Moran Votes ‘No’ On Debt Deal

by ARLnow.com August 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm 3,338 83 Comments

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) voted against the debt deal that passed the House 269-161 yesterday and passed the Senate 74-26 this afternoon.

In a statement, Moran said he opposed the deal due to its lack of tax increases.

The debt ceiling has been raised cleanly 39 times over the last 30 years, 18 times by President Reagan alone. But for the first time ever, a deal has had to be negotiated to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a default. Unfortunately, the proposal we are being asked to vote on would be bad for our country. It should be rejected, and President Obama should take matters into his own hands by invoking the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling.

This deal is not representative of a balanced approach to long-term deficit reduction. By leaving revenue entirely off the table, the agreement severely restricts the government’s ability to make investments in the human and physical capital of this country – investments that created the strongest middle class in the world and made our country the most powerful.

At a time of stagnant growth and high unemployment, the far-right of the Republican party has been able to hold our economic security hostage in exchange for deep cuts that will reduce growth and employment and increase inequality in the short term without properly addressing the structural causes behind our long-term deficits.

Government spending currently equals roughly 25 percent of GDP, while revenues being collected are at an historically low 15 percent of GDP. This gap, which represents our yearly deficit, is unsustainable – and despite the rhetoric cannot be bridged by spending cuts alone. Under the Clinton tax rates that prevailed during the 1990s the economy created a record number of jobs and the government actually ran a surplus for over two years, leaving a projected surplus through 2011 of $2.3 trillion. These budget deals included spending cuts and new revenues and should be the model we follow today. Unfortunately, the balanced budgets and growing surplus that were paying down the debt were destroyed through the reckless mismanagement of the Bush Administration and a Republican controlled Congress that undertook two wars, two massive tax cuts, and a Medicare prescription drug program which pays retail rather than negotiated prices. None of these policies were paid for with either equivalent spending cuts or new sources of revenue. And following the Great Recession, caused in large part by deregulation and the lack of oversight of our banking system, we are where we are today.

This agreement, unfortunately, validates the political strategy of those Republican radicals who were willing to create default and economic chaos in order to avoid true compromise and a balanced approach. Their brinksmanship has eroded the global confidence in our system of government, a confidence that made the dollar the global reserve currency and the Treasury Bill the world’s safest investment. Should this deal be enacted, which looks likely, it will have a lasting negative effect on our economy, prevent investment in our infrastructure and weaken our economic competitiveness.

  • Josh S

    Not touching this with a ten-foot pole.

    • Venn Diagram

      It’s okay – I got you covered again. Busy day.

      • Josh S

        Can you stick around awhile? I have a feeling this could be a recurring ARLNow meme that would add some much needed levity….

      • normal

        Here’s a better diagram:


        The richest 10% of Americans enjoyed ALL the increases in income in the last three decades, adjusted for inflation.

        • CW


          And the irony is that they’ve somehow convinced people who are by and large much worse off than them (Tea Party types) to do their bidding. A flat tax looks great when you’re living in a van doing odd jobs and flying the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag. Imagine how much better it looks if you’re a CEO?

        • Jim

          so increased spending on welfare and food stamps will change that? NOT!

          • Josh S

            Jim, who said anything about increased spending on welfare?

        • Real World Economics

          And that data is from such a credible source…

          From the “About EPI” page on the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) website:

          “The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers.”


          “EPI is a 501(c)(3) corporation. In 2005 through 2007, a majority of its funding (about 53%) was in the form of foundation grants, while another 29% came from labor unions. EPI also receives support from individuals, corporations, and other organizations.”

          I’m sure none of their propoganda is biased…

          • Arlwhenever

            All their data is bogus. There were huge inceases in benefits for the middle class not reflected in their charts, further taxable incomes for the middle class declined because they were able to sock away growing shares of their income in tax deferred or sheltered plans like 401(k)s, and tax free plans like HSA’s and FSA’s.

    • WoW

      Didn’t you attend the health class where they warned you about indiscriminate use of penile enhancers ??

  • Lou

    So thankful this moran is in the minority.

    • BerryBerryCold

      Moran didn’t vote on principle or for saving our children and grandchildren. He voted on selfishness only.

      This “deal” with cut defense spending tremendously, and guess what industry a large number of his constituents are employed by?

      Guess where lots of his donor$ come from?

      • Josh S

        The “deal” will only cut defense spending if the committee is unable to agree to anything different.

        Nobody said anything about “saving our children and grandchildren.”

      • Bennett Minton

        The deal won’t cut defense, because the baseline assumes Iraq and Afghan wars continue at current levels for 10 years. So if the troops are removed and spending falls, Abracadabra! Instant savings! And because most of the key entitlements are protected, and Republicans will oppose any tax provisions, all the savings to be had will come from domestic discretionary spending. Finally, none of those cuts, dramatic as they will be, occur until 2013.

        Moran’s reasoning is dead-on, especially the third paragraph: the country is in a double-dip, and these idiots are cutting spending, further reducing demand.

        • ZoningVictim

          For starters, we are not in a double-dip recession and any economist that is saying we are is simply an alarmist. We are in a very slow recovery that isn’t producing enough jobs, no doubt, but let’s stop with the hysterics; it adds nothing useful to the conversation.

          Second, we’ve spent trillions more than we ever have every year since 2008, and we still can’t get people back to work. So, government spending does not automatically equate to more jobs, obviously. The government taking money from one person and handing it to another does not grow the economy. Jobs and profits grow the economy, and as long as we keep threatening the rich people with higher and higher taxes if they have the audacity to make money in our economy, they aren’t going to invest their money here.

          It seems like what you are saying to start with is that the entire agreement is bunk and won’t really have much of an impact at all. I concur; so one has to wonder, what was all the fighting about? We all knew going into this that none of the people on the hill have the guts to truly reform entitlements or our tax code, so it’s just business as usual. Get on TV, get everybody riled up, pretend to have accomplished something through some great compromise that will help everyone; so what’s new?

          Finally, if you are so in love with high taxes, you don’t have long to wait; the extension of the Bush tax cuts expires in 2012, so all this country has to do so the tax and spend contingent will be happy is absolutely nothing. Then we’ll rocket over the historic tax burden of 18% and keep on that path until we see the highest rate of taxation this country has ever seen. Of course, even a newly reelected Obama, the champion of tax and spend and bringer of debt, wouldn’t let that happen. And why won’t he let that happen? Because it would actually be a fair tax hike that hits most of us instead of just those horrible, awful rich people who dare to make more than a whopping $200K per year in our economy.

  • He probably knew it would pass anyway, but good for him in voting against this turkey of a bill. I wish Big O had better negotiating skills. Paul Krugman summed it up perfectly in his column this week.

  • Lori

    While none of us wants to continue this misery, fundamentally, Moran is correct. All of this spending and low taxes have gotten us where we are today. We can’t expect to continue to have such a low tax rate and outrageous expenses without it resulting in a debt problem.

    • steve85

      Good statement Lori

    • glad you think your taxes are low. I happen to think otherwise.

      • She didn’t say that. But when Exxon pays NOTHING, that’s wrong.

        Corporations need to pay taxes on their foreign-earned income.

        • chipotle_addict

          >foreign-earned income.

          I’m confused by this, but maybe I am just reading it wrong. If we tax a corporation for out of country income, what is stopping, for example, China from doing the same?

          • Nothing–and that would not be a problem for us. China taxing its corporations on their income would not hurt us.

            This article clarifies the whole matter very well:


          • chipotle_addict

            Er, I mean income in every case is going to be domestic for one particular country and foreign for every other country. If every country in the world taxed every corporation the tax would exceed the total income.

            I only had time to skim the article but it sounds much more reasonable. Tax the income when it enters our country.

          • What I mean is that US corporations (and individuals) should pay US tax on all income, whether earned here or overseas.

          • NoVapologist

            The income is taxed if it is brought back to the US. The issue is that much of the income is never brought back. US corporations (excluding financial companies) hold more than $1.2 trillion in cash. But half of that is held overseas because the companies don’t want to bring it back here and pay taxes on it. Instead, they simply use it to buy more foreign subsidiaries or build more facilities outside the US.

          • NoVapologist

            I should also point out that the US companies do pay taxes wherever that money is generated (just as foreign companies pay US taxes on the money they generate in the US). The US has a policy of taxing that money again if it is brought back to the US and the foreign country’s tax rate is lower than the US rate (which it is in virtually every other country in the world).

          • Jobs

            Novapologist, you are incorrect. Income earned in another country is not taxed. I know; I worked overseas and divulged the income to the IRS. I was not taxed on it.

            I’m arguing that I should have been. But more importantly, huge, greedy, evil corporations like Exxon should be taxed on their billions.

          • NOVApologist

            Jobs -no idea what the specifics of your situation were, but I can only assume that the tax you paid to whatever country you worked in was greater than what you would have owed the IRS if it was domestic income. That is, your foreign tax credit was bigger than your tax owed.

          • ZoningVictim

            Well jobs, I commend you on being one of the few people who think they should pay more taxes; most people just want everyone else to pay them, but I believe your thinking is misguided. China taxing their corporations would certainly not hurt us; on the contrary, it would help to stop hurting ourselves with our unreasonably high corporate taxes by comparison to the rest of the world. If everybody taxed their corporations at 15%-35% like we do, we wouldn’t be watching jobs and cash fly out of the US and into countries with more favorable tax rates. The effective tax rate, which is the rate corporations pay after all the loopholes and income-shifting everybody is always complaining about is done, is 27.7%, which is still higher than all but six other countries, and still people cry out for more, more, more. Well how many more American jobs must we lose until more becomes enough?

            And NOVApologist is correct; we will charge you taxes on money you earned overseas, but we will also give you a foreign tax credit so you are not double taxed. If you think jobs are bad now, start double taxing corporations (which in turn would triple tax their owners).

            Finally, can we all please get over the constant whining about Exxon’s corporate tax burden? That happened in one single year in 2009 because they over paid in 2008, most of their profits come from their overseas operations (on which they paid $15.165 billion in taxes) and the company disputes the Forbes report that they didn’t have a federal tax burden in 2009. Furthermore, the company employs about 79,000 American workers, who pay billions of dollars in taxes in the US. Exxon also pays the payroll taxes, sales taxes and other taxes (like on insurance etc.) that all other large US corporations pay. The constant drumbeat from the anti-rich class warfare militia that Exxon doesn’t pay any corporate taxes is just bull.

          • Jobs

            ZV: The issue is not so much the established corporate tax rate but the tax corporations end up paying; they often use loopholes and crafty deductions to end up paying little to nothing. If they actually all paid the 30% they’re supposed to on all profits (which is in line with other major nations–in fact Japan’s is over 40%), then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

            I have no problem with individuals getting rich through hard work, ingenuity, risk, etc. I admire entrepreneurs and people who actually create wealth and create jobs. I do have a problem with people getting rich by cheating.

            As to my situation: I don’t want to get into it, but the country I worked in (though informed of my employment) did not tax my income, and neither did the USA. It was completely tax free for me.

            But these are all secondary to the larger points: 1. National debt is not bad, in that a nation of millions is not run like a household; 2. The current difficulties are not the result of runaway spending but of runaway tax breaks started by Bush and continued by Obama and the GOP Congress; 3. cutting spending now will result in a repeat of 1937, when FDR did the same thing, extending the Depression.

        • Arlington, Northside

          I have paid taxes on the gains from my Exxon stock, so how can you say Exxon pay nothing?

      • LVGuy

        For all that I received in the past year – roads, clean-ish air, libraries, cheap agriculture, protection in the skies, protection provided by our armed forces, firefighters, policemen etc., I paid practically nothing. Certainly a lot of people could afford to do more for their country.

        • LVGuy

          by the way, I think I can afford to pay more taxes too.

        • LVGuy

          By the way, I can pay more taxes too.

          • Lech

            Please do, then. All you have to do is write a check to the Treasury.

        • Thankful to live in the USA


          God call……..I am currently sitting in Afghanistan and can’t help to wonder what limb someone (local) here would give to have a fraction of what we have. Having said that……we all live in Arlington Va, we have it really good. There are a few idiots on this site that insist on starting “word” wars, but for the most part everyone has what they consider a valid point. One point that I see coming up a lot on this site is “living beyond your means”, I don’t think this is only concerns real estate. We are a wasteful nation and our government is leading that charge. We drive crazy cars, live in huge houses, eat huge portions, throw everything away…blah, blah, blah. All this becomes even more clear when you visit another country. I know other countries have their problems but you just don’t see the kind of waste that you do in a majority of the USA. If there is waste or pollution it’s not because they want to it’s because their utilities suck!

          Obviously, there are a few americans that have figured out what living comfortably means. I know I have a lot of work to do when I get back to try and better myself. I drive a V8 and could use a bit of lifestyle readjustment. The bottom line is whether you are Repub or Dem….everyone takes a bite of this economic shit sandwich. Sorry about the spelling….you should see the keyboard i am typing on.

      • Josh S

        I happen to like New York.

    • Burger

      So if we raise taxes it is okay to spend outrageously?

      Or should we live within our means.

      • normal

        Raising taxes increases the government’s means.

        The rich have the means to pay more in taxes.

        Taxes are at their lowest overall rate in decades.

        • Lech

          Last time I checked, just because I have something that you don’t doesn’t give you the right to take it from me.

          • Josh S

            Not with the tired “taxes are stealing” argument! It’s one of those things that “sounds” clever and reasonable but is actually sort of tinny and sad and selfish.
            Arguing about the validity of taxes is a waste of breath. It’s over. It’s done. They are valid. Move on.

          • Lech

            Taxes aren’t stealing. They’re Payment for services rendered by the government. But still, the fact that I have more than you is simply not adequate justification for taking it from me and giving it to you. Being a member of the class you call “The Rich”, however you want to define it, is not an argument for confiscating money or property.

          • LibElite

            I am outraged that you think of it as your money, and not the people’s money – what did you do special to earn it? Our wonderful government allows you to keep some of the money, but the rest should be for the “public good” (generally known as buying votes from people who do not pay taxes to keep politicans elected) — Moran

        • @normal –

          False. Tax rates under Reagan were lower. Obama’s tried the same argument and has been called out on it.

          • Jobs

            You are wrong. Look at this table from the conservative Tax Foundation:


            The highest bracket currently is 35%. Under Reagan, the rate for the highest bracket was 50% for most of the years he was in office. (It was actually at 70% when he took office in 1981.) The highest tax rate did drop to 33% (see fine print at the bottom of the 1988-1990 tables) in his very last years in office.

          • Jobs

            This table below gives more useful data–the effective tax rate after accounting for all deductions:


            If you look at Effective Corporate Tax Rate, it’s interesting to note that the average for all corporations has never been more than 3.5% and has usually been way less.

          • NoVapologist

            You are misinterpreting that table. The denominator in that calculation is total household income, not corporate earnings or profits. So it does not show the corporate tax rates, it just shows corporate taxes as a percent of household wealth. There are other effective tax rate tables on that site for corporate taxes. They show the rates in the 30% range (although the data only goes through 2003).

        • Arlington, Northside

          Having a strong economy, so that there is more product to tax will do a lot more for the Federal Budget than raiseing rates or even cutting spending. Not that we should not cut spending. Wait until the economy is strong and can take the hit of higher tax rates before raising them again. Nest time we have a surplus, don’e rebate it, pay down the debt. It really should not take a Harvard PhD in economics to figure this stuff out.

  • JimPB

    My reason for a No vote: Nothing in the legislation that addresses the big, important problem: Jobs. Jobs. Jobs — good paying jobs.

    Getting back to work the tens upon tens of millions of Americans who are unemployed, underemployed or who are unable to enter the work force, and those who have found full-time work but with pay far below their capabilities to earn, will do more to close the deficits than any whack at a category of expenditures.

