Leahy, Sanders, Welch spurn tax deal

Vermont's congressional delegation rejected a compromise struck between the White House and Republicans as the president hosted a news conference Tuesday to defend the deal that will extend tax cuts to all Americans, including the wealthy. Full Story

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#229 Jan 6, 2011
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
facts ARE facts...
Fact is, Fiat wouldnt touch Crysler unless the Unions made some concessions...the company was DEAD under current Union bene's..
as above:
"In a clear message to American and Canadian unions, the chief executive, Sergio Marchionne, told Wednesday’s Globe and Mail newspaper that a deal on the partnership had only a 50-50 chance of succeeding because of lack of progress in talks with union leaders.
“Absolutely we are prepared to walk,” Mr. Marchionne said in an interview.
“There is no doubt in my mind.”
The Chrysler unions had to agree to match the lower labor costs of plants run by Japanese and German carmakers in the United States and Canada, he said."
I notice you suggest stuff about "facts", yet provide none...
c/p here is 2009, and independent company assessing the posibility of working under the current chrysler Union deal saying no reason to even start the business with those terms...
second, I am not sure unskilled labor is supposed to be middle class...
maybe thats why the natural economy is now seeking its true level...and guess who is not in the middle class...
LOL!!!!

Then howcome Fiat just announced they would consider taking a 51% stake in Chrysler when the IPO came out?

LOL!!!

Anytime a business is propped up by taxpayer dollars, the private-for-profit sector ups the investment.

Using other people's money is the FIRST tenet of all private corporations.

This is why Fannie and Freddie are so beloved by private banks. They can fob-off the losses on the public while privatizing the profits.

Corporate welfare at it's finest.

Either you right wing fascists need to embrace government as your buddy, or drop corporations as your friends. Which is it?

LOL!!!
Darke

Celina, OH

#230 Jan 6, 2011
Realtruthteller wrote:
<quoted text>
NAFTA was a compromise that we entered into because come hell or high water the jobs were leaving. The money was too good to not want to move the jobs and NAFTA did salvage some benefits regarding mutuality...most of which has protected us from Canadian subsidies to Canadian industry...in particular the lumber industry which is heavily subsidized in Canada.
This benefitted China, Mexico, Cananda, Japan etc..far more than the U.S.
estanson

Bellows Falls, VT

#231 Jan 6, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!!
Then howcome Fiat just announced they would consider taking a 51% stake in Chrysler when the IPO came out?
Anytime a business is propped up by taxpayer dollars, the private-for-profit sector ups the investment.
LOL!!!
you basically answered your own question...

take the GM IPO
this was the classic cook the books followed by the pump and dump and yes, the fed asserted sovereign immunity against any potential securities fraud claims that will DEFINATELY be comming...

notice no actual individual buyers could get the stock until it passed trough prearranged buyers?

so they could make their dough on the day of the IPO and the regular joe investor will get caught holding the worthless rags of stock when the company discloses their shenanegans which included shipping twice as many cars to the dealerships the months before the IPO since the company registers these deliveries as sales made... this = cooking the books...

then the second MAJOR rule in IPO's is to not garauntee sucess which of course every major news outlet did just prior to the IPO...
through anonymous govt sources...
dont forget the sovereign immunity thing...
this is the pump and dump...

so yes, anyone who could get the IPO did because its easy cash...
did you not how many chinese business got a huge share and sold it that day?

So yes Chrysler will follow..and why not...
and fiat will want in on the ground floor of unckle sams next cook th ebooks pump and dump..

but this does not change the fact that Fiat simply would not try to run Chrysler as a going concerns under the current Union deal...
they thought it would be impossible to make it while meeting theunion's demands...
hmmm....

Since: Jan 09

Jericho, VT

#232 Jan 6, 2011
Darke wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not think NAFTA is to blame but let me tell you when NAFTA was implemented our company lost 900 jobs to Mexico. And the CEO got big awards from the Gov. for doing so.!
Look at it this way NAFTA must be good for the American worker. First it was signed by the Democrat Clinton the fried and benifactor of the worker. Second the unions must like it as they endorsed him for re-election.
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#233 Jan 6, 2011
j w mcsherry wrote:
<quoted text>Look at it this way NAFTA must be good for the American worker. First it was signed by the Democrat Clinton the fried and benifactor of the worker. Second the unions must like it as they endorsed him for re-election.
Excellent points!!!
Darke

Celina, OH

#234 Jan 6, 2011
j w mcsherry wrote:
<quoted text>Look at it this way NAFTA must be good for the American worker. First it was signed by the Democrat Clinton the fried and benifactor of the worker. Second the unions must like it as they endorsed him for re-election.
Yea there is the rub. UNIONs. They are making out like a bandit under this adminstration as they have under most. Its incomprehensible that the fundamental destruction of this country is still supported by so many.
Realtruthteller

Brattleboro, VT

#235 Jan 6, 2011
Darke wrote:
<quoted text>
This benefitted China, Mexico, Cananda, Japan etc..far more than the U.S.
NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement and China and Japan weren't included.

As far as your Mexico and Canada...Mexico clearly benefitted as hundreds of US companies started manufacturing Mexico. NAFTA did not make that happen. It was happening anyway. NAFTA made Mexico and Canada agree not to put tariffs on US products and not to engage in unfair trade practices. Canada has done that and there have been many disputes between the US and Canada.

The US benefitted since everything manufactured in Mexico was cheaper so the US consumer benefitted enormously. Just like the China manufactured goods today. China, by the way , is undercutting Mexico and manufacturing has left Mexico for China.

What the US lost was manufacturing jobs. Primarily it was US labor costs...paychecks...but it was also a lot about US corporate tax rates....which are the highest in the world...and about US regulations which are almost the most restrictive in the world.

“Proud American and Vermonter”

Since: Feb 09

Bennington

#236 Jan 6, 2011
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
I just dont agree...
the poor buy $1 bread...the rich buy $4 loaves...
the poor buy a $1,000 car, the rich buy a 60,000 car...
a flat tax would be graduated by the products purchased...
I do suggest the only untaxed item should be whole foods...
that way, if the poor buy only whole foods, they pay no tax...
right now poor folks pay NO TAX...they actually get a check from uncle sam....
is that FAIR?
"routing out all areas of waste" is a BS term...
if it was so easy, it wouldnt be there in the first place...
and such a thing would only be possible in a smaller system...the rampant waste and fraud is due to the enourmous size of federal programs...
a call for routing out all areas of waste is a call for more state power.
With a flat tax you pay a tax on what you make. With a vast you pay only when you buy something. It is my opinion that a flat tax would work better then a vast.

"right now poor folks pay NO TAX...they actually get a check from uncle sam....
is that FAIR?" No it is not, and that is why the EITC should be done away with.

There is waste in every level of government. I would like to them do an audit of every government agency, federal and state. There has got to be a more efficient way of doing things. Everyone says that the spending has got to be cut and I agree, but why not do it right and find the areas where money is wasted and stop it.

“Proud American and Vermonter”

Since: Feb 09

Bennington

#237 Jan 6, 2011
j w mcsherry wrote:
<quoted text>Look at it this way NAFTA must be good for the American worker. First it was signed by the Democrat Clinton the fried and benifactor of the worker. Second the unions must like it as they endorsed him for re-election.
I'll say it again jw. You're beloved Republicans must love it as well. When they had the opportunity to make changes to NAFTA they didn't. Did you ever lean on them when they were power of the WH and both Houses to change it?

“Proud American and Vermonter”

Since: Feb 09

Bennington

#238 Jan 6, 2011
j w mcsherry wrote:
<quoted text>Was there not a report that with a flat tax with no deductions the rates could be cut in half. Plus the goverment would take in even more money. Now as I remenber it those now in the 10% bracket would pay 5% those in 25% would pay 12.5% Of course the elected officals would not have a way of saying to people in special intrest groups we took care of you by giving you a tax break. Plus how many tax lawyers would be out of work?
"Of course the elected officals would not have a way of saying to people in special intrest groups we took care of you by giving you a tax break."

