I'm with you, drive-by!

For all of the money spent on campaign ads, there is very little positive information.

Huh, I am shocked, just shocked that you would call for such a rule now Drive By.

I wonder if we went into the "way back" time machine how much time did Obama spend talking about what he was going to do? Even counting "Hope and Change" as a plan [which clearly it was, and is, not] I'm guessing Obama spent far less than your minimum.

Plus I do recall him tralking a whole lot about ending wars, closing Gitmo, and other neat stuff like transparency. So shall we amend you idea DBO with a provision that there can be no more than 10% outright lies?

Sounds neat-o and all, but I really don't think you will be able to restrain any of the candidates from focusing on just how suck-y Obama has been. Or how the country is headed in the wrong direction. Or how a leader is supposed to lead. You get the idea.

And fielden - just what positive information is there right now anyway?

Heck - I'd settle for Obama spending 75% of his time now telling us what he is going to do on stuff like the debt, energy and my favorite - a budget. Golly can anyone here imagine trying to run a business without a budget? I know right, that's just ridiculous. Unless you are a democrat?

This might be a good time for Reid to cook one up. According to the 1974 Congressional Budget Act the Senate must draft a budget every year. Interesting, right?

Spanky:

I wonder if we went into the "way back" time machine how much time did Obama spend talking about what he was going to do?

I can answer that, actually, at least in part. President Obama spent a lot of time talking about what he would, and would not, do. He said he would close Gitmo and end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He said he would not sign a health care reform bill that didn't have a public option in it. He said he would find Osama bin Laden. He said he would end the war in Iraq. He said he would refocus our war efforts on Afghanistan, where it needed to be. He said he would march along side union workers whose collective bargaining rights were threatened.

Obviously, his success and/or adherence to these things is open to dispute, and I'm sure others can think of other things he said. But for sure he said at least this much that was specific.

So, it seems to me that the least you can do is to give him a little credit for that, and demand the same level of specificity -- or even more -- from your own side.

Drive-by-observer

If voters had known that the Republican answer to our economic problems would be to hold endless debates on abortion, would they have voted in Republicans in 2010?

I think not. Hence, the emphasis on attacking President Obama instead of talking about criminalizing abortion, dismantling Medicare, preserving tax cuts for oil companies, you know, all the stuff they would actually DO.

My point AMwas not about credit. We all know politicians will say whatever they think they need to say to get/retain the position.

My point was directed to my buddy DBO. His rule is just silly. Impossible to enforce, and I think the better question is who gets to decide what is a plan as opposed to smacking down the opposition.

But his intent is clear. He knows what's coming - a steady pounding of the Obama sucks drum. You know, a slight variant of the Bush sucks drum that Obama beat.

And sorry right now there just is not much to give credit to Obama for, were I inclined to do so. Wars still going strong. No plan whatsoever on energy. No credible plan for economy. It's grim AM. But then, you know that.

Now sure it means he has almost no chance of re-election, but man it is going to suck for a long while. And look you got the Amy's of the world talking about abortion. Amy, I get you are a receptionist, but seriously look at the big economic picture. Now tell me my you choose to focus on the tax code as it relates to the oil companies - a subject you clearly have no understanding of.

That would be great, but they would all be speechless. Better yet no adds at all, everyday they must answer 2 questions 1 from the left 1 from the right to be fair and put that on the alphabet channels each night.

Spanky:

My point was directed to my buddy DBO. His rule is just silly. Impossible to enforce, and I think the better question is who gets to decide what is a plan as opposed to smacking down the opposition.

But his intent is clear. He knows what's coming - a steady pounding of the Obama sucks drum. You know, a slight variant of the Bush sucks drum that Obama beat.

Nice deflection, Spanky, but the real point is that Obama did not, as you accuse him, mindlessly attack Bush without saying what he would do. In fact, your original post more-or-less concedes that point by identifying some of the specifics that Obama mentioned during the 2008 campaign.

But either way, why is it wrong for you -- or for anyone -- to demand more from your side's candidates? Aren't they, by their very conservative natures, superior to President Obama? And shouldn't they be held to a higher standard than us weakling liberals?