    Getting America back to work will substantially increase revenues for the Federal government and also states and local governments and reduce expenditures. It’s a win-win-win.

    • Hucklebuck

      Well the sad news is we are probably heading for a double-dip. That, despite all the government spending to stimulate the economy.

      The silver lining is they kept away from tax increases. Everybody is going to need to clear as much money as they can for the foreseeable future.

      • CW

        Why, so they can hoard it and cause deflation?

      • outoftowner

        So that rates continue to stay at unsustainable lows? The economy isn’t going anywhere with interest rates below 1%.

      • JimPB

        A substantial part (about half, I believe) of the “stimulus” was tax cuts.
        So, those who assert the stimulus didn’t work are asserting that tax cuts don’t work as a stimulus. Remember that.

        And, the stimulus was quite small in relation to need and the size of the economy. So, in no way would/could one expect the stimulus that was enacted to have a big effect. It did keep some at work and get others back to work for a time. No doubt about that. (Look at the layoffs after the stimulus money was used.) And the spending of these folks was a stimulus for others.

        But, again,the stimulus was not even close to what would be required to generate a self-perpetuating economic recovery.

        The question: What will generate demand for for goods and services and tick the economy up when many Americans, rightfully so, are in dire financial straits or are correctly worried about their financial situation tomorrow, and so are constraining their spending?

        A problem: When the consumer spends, how much stays in America? There was an article recently about the rarity of an American made items for the home. Electronics — imported. Vehicles — Built overseas or, if built in this country, with many parts from overseas. Food — I see the names of other countries on the packaging for many items. Travel — There’s travel inside the U.S., but also lots of travel to other countries.

        • Hucklebuck

          I agree. Obama’s stimulus packages were long term failures.

          • South Arlington

            Yes, as JimPB stated, about half of the Obama stimulus package was tax cuts. Were those long term failures also Hucklebuck?

          • Hucklebuck

            Yes, as I said: Obama; stimulus; fail.


    • outoftowner

      Jobs should come around sometime when the government actually gets a clue and has a realistic, reasonable long term plan in place. Corporate balance sheets (for non financials) are about as good as they can look. Companies are sitting on mountains of cash right now and have the ability to invest in capital assets but continue to put it off because of terrible economic planning and (mis)management

      • +1000. Corporations are being very unpatriotic when they pay no taxes, cut American jobs so they can pay overseas workers to do the work for less money, and then lobby for more politicians who will make it easier for them to do both.

        Then they’ll give their CEOs multi-million-dollar bonuses.

        Even sensible Republicans know there’s something wrong with this picture.

        • Real World Economics

          That’s where so many people seem to miss the point. A corporation / business exists to MAKE MONEY. They are not in business to be patriotic. A business provides a good or a service at a price that the consumer is willing to pay. That price needs to cover the cost that the company incurs in producing the good or delivering the service, plus provide a profit (i.e. income) for the company. This profit is what the company uses to do R&D on new products or services, grow their business, donate to charitable causes, etc. It is this profit that is taxable. People talk about the millions or billions of dollars of that companies like “Exxon make”. There’s a big difference between revenue and profit.

          If it costs a company more to make a product or deliver a service, they are losing money. They must figure out how to make that product / delvier the service for a lower cost or charge a higher price. People are only willing to pay so much for a product or service. There’s a fine balance. If the company can’t produce the product / deliver the service for less, and the market won’t support a higher price, then the company will likely stop making that product / delivering that service. If that’s their only product / service, then the company ceases to exist. It’s the law of supply and demand.

          Companies have to make a profit so that they can pay a return (income) to their investors. The more profitable the company is, the better return they pay to their investors and, theoretically, the more people invest in the company, providing them with more capital to expand their operations. The company pays taxes on their profits. The investors pay taxes on their returns (capital gains).

          Unfortunately, our government likes to artificially support companies / products / services that are not profitable. This is the key issue with the FAA right now. OUR TAX DOLLARS are subsidizing service to locations that are not profitable. In a true free market, the airlines would disontinue service to these markets. If people that live in those markets want to fly, they can charter a private plane or drive to a market that does have profitable service. But no, the politicians think everybody is entitle to air service, so the government will foot the bill to maintain service to these areas. How much money does this cost us every year??

