Your joking, right? He is actually going to go against his loony left-wing base? His minions are going to get their knickers in a twist over this. Obama to call for corporate tax cuts in exchange for spending on jobs
He wants another stimulus to keep Government workers employed. As we can see the last $840 billion (not including interest) dollar stimulus worked so well. When the money ran out so did the stimulation. Sustained growth can only come from relieving the job killing regulations. of course When Obama Care belly flops into up to 65 Million People's lives that could lose their Employer-Sponsored Coverage, the employers will do much better once they pass off the companies health plan costs right on the working middle classes backs. I seriously can't believe liberal union loving, power to the workers Democrats are actually in favor of Obama Care. The Democrats have placed the thickest part of knot-heads regulation forest over an entire business football field and then wonder why the game stopped. So if we must blame anyone for the stagnant malaise of the U.S. economy it's the Democrats waterboarding of American business, then they wonder why it can't breath or worse yet run straight out of the country as fast as they can as soon as you let them up for air. Sorry, Barry we'll need to pass on the "new" stimulus.
"Job-killing regulations"??? Fecal soup - http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/11411/wave-ag-gag-bills-threaten-food-safety-and-freedom-press Regulations are not hurting small businesses - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/...xes-arent-killing.html#storylink=omni_popular "None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath." - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html#ixzz1WnAbTmEQ Bruce Bartlett, a senior adviser in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said that “no hard evidence” has been offered for claims that regulation is the “principal factor holding back employment.” And in a recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists, 65 percent of respondents concluded that a lack of demand, not government policy, was the main impediment to increased hiring. "If regulatory uncertainty was a major impediment to hiring right now, we would expect to see indications of this in one or more of the following: business profits; trends in the workforce, capacity utilization, and business investment; differences between industries undergoing significant regulatory changes and those that are not; differences between the United States and other countries that are not undergoing the same changes; or surveys of business owners and economists" "If regulation was a significant drag on business today, we would expect to see profits constrained after recent regulatory reforms were passed into law. However, corporate profits as a share of gross domestic income have about recovered their pre-recession peak, and earnings per share in industries most affected by recent regulatory changes, such as energy and health care, have among the highest earnings per share of those in the S&P 500. This growth is inconsistent with a corporate sector held back by regulation. If regulatory uncertainty was the primary problem facing businesses, firms would prefer to use their existing capacity and current workers as much as possible, while avoiding building additional capacity until they are more certain about the contours of future regulation. Specifically, if demand was strong but businesses were concerned about future regulations, they would increase the hours of the workers they already employ rather than hiring additional workers. We have seen no evidence of this in the data: the average work week for private employees has been roughly flat for the past year. Similarly, if demand were strong, firms could easily expand using existing capacity without taking on the cost and risk of added capacity. However, the share of total potential industrial output in use remains 3 percent below its long-run average. Low capacity utilization is inconsistent with concerns about future regulatory risk, but aligns with weak demand holding back current production. http://articles.businessinsider.com...51_1_regulatory-uncertainty-economists-eberly
Sure make it 28%. Not going to matter to the companies that end up not paying anything, or sometimes even getting credits back. But it would definitely help the little guys who actually do pay it. Seems like a good idea.
Poll: 72 percent of small businesses say regulations are hurting them http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/b...small-businesses-say-regulations-are-hurting- Regulatory cost per household per year - $37,962 (200 "Overall and on almost every regulatory frontier, compliance costs place small businesses at a competitive disadvantage" http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms (Full).pdf Subway 'Wouldn't Exist' If Started Today Due to Regulations http://www.cnbc.com/id/100501700 Regulatory Burdens on Small Business Hurt Housing, Economy, Builders Tell Congress http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=15823 Why Over-Regulation Of Small Businesses Actually Hurts Employees The Most http://www.businessinsider.com/over...-it-really-hurt-employers-or-employees-2011-2 “The ability of all firms to expand or become more efficient – that is, to produce goods and services in a more cost-effective way – is influenced by federal policies that determine the taxes those firms pay, the availability of credit, the regulations with which they must comply, and other factors" http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/SmallFirms_0.pdf "Owner pessimism is certainly not surprising in light of higher taxes, rising health insurance costs, increasing regulations and just plain uncertainty." http://www.nfib.com/research-foundation/research-foundation-article?cmsid=62014
As we've all been learning the hard way, putting more money into the pockets of business hasn't helped employment. The market is breaking records, profits are enormous, corporations are sitting on piles of cash that dwarf anything ever seen before. And in exchange, they hire a few part-timers and do rock bottom minimum investment. And pay multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses to the top management. I think if corporate taxes are high and the government uses that money to hire people, that's worse than if those taxes are lower and business uses that money to hire people. Now the challenge is to get Three Initial Corporation to take $10 million in tax savings and hire 200 full time workers, rather than give the CEO another $10 million bonus.
Your articles are from 2011 before a lot of the Obama Care regulations were enacted. Try something a little more relevant to today.
Why is that a surprise. Obama wants another wasteful stimulus, like the last one, will do nothing to to improve the overall economy just keep Government workers employed. We need less of them NOT more. As you can see the last $840 Billion dollar stimulus (not including interest) made only a small blip on the GDP. Why? Because most of it went to the states to use for "shovel ready projects", but it appears that it went to backfill state deficits. That's not stimulus, that's welfare for states that can control their spending in an Obamanomics down economy.
While I don't agree with cutting their taxes even more. I suppose by closing all their deductions and loopholes could wind up making alot more of these giant corporations pay the full tax rate that is mandated.