Ponder it, Spanky. Aren't you conservatives better than this? And if not, then why should anyone vote for you?

Ooops- forgot. It's Thursday. Spank's hit-the-jug day.

But hey, Spanks- give us some examples of things Obama said denigrating Palin in the '08 runnup, and some of the things SHE said about HIM in that same campaign. No drum pounding needed though, this cycle, about who sucks. Not with the slate we've seen so far, huh Spanks?

Oh noooooo DBO - this cycle , from here through '12 is going to be about Obama running away from his own dismal record and the rest pounding the living daylights out of him.

I get you love your boy Drive By, but given the economy and such he is doomed.

AM - they were not my demands. It's Drive By, cause he knows the beat down that is coming to Obama. Me, I expect absolutely nothing from politicians. And Obama gave no specifics, just Hope and Change, which as we can now see ain't working so well.

You vote for whoever you want. I'm not running, but we know from history that whoever gets the nomination will likely win given the economy, as per Clinton.

Bummer, video not playing on my IPad.

A 30 second commercial from Exxon-Mobile!

Fascinating... considering they were one of 12 corporations who tax rate was -1.5% between 2008 & 2010!

Look at Feisty busting out about taxes. Say Feisty I don't suppose you have any idea how that number was calculated?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

The study you quoted was completed by CTJ, a liberal group with ties to organized labor, so it is not impartial. Like the democrats putting out polling numbers commissioned by Democratic pollsters.

Your post of a negative -1.5% rate is an average of just 12 companies for the period 2008 - -2010. It does not take into account a number of factors that cause the disparity nor does it say that any of the deductions taken were unlawful. They’re in the Internal Revenue Code..

“Verizon Communications Inc., for example, shows up in CTJ’s study with a -5.9% effective rate for 2010 in the study. By Verizon’s reckoning, though, its effective tax rate was 32.1%, when you clear out some accounting clutter arising from its Verizon Wireless partnership with Vodafone (and even with the clutter, it says its rate was 19.4%).

Verizon includes taxes that have been deferred for various reasons, however. CTJ doesn’t. Taxes can be deferred for a wide variety of reasons such as accelerated depreciation”.

“Exxon Mobil Corp. said it has sent a letter to CTJ, expressing concern with its methodology. The company says its effective tax rate over the last 6 years is 29.1%, when state income taxes are excluded. Its three-year average is somewhat closer to CTJ’s figure of 14.2% (which was the highest on the list).”

CTJ’s study concludes that General Electric Co. takes the cake, with a -61.3% effective rate over the three-year period. A spokesman for GE, whose CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, heads President Barack Obama‘s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, said last week that the company is “fully compliant with all tax laws.” He pointed out that the company’s GE Capital division lost billions during the financial crisis, and said GE’s tax rate will be much higher in 2011. U.S. tax law typically lets companies make generous use of losses in one year to offset taxes in other years.”

You can’t just take a number that’s an average of 12 companies and say it applies to ALL corporations. You also need to understand that the code is complicated and that an army of CPA’s and tax attorney’s work for these companies and their sole purpose in life is to reduce the tax liability of the corporation, same as your accountant does for you.

Pawlenty believes in hiding how right wing extremist he is, Bachmann puts it right in our faces.

They will be an interesting pair in Iowa, that's for sure. I heard T-Pause plans to run as an Evangelical Christian there, in order to appeal to that crowd, and no doubt keep up with Bachmann. Between the two of them, I doubt there will be much Christian charity displayed, but I must say I am amused by the prospect that T-Pause may be forced to play his extremist cards very early in the game.

Now, just imagine if St. Sarah of Wasilla jumps into that fray, as well.

Groucho Marx,

Good question. if Pawlenty loses Iowa and can't get donor support he just might have to settle for the VP position.

Read your post and don't understand all of it but do get the gist of what you were saying. I'm sure many posters here will quote that often quoted Grouch line "That's the silliest thing I've ever heard".

Thank you Groucho.

I think it'd just be super if the Feistys, Amys and all the others who have never even read the IRC simply refrained from commenting on taxation issues. I get you all read crap on the internets, but most of it is flat wrong, which just makes you all look silly.

K?

Groucho Great post. It is nice to see someone who actually understands the tax issue and doesn't just regurgitate the lib mantra of selective information. It seems really easy to get people all riled up when you only read part of the facts.

Groucho,

Great post.

Your last paragraph was particularily salient ......

You also need to understand that the code is complicated and that an army of CPA’s and tax attorney’s work for these companies and their sole purpose in life is to reduce the tax liability of the corporation, same as your accountant does for you.

GE's return was the equivelent to 2,400 pages.

What many also fail to realize is that these large multi-nationals place their profitable operations in low tax rate countries and the less profitable/unprofitable operations in high tax rate countries like the US.

Hence while GE actually received a credit for GE Capital losses in the US they paid taxes in other countries for their profitable operations.

Insane and pretty much the same with every company.

Why do the liberals like Feisty fail to get it?

There are some very good points. However, we still need to raise revenues.

If you only hear the audio of Gov. Perry, his voice sounds exactly like that of President George W. Bush.

Have you ever seen this guy's interviews? He's a real smart-ass most of the time. Says something he thinks is cute, then looks around to see if anyone took notice. A gem, to be sure. Him and Palin should team up.

Hey Drive By - you ever seen the guys job creation numbers?

Kate,

What's your point? If he sounds like George W. Bush...

He's a real smart-ass most of the time. Says something he thinks is cute, then looks around to see if anyone took notice. A gem, to be sure.

DBO:

Are you talking about Perry or Skanky?

Perry = Bush Lite!

Starting now?

Perry = Bush Lite Then he must be feather because I thought before I heard Palin you couldnt get much lighter than that.

PSLC: It would be great to have Perry on the stage during the debates.

It sure would. Gov. Perry could explain how his state has created more jobs than any other state during recessionary times. He can also talk about how his rejection of Obama stimulus money for unemployment benefits in fact kept taxes low on businesses (there were strings attached to that money), allowing those businesses to hire even more employees.

Reposting...

Texas dominates rankings for best cities for jobs

By STEVE CAMPBELL

For the second year in a row, Texas' five major metropolitan areas nailed down half the top 10 spots in an annual ranking of the best cities to find a job.

However, to complete the picture about Texas, jobs are being added which is always good to hear. More people are coming in from other states for those jobs; however as more of these people come in they are shocked to find that our school systems are faltering. Instead of dealing with the problem the legislature wants to starve the system. With the latest state budgets which do not plan for current needs let alone future needs, I sadly predict that Texas will not be a good place for jobs come this fall. As you mentioned some estimates predict that nearly 100,000 teachers will lose their jobs. State agencies designed to serve the public which include members of the most fragile and dependent Texans look to be cut dramatically.

_______________

Even GM is expanding an auto plant near Arlington to the tune of $331 million and 110 jobs. Despite the business environment here I wonder how the low taxes helps our economy as a whole - education, social etc. As of last week both Dallas and Fort Worth saw their school superintendents leave or be forced from their posts, surely to lessen the stain on their resumes.

About that stimulus money back in 2009 he did reject the unemployment benefits during the worst of the recession - Feb - March 2009. I guess to the GOP that is a badge of honor. By the way in April the legislature voted to take the funds and they were received. Then Perry accepted them.

Dear Mr. President:

I'm writing you today in response to stipulations set forth in H.R. 1, the $787 billion stimulus package you signed into law yesterday. As you know, I have been vocal in my opposition to this legislation because I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe H.R. 1 will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt.

Throughout the years, Texas taxpayers have sent substantially more dollars to Washington than we receive on issues ranging from transportation to border security and hurricane relief. As I have during the debate on H.R. 1, should Congress pass stimulus legislation using Texas tax dollars, I would work to ensure our citizens receive their fair share.

"On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up.

Sincerely,
Rick Perry
Governor"

Currently there is still a big discussion on how to use this years additional stimulus funding to help fund eductation. In fact a special session of the legistlature was called into order on 6/1/11 to discuss just such an idea. Some legislatures, even some Repubs don't want to answer the questions from their constituents why their schools are firing teachers and expanding class sizes. Even some republicans are unwilling to close state facilities and slash social services despite Perry's rhetoric.