          I used to work for a large insurance company that provided insurance for large manufacturing companies. One of my clients, a large manufacturer of power tools, had previously shifted many manufacturing operations from the US to Mexico and was in the process of shifting from Mexico to China. Why? The cost of labor. A company rep told me that they could pay someone $17.00 per hour to work in the US. They could pay $17.00 a day in Mexico for the same production. They could pay $17.00 per WEEK for the same production in China. For the corporation, that’s a no brainer. It’s about competition. Why pay $17.00 per hour when they can get the same production for $17.00 per week??

          We have labor unions that DEMAND high wages for workers. We are our own worst enemies. We put OURSELVES out of business. Why? Because we want to keep up with the Jones’. We think we’re entitled to McMansions and luxury cars and 60″ TV’s and every other LUXURY under the sun. That’s right, I said LUXURY. These items should not be the expectation that they have become. If you want these items, work hard, save your money, and when you have saved enough, buy them. But don’t expect to get them without hard work. When the Unions demand $50+ per hour for manufacturing jobs , why should a company stay in the US and pay those wages and high tax rates when they can go overseas and pay lower wages and lower taxes? That company doesn’t owe you or me anything, other than the product or service that we pay for.

          Far too many people have succumbed to the entitlement mentality that they are entitled to a big house and a fancy car and a job that pays $XX per hour. We need to get over ourselves!! If I’m willing to do your job for half the salary, what’s to stop your employer from laying you off and hiring me in your place? They can either increase their profit or pass their cost savings on to their consumers.

          We complain about high prices. Why are prices so high? 1) Because the work force demands unrealistic wages; and 2) Our government imposes unrealistic taxes on the products.

          You want to create jobs?
          +Stop expecting to be a millionaire and be willing to work for a fair and reasonable wage that provides for the necessities of life. This will allow companies to remain competitive with their foreign competition.
          +Cut the corporate tax rates so that companies have an incentive to stay here and create jobs here rather than going overseas.
          If you go back even 25 years, people expected to work hard for what they had. Today, people expect to have everything handed to them and our government enables that mentality. GET OVER IT!

      • CW

        Yes, exactly, this instability is killing them. They are so afraid of the uncertainty of knowing whether they’ll have to continue to pay zero taxes or might actually have to pay some potential amount of taxes instead that they will sit on their record profits until this becomes clear.

        (That was sarcasm)

  • Brandon

    Show us your tax returns, Moran. Surely, like everyone else who sincerely believes the government doesn’t confiscate enough of their money, you generously mail the IRS a check for a couple thousand dollars more than you owe.

    Wait…people don’t do that?

    • Steve

      Li bs are generous only with other people’s money.

  • Matt

    Ugh. How many talking points can he fit into one paragraph?

    While I agree that some tax increases should’ve been (and still may be) included, the fact remains that government spending at 25% is at the highest percentage of GDP since 1950. It’s dishonest for him to bash Republicans for disavowing all tax increases and foregoing a balanced approach, because he obviously disavows any and all cuts in government spending.


    • normal

      “government spending at 25% is at the highest percentage of GDP since 1950.”

      Well, yeah, when GDP is in the tank, the percentage of spending is going to go up.

      • Real World Economics

        Actually, the US GDP is at an all time high. It’s the rate of growth that’s in the crapper:

        • normal

          But in the last few years, it actually declined (the recession). It’s now no longer at that “highest percentage since 1950,” it’s back to the level it was in the early 1980s (also recession years) and early 90s, as the chart shows.

    • JimPB

      During WWI and WWII, government expenditures as a percentage of GNP soared to about 50%.

      The current wars are not world wars (thank goodness), but they are costly (and unpaid for).

      A QUESTION: What could government expenditures as a percentage of GNP be expected to decrease to if America was back to “full employment.” GNP would be climbing rather than flat, and expenditures would decline.

      • Josh S

        Revenue would definitely increase, it’s not clear that expenditures would decline noticeably. Old people still get their SS checks. Sick people still get Medicare and Medicaid care. The defense department still sucks off half a trillion dollars a year or more. Interest on the debt is huge and not getting smaller any time soon. You’re not left with that much spending on things that are directly proportional to the health of the economy – unemployment, welfare. At least not at the federal level.

    • LibElite

      Please don’t quote facts when this argument is based on emotions, and not logic – facts just get in the way.

    • Josh S

      Yeah, but what got us to that point? A recession lowering the GDP, two wars started by Bush and the massive spending to bailout the economy, also set in motion by Bush.

      It’s not like we’re spending the money on government employee salaries or painting rainbows on the sides of buildings or even buying every hungry person in America something to eat. The forces pushing spending are by and large not frivolous or quote unquote liberal agenda things. So it makes no sense to BLAME the high spending and massive debt on Democrats or excessive discretionary spending.

  • Lord Voldemort

    5 points for Slytherin!

  • Jobs aren’t going to come back until and unless we reintroduce manufacturing back in the USA for things other than cars and furniture. That won’t happen until we introduce serious tariffs on foreign goods.

  • mickey644

    No wonder he is nick named, “Moron”. He is the definition of a fool. Did you ever wonder, oh great Moron, why there is over two TRILLION parked overseas by corporations that won’t come into the states because of the high taxes? We have the highest corporate taxes in the world? Why not take those jobs overseas? Only a fool would try to raise taxes.

    • CW

      Ohhhhh, I get it. It’s the couple-percent difference between the U.S. and other developed countries in tax rates (which they can weasel their way out of with loopholes anyhow) that is keeping the jobs overseas, not the fact that the companies can pay fifty cents an hour with no benefits to workers in the third world. It all makes sense now.

      • NOVApologist

        The average corporate tax rate in the other “developed” countries (OECD) is about 20%,hardly a “couple percent” less than the 35% in the US.

        • normal

          No corporation in the U.S. is actually paying 35%.

        • Jobs

          You must be choosing only the countries that lend credence to your argument. Let’s look at the industrialized Western countries with the largest economies:


          These rates are in fact slightly lower than ours in most cases–but keep in mind they also levy a VAT on their citizens and in many cases have a higher rate of personal income tax.

          Canada–combined federal and provincial corporate tax is almost 33% for large corporations

          Germany–AVERAGE rate is almost 30%–obviously higher for the largest corporations.

          Japan–almost 41%


          • NoVapologist

            Feel free to go to http://www.oecd.org and look up the data. The average total combined rate for all the countries in the OECD excluding the US is 25.1%. For the US it is 39.2%. Base rates are 23.2% vs 35% for the US.

  • Jim

    even with the bush tax cuts — we can still bring in about 18% of GDP in tax revenue… but today we bring in 14% of GDP. it’s not a tax rate problem — it’s the fact Obama believes more regulations and a planned economy (drive towards “green” jobs) will create jobs. it won’t. get government out of the way – and jobs will be created. i guess obama missed that class.

    • Arlwhenever

      You are correct. Oh my, the Obama idiocy of targeting for regulation, threatened tax increases capital intensive industries that export jobs like airplane manufacturers. Yep, send all those jobs for American Airlines jets to Airbus. Obama couldn’t be more of a jobs dunce when it comes to controlling the reigns of government and using the bully pulpit.

  • nota again

    The local hotel companies which have many overseas locations should pay tax on any and all income earned overseas using USA tax formulas.
    Jobs have been the theme song of the government for such a long time and not much is happening.

  • Arlington, Northside

    Anyone else think it is silly for him to go back to Reagan to complain? How many of his constituents had not even been born or moved to America when Reagan was in office. Was he trying to one up the President? “Well if Obama can blame it all on Bush, I’ll blame it on Reagan!”

    Obviously it was going to pass, so he was able to safely vote against it, but just think of the damge to the local economy if this had failed!

    Good Grief! Why do you folks still vote for this clown!?!?!?!


Subscribe to our mailing list