And that is why the way campaigns are financed must be change. But with the ruling by the Supreme Court last year I don't see that happening anytime soon.
http://www.publicampaign.org/

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#239 Jan 6, 2011
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
you basically answered your own question...
take the GM IPO
this was the classic cook the books followed by the pump and dump and yes, the fed asserted sovereign immunity against any potential securities fraud claims that will DEFINATELY be comming...
notice no actual individual buyers could get the stock until it passed trough prearranged buyers?
so they could make their dough on the day of the IPO and the regular joe investor will get caught holding the worthless rags of stock when the company discloses their shenanegans which included shipping twice as many cars to the dealerships the months before the IPO since the company registers these deliveries as sales made... this = cooking the books...
then the second MAJOR rule in IPO's is to not garauntee sucess which of course every major news outlet did just prior to the IPO...
through anonymous govt sources...
dont forget the sovereign immunity thing...
this is the pump and dump...
so yes, anyone who could get the IPO did because its easy cash...
did you not how many chinese business got a huge share and sold it that day?
So yes Chrysler will follow..and why not...
and fiat will want in on the ground floor of unckle sams next cook th ebooks pump and dump..
but this does not change the fact that Fiat simply would not try to run Chrysler as a going concerns under the current Union deal...
they thought it would be impossible to make it while meeting theunion's demands...
hmmm....
I don't deny anything in your post- of course shenanigans are happening, as they are with the Goldmine Sachs backing of 450 million to 1 billion stake in Facebook.

Unions aren't the issue though. Fiat will have to accept the current arrangement with the UAW- not to say if they gain a 51% margin or more that they won't attempt a restructuring, perhaps moving the HQ to Dubai to avoid taxes like Halliburton and Blackwater, but who knows.

Naturally the Chinese and any other major US creditors get first crack at easy money, that's how corporate fascism operates.

There are dozens of funds and other investment parlors where you need a minimum investment to participate, need to be connected, a billionaire, or invited to join.

The problem with our financial system is it's designed to redistribute wealth from the bottom up.

As long as there is a giant pool of taxpayer's money ready to insure banks or investment house's lousy investments, as will be the case with Goldmine's Facebook foray, then you won't find one corporate fascist who hasn't met a public money pool he didn't want to take a dip in.

Privatize profits while socializing losses. The name of the game.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#240 Jan 6, 2011
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
I just dont agree...
the poor buy $1 bread...the rich buy $4 loaves...
the poor buy a $1,000 car, the rich buy a 60,000 car...
a flat tax would be graduated by the products purchased...
I do suggest the only untaxed item should be whole foods...
that way, if the poor buy only whole foods, they pay no tax...
right now poor folks pay NO TAX...they actually get a check from uncle sam....
is that FAIR?
"routing out all areas of waste" is a BS term...
if it was so easy, it wouldnt be there in the first place...
and such a thing would only be possible in a smaller system...the rampant waste and fraud is due to the enourmous size of federal programs...
a call for routing out all areas of waste is a call for more state power.
The "flat tax" is just another right wing fascist attempt to redistribute wealth from the bottom up.

Make individuals who purchase "things" to float the economy, while giving corporations tax breaks and write offs for spending on equipment and who end up paying ZERO in taxes as GE, Exxon, and Walmart do now.

Yeah, push off the burden of taxation on individuals who need to buy things to survive. LOL!!!

What happens when all of the jobs are offshored? What hapens to the fictional 45% who "don't pay any taxes" because the fall beneath the poverty line?

No, the remedy is to end corporate welfare subsidies, start taxing corporations, tax estates, tax the rich at 90% marginal rates over a base income, impose import tarrifs on American companies who offshore jobs and import goods from communist countries, and problem solved.

The rich are always trying to weasle out of paying their fair share.

I don't know ONE wealthy person in my business who pays anymore than the capital gains rate of 15%, NOT ONE.

Only the stupid ones pay the marginal rate.

Since: Jan 09

Jericho, VT

#241 Jan 7, 2011
Scott05201 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll say it again jw. You're beloved Republicans must love it as well. When they had the opportunity to make changes to NAFTA they didn't. Did you ever lean on them when they were power of the WH and both Houses to change it?
Let me try again. Why should the Republicans change it? You tell me they are the party of big business so they are doing what they were elected to do. What I am saying is the Democrat Clinton when the Democtats controled both houses of congress signed it. Now if as they claim "we are looking out for the worker" It must be good for the country or they are not doing what they were elected for. As I like to tell Democrat campain workers {each election} Go to Johnson Control & Stanley Tool as they benefited localy from Democrats. When ask where are plants "I have to answer Mexico"
Realtruthteller

