PDA

View Full Version : Credits for Outsourcing Jobs



Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 04:02 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate has rejected further consideration of a bill Democrats say would have eliminated existing tax breaks for employers who ship their jobs overseas. While Republicans sought to squash it as political theater, Democrats admit quarreling over the “Bring Jobs Home Act” was openly influenced by the 2012 presidential campaign.

“It’s fairly easy to see why Republicans are blocking our bill to stop outsourcing,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said at a press conference before the vote. “They’re obviously defending their presidential nominee, who of course made a fortune by shipping jