- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Who should pay this particular benefit, the government or AT&T?
Secondly, retirement health care expenses are a liability, not revenue.
People keeping more of their own money don't face a depression. How did Obama stave off a greater depression?
Without the stimulus spending in 2009, GDP would be (insert the dollar amount of stimulus dollars plus their multiplier) that much lower. Lower GDP can be understood in terms of increased unemployment (Okun's law).
How does AT&T "push the costs" on to taxpayers? I wasn't aware that a company keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the Federal Govt. I haven't found on the Budget of the United States a line item in the expense category for individual corporate deductions. The way to cut the deficit is to cut the unnecessary spending and not supplement it by taking more revenue out of the private sector.
How much of the stimulus was spent in 2009? Obama took advantage of a crisis to advance a leftwing agenda on an economy that was improving before much of his stimulus was spent.
They did not have to pay taxes on a subsidy that they received for providing prescription drug coverage for retirees, now they will. Why do you support such corporate welfare?
Less than the output gap (the difference between potential output and actual output), which is all the more reason it should have been much larger.
What was the form of the subsidy? A reduction in taxes paid? If so that isn't corporate welfare that is keeping more of what they earned.
No. AT&T receives a subsidy for offering retiree drug coverage; the new law does not allow it to remain tax exempt. Therefore you have just been arguing in favor of corporate welfare. :lol:
Not talking about what it should have been, I asked how much was spent in 2009 and how that prevented a depression?
How is the subsidy paid to AT&T?
Something like 24% in 2009, 50% in 2010, and 14% in 2011.
Are you serious? This does not effect the workers (unless their company will not offer such coverage because it is not paid for by uncle sam), therefore your desire to spin this into a "they keep more of their money" is noted.
In your world, corporate welfare does not exist because it lives in the form of tax deductions.
So 24% of the 787 billion stimulus program saved us from a great depression? Do you really want to continue this charade? The Fiscal year of the U.S. govt. runs from October to Sept. and we came out of recession in June 2009 meaning less than 188 billion had been spent(787*24%). Don't see how 188 billion kept us out of a depression but economists do claim that the 700 billion TARP program did that. Did Obama propose and sign TARP?
No, the stimulus spending combined with expansionary monetary policy and TARP did. You take the stimulus away, and unemployment goes higher than 10%; 2010 was still a troubling period as Europe's debt issues pushed us incredibly close to a double dip.
Right, corporate welfare to a liberal is any company keeping more of what they earn. That is typical liberal bs. So you admit that the corporate subsidy is in the form of a tax deduction?
About 3,500 employers provided prescription drug coverage to 6.3 million retirees nationwide who qualified for a federal subsidy in 2008, McDevitt said.
The change in tax treatment shouldn’t affect retirees, said Linda Douglass, a White House spokeswoman for health care.
“Firms will continue getting support for providing this benefit and generally are offering continuing prescription drug coverage as part of a compensation package,” Douglass said. “We expect that they will continue to do so.”
The retiree drug subsidy is paid to companies that provide coverage for prescriptions to former workers who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. The average subsidy amounts to about $665 per plan member. Under prior law, the federal payment to companies was tax-exempt.
The new law would require companies to “immediately account for the present value of this tax increase,” cutting earnings, Caterpillar’s Burritt and CFOs of nine other companies including Boeing Co., Verizon Communications Inc. and freight hauler Con-Way Inc. told U.S. Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in their December letter.
I keep hearing you tell us all about the multiplier associated with govt. spending but never the multiplier being applied to corporate profits, wonder why?
That is your opinion as no one knows whether or not the states would have made the tough choices and come up with the money to save those jobs that Obama takes credit for. What we do know is that employment today is two million less than when he took office and 3.5 trillion has been added to the debt. We further know that if you drop 1 million from the unemployment roles you will get a reduction in the unemployment rate. The expansion of money supply started in late 2007 and continued throughout 2008 so still waiting for you to explain what economic policy Obama implemented that prevented another depression?
Here is a quality article for you to argue with:
Even if you were to cut corporate taxes dramatically during a financial crisis, you would still have to worry about igniting deflation, as tax cuts will undoubtedly have a net overall effect of lowering prices. The relationship between deflation and the economy is financial driven; the likelihood of default increases dramatically and is a tremendous strain on the financial sector.
Credit easing programs (the brunt of the work) did not begin until late 2008, early 2009.
It seems to me that you want the govt. to take the tax revenue from a corporation so they can turn around, apply govt. overhead to the revenue and distribute it as they see fit for retirement benefits of private sector employees? Does that about sum it up? I asked how that subsidy is paid and haven't yet gotten an answer. Can I assume that it is in the form of a reduction in taxes paid?
Yes, as a result of TARP which was signed in October 2008 by Bush.
Furthermore, not only did the number of discouraged workers over job prospects hit a record high (since 1994, the earliest year the data is available) of just over 1.3 million (Fig. 1)--more than the number of jobs added in 2010--but the labor participation rate also hit at a 25-year low of 64.3% (Fig. 2).
Most disturbingly, the average number of weeks people remain unemployed also has risen to 34.2 weeks in December vs. 33.9 weeks in November, with 6.4 million jobless people classified as long-term unemployed, i.e. without a job for 27+ weeks.
All these suggest there is a large number of frustrated workers who left the labor pool but unaccounted for in the unemployment rate calculation. That means the all inclusive jobless rate could easily be 11% or more instead of the 9.4% flashing in headlines today.
Overall, the latest employment report seems to reflect a painfully slow-recovering, but still confused labor market. Large corporations are hoarding cash reluctant to hire or invest fearing uncertainties ahead, while small business still strapped for cash and credit can’t afford to hire since business is still slow.
Most economists estimate that in order to make a meaningful dent in the jobless situation while keeping up with the labor force growth rate, new job creation needs to be at around 300,000 a month going forward, which is a long way from where the economy is right now (Fig. 3).
Prudential Financial just received a $15 million subsidy to upgrade their downtown Chicago office. It came in the form of reduction in taxes paid.
They are both corporate welfare; a company relying on the public sector to pay for its health care liabilities. Do you support such actions?
Incorrect. TARP was a capital injection; credit easing involves monetary policy.rof
Great, reducing taxes paid means less govt. involvement in how that money is spent and thus less govt. overhead and more quality spending. Yes, I support lower taxes for individuals and companies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?