Brattleboro, VT

#242 Jan 7, 2011
j w mcsherry wrote:
<quoted text>Let me try again. Why should the Republicans change it? You tell me they are the party of big business so they are doing what they were elected to do. What I am saying is the Democrat Clinton when the Democtats controled both houses of congress signed it. Now if as they claim "we are looking out for the worker" It must be good for the country or they are not doing what they were elected for. As I like to tell Democrat campain workers {each election} Go to Johnson Control & Stanley Tool as they benefited localy from Democrats. When ask where are plants "I have to answer Mexico"


There is much misinformation about NAFTA. The wage differential was the attraction to manufacturing in Mexico. The jobs were going no matter what Washington did. NAFTA put restrictions on Mexico and Canada that required that they not unfairly compete by giving unfair advantage to goods manufactured in Mexico or Canada vs those manufactured in the US. Tariffs were eliminated and environmental concerns were included to make sure that Mexico had to spend the same amount on environmental concerns in manufacturing as US companies did.

Without NAFTA the jobs were leaving anyway. The wages were so low in Mexico it was obvious to begin the process of maufacturing in Mexico. The same thing happened to Massachusetts when the textile industry all went south because of the wage differential.

I think much of the blame for the loss of manufacturing jobs is placed on NAFTA but it is misplaced. And Mexico has lost jobs to China for the same reason we have.

The only good news it that goods manufactured in Mexico are cheaper than they would have been if manufactured here. The refrigerator I just bought was manufactured in Mexico and cost the same as the US manufactured model with the same features cost me in 1998.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#243 Jan 8, 2011
RTT, you have it right.

Ford and GM built factories in Mexico long before NAFTA was even a thought.

Why? Because the largest buyers of small cars and pickups was Central America. But to export vehicles there, the companies had to pay a TARRIFF on each car and truck. So it was cheaper to build the cars and teucks where they were sold and therefore not pay any fees. But importing those same cars and trucks into the USA had no tarriffs at all. It was a common sense move by Ford and GM.

It's funny. I read that if the iPod were made in the USA, it would cost over $5,000.

Since: Jan 09

South Burlington, VT

#244 Jan 8, 2011
Realtruthteller wrote:
<quoted text>
There is much misinformation about NAFTA. The wage differential was the attraction to manufacturing in Mexico. The jobs were going no matter what Washington did. NAFTA put restrictions on Mexico and Canada that required that they not unfairly compete by giving unfair advantage to goods manufactured in Mexico or Canada vs those manufactured in the US. Tariffs were eliminated and environmental concerns were included to make sure that Mexico had to spend the same amount on environmental concerns in manufacturing as US companies did.
Without NAFTA the jobs were leaving anyway. The wages were so low in Mexico it was obvious to begin the process of maufacturing in Mexico. The same thing happened to Massachusetts when the textile industry all went south because of the wage differential.
I think much of the blame for the loss of manufacturing jobs is placed on NAFTA but it is misplaced. And Mexico has lost jobs to China for the same reason we have.
The only good news it that goods manufactured in Mexico are cheaper than they would have been if manufactured here. The refrigerator I just bought was manufactured in Mexico and cost the same as the US manufactured model with the same features cost me in 1998.
I am not saying anything about NAFTA as a program. What I am saying is in the campain it was called a threat to the American worker. Remember the phrase "if passed one could hear the sucking sound of American of jobs going to Mexico". Again the friends of the worker President Clinton with a Democrat controlled congress signed it. I would point out lost jobs cost the taxpayer in unemployment & welfare cost to support those who lost their jobs.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#245 Jan 8, 2011
Jeff Phillips wrote:
I read that if the iPod were made in the USA, it would cost over $5,000.
Why I don't know, since wages are stagnant at 1970 levels when adjusted for COLI and loss of benefits.

Looks more like maximizing profits when a nation has only credit to run on, and no real wealth- except at the top of course.
estanson

Bellows Falls, VT

#246 Jan 10, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
The "flat tax" is just another right wing fascist attempt to redistribute wealth from the bottom up.
Make individuals who purchase "things" to float the economy, while giving corporations tax breaks and write offs for spending on equipment and who end up paying ZERO in taxes as GE, Exxon, and Walmart do now.
corporations who purchase things would pay the tax..
guess what...corporations buy lots of things and expensive ones too...
company cars/ jets /property..
instead of a deduction, they would pay a tax!
EVERYONE pays!
thats the beauty...

