they have to cozy up to corporations and big business.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<SOME Dems share some blame here,>> Just some? Show me one Republican that made GE's CEO Jimmy Immelt the jobs czar.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Show me one Republican that made GE's CEO Jimmy Immelt the jobs czar.<< The previous president got the CEO of Halliburton to be VP. Is that good enough?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Another thread where the object is to point fingers and play the blame game.>> So what your saying is despite if a company is making huge mega profits or not, if they are cozy with Obama or the Democrats they should not be paying any taxes. Meanwhile, Wall Street bankers, Tea Party folks and everyday people should be paying taxes till the cows come home. Got it! My arguement here isn't that GE is making a profit, they (and others) are making huge, unbelieveable profits. Meanwhile, liberals continue to attack the middle class, conservatives and anyone not likely to vote Democrat and tax them into oblivion. How can any liberal out there talk out one side of their mouths and say taxes need to be raised, then somehow justify GE not paying any taxes on 14B in profits?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<The previous president got the CEO of Halliburton to be VP. Is that good enough?>> Did Halliburton pay taxes?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Plus, Obama extended the Bush taxcuts when he didn't need to. So, it is difficult for me to "buy" the liberal arguement that taxcuts, tax loopholes are exclusively the fault of conservatives when little to nothing has been done by the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party controlled Senate and lobbist "pal" Democrats in the Congress.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So what your saying is despite if a company is making huge mega profits or not, if they are cozy with Obama or the Democrats they should not be paying any taxes. Meanwhile, Wall Street bankers, Tea Party folks and everyday people should be paying taxes till the cows come home. Got it!> That's not what SPP said at all. He was pointing out that this thread was started on a faulty premise; that Immelt being jobs czar led to their not paying taxes, and thus it's all Obama's fault. Simply not true. GE has been skating on taxes for years, as have plenty of other companies, and the mechanisms that allow that have been around a long time. <then somehow justify GE not paying any taxes on 14B in profits?> Nor did anyone do that. In fact, no liberal who has weighed in here has done anything but decry the idea of GE not paying taxes (even if we might have described how they got away with it). It amazes me that you can read our posts and read anything else into them, but that's what happens when you have blinders on. <Plus, Obama extended the Bush taxcuts when he didn't need to. > You have a very short (and selective) memory. Obama said very strongly that he wanted the tax rates on the very wealthy to go back up to Clinton levels - which is something you don't do if you're fine and dandy with keeping the same; in that case you just say nothing. But the GOP in Congress threatened to filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits Obama wanted, and so he compromised (some would say "caved.") In other words, the GOP held the unemployed hostage so that they could extend their precious tax cuts.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Did Halliburton pay taxes?<< Even better: They got boatloads of tax dollars! But I appreciate why you are squeamish with Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, being VP. So were most Americans.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom These major corporations was not just intrested in making a profit, they want to make obscene profits. GE is a good example of that with 14B profit and zero taxes. It is difficult to believe that the Obama Administration is likely to change corporate tax loopholes and corporate tax incentives when, in this example a CEO of a major corporation that had no Federal tax burden, is an active member of Obama's Administration in a argueably crucial capacity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is difficult to believe that the Obama Administration is likely to change corporate tax loopholes...> You DO realize, don't you, that Congress has the sole power to open and close loopholes, right? The President can propose things, but Congress writes the laws. And one of the major parties in Congress considers any loophole closing a "tax hike" and it is thus "off the table." You DO realize this, don't you?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>These major corporations was not just intrested in making a profit, they want to make obscene profits.<< Your party vehemently disagrees, I'm afraid.
Originally Posted By mawnck The CEO of GE is Obama's jobs czar. Didn't want that to get lost in the shuffle here.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's a little cozy for me too. But remember that a). Obama doesn't set tax policy; b). the jobs czar doesn't either. Where I'm uncomfortable with the coziness is in the idea that Obama's job czar is someone who has never been adverse to offshoring jobs, polluting plenty and then paying the piddling little fines they view as a nuisance, and in general isn't the sort of person that I think will do much to get a lot of Americans working. Not because his presence somehow means that's how GE got away with paying no tax, as the OP implied, and which isn't true.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The CEO of GE is Obama's jobs czar.<< I have to admit that I was really dismayed when he appointed him. I think I'm going to write in Ralph Nader in 2012.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >> Where I'm uncomfortable with the coziness is in the idea that Obama's job czar is someone who has never been adverse to offshoring jobs, polluting plenty and then paying the piddling little fines they view as a nuisance, and in general isn't the sort of person that I think will do much to get a lot of Americans working. Not because his presence somehow means that's how GE got away with paying no tax, as the OP implied, and which isn't true.<< I agree 100%
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Halliburton never got anything like the bail out Obama doled out<< Surely you jest.
