"
I thought that just the other day Slick was publicly telling Obama to stick it to those rich people real good.
So if the tax rate is uncompetitive now how was it ok when he raised it?
I thought Clinton was a FORMER president...
He spends more time telling Obama what to do!
Obama...get me some coffee!
Bubba is going to be Squeakied.
Or is it called Loughnered now days?
Tax cuts good
Clinton bad
Brain hurts
I see Clinton got his memo from Soros.
Good ole’ Slick. He’s proposing an increase disguised as a reduction.
Okay...
“35 percent isn’t competitive, but we only take about 23%.”
So Clinton suggests they lower the rate to 25%.
And in Clinton’s mind that’s actually a cut.
With his cut would come a denial of deductions they get now.
How would that work out to be a cut?
Just goes to show us, that rule about the truth being 180 degrees opposite of whatever he says, is still in effect.
IIRC Bill Clinton is the former President,
"
LOL, yeah, the Democrats will go for that!
"Corporate taxes", of course, are the primary way for Democrats to get their filthy paws on IRAs, 401Ks, Keoughs, pensions, and other investments that are usually invested to some degree in stock funds. The rats know that trying to seize retirement accounts directly is a political non-starter at this time, so they remain content to grab the money through the back door, via "corporate taxes".
Has Clinton gone mad, or is the Sink Masturbator simply putting on some theater to make his (Democrat) party look less communist for the benefit of corporate campaign donors? Either way, he cannot be trusted.
Standard politician evasion of responsibility (most people would be shamed enough to recognize their own hypocrisy, but more and more, federal government elites are beyond any sense of shame.
We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So, we SHOULD cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions. . .
This only makes sense to a politician who wants people to nod and not think. Tax at 35, but only take 23. Why? Because of deductions. So cut to 25, and eliminate a lot of the deductions (but, notice, not ALL), so the result would be taxing at 25, and keeping -- what?
Tax deductions are one of the ways the government tries to shape the economy (or reward supporters without anyone really noticing) -- how's THAT been working for you so far?
. . . so that we still get a FAIR amount . . .
You want a FAIR amount? Then pass the FAIR TAX. Get government out of manipulating the economy and paying off contributors with public moneys.
Diversion city.
Impeached42, aka “The Bent One”, is stealing attention from Hussein.
Like Hussein, the Bent One is a LIAR.
Note to Mike Allen: That`s FORMER President Bill Clinton.
How come I keep hearing Clinton calling for this and that? And a dial tone from Obama. Who’s president?
This is a built-in dynamic, and it creates employment. To take even 25% of a corporation's capital is damaging not only to the economy, but especially to the lower rungs on the employment ladder.
The fact that the corporate income tax makes American exporters less competitive by the amount of the tax also harms domestic employment. I know of no issue that better justifies a national consumption tax than this one.
Geez, make up your mind already!
But maybe some of Dems are starting to think logically.
The 19 Percent Solution
How to balance the budget without increasing taxes
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/14/the-19-percent-solution