So you can morph it into a system where some dont pay so you can complain, but the sales tax is an effort to get EVERYONE to pay the tax..
even FOREIGN corporations.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#247 Jan 10, 2011
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
corporations who purchase things would pay the tax..
guess what...corporations buy lots of things and expensive ones too...
company cars/ jets /property..
instead of a deduction, they would pay a tax!
EVERYONE pays!
thats the beauty...
So you can morph it into a system where some dont pay so you can complain, but the sales tax is an effort to get EVERYONE to pay the tax..
even FOREIGN corporations.
And do you really think corporations will go along with that? They don't pay taxes now, so you're going to RAISE taxes on corporations who buy things? LOL!!

That will go over like a fart in church.

I'd like to see a Republican propose that and actually get it passed with corporations cheerleading it.

Not only would they evade paying with their enormous wealth and rafts of lawyers, but would offshore buying "things" and re-importing them to avoid the tax.

They would also trim workforces even more as a result and offshore ALL jobs in the process. And with American's being driven to third-world wage level as it is now, how are they going to pay a 23% tax on all goods?

How much do you think that will slow down our consumer-based economy? 70% of said spending accounting for our annual GDP?

It matters not that there would be no "income" tax at that point, no one is going to buy much in such an environment.

I guess this "flat" tax would not affect oil and gas taxes, beer and liquor taxes, much of which fuels state and local governments?

So we can ADD those taxes to the "flat" tax?

What do those who don't qualify for paying taxes now because of the poverty line being set as it is, they will in effect have a tax INCREASE on things they buy, which largely are subsistence items. Where is that additional income coming from.

The Reich loves to state that "43% of individuals don't pay taxes now" so this is their way of sticking it to those individuals by taxing their basic needs.

Love to know where the money is coming from. LOL!!!
estanson

Bellows Falls, VT

#248 Jan 10, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you really think corporations will go along with that? They don't pay taxes now, so you're going to RAISE taxes on corporations who buy things? LOL!!
That will go over like a fart in church.
I'd like to see a Republican propose that and actually get it passed with corporations cheerleading it.
Not only would they evade paying with their enormous wealth and rafts of lawyers, but would offshore buying "things" and re-importing them to avoid the tax.
They would also trim workforces even more as a result and offshore ALL jobs in the process. And with American's being driven to third-world wage level as it is now, how are they going to pay a 23% tax on all goods?
How much do you think that will slow down our consumer-based economy? 70% of said spending accounting for our annual GDP?
It matters not that there would be no "income" tax at that point, no one is going to buy much in such an environment.
I guess this "flat" tax would not affect oil and gas taxes, beer and liquor taxes, much of which fuels state and local governments?
So we can ADD those taxes to the "flat" tax?
What do those who don't qualify for paying taxes now because of the poverty line being set as it is, they will in effect have a tax INCREASE on things they buy, which largely are subsistence items. Where is that additional income coming from.
The Reich loves to state that "43% of individuals don't pay taxes now" so this is their way of sticking it to those individuals by taxing their basic needs.
Love to know where the money is coming from. LOL!!!
funny....in the same post that you declare this flat tax couldnt work due to R's being corporate shills...you oppose the tax because those who pay no tax now would have to pay...
the only opposition i have heard to the flat tax is yours regarding the poor...

Also, get all other taxes out of your head...
they are GONE...
Dems can no longer use taxes to tell folks what they should or should not do/buy...
(THAT is the lefts main problem with this)

hey, think they can ship from china for less than the 10% tax?
it would be close enough to just buy domesticaly...
and again, take a car, when you try to register the car, they will need proof of taxes paid in the USa...
bought in germany?
pay USA sales tax to register!

Beyond that i totaly diagree with your assessment of the climate such a tax change would create...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bennington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Help Wanted-Sistums Enjunear (Jan '14) Jan 26 Kiel_Cuum_Spunj 88
Community groups host candlelight vigil in hono... Jan 26 markey da masshole 2
Snow safety focus of task force Jan 26 markey da masshole 2
Women who control their men, men who let them. (Sep '09) Jan 26 markey da masshole 16
Our Opinion: Bennington students strike back at... Jan 26 markey da masshole 3
Group will push fetal homicide law (Aug '09) Jan 24 jenni 1,430
Foreclosure continues despite plans for track site (Aug '09) Jan 23 september 5
Bennington Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Bennington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:40 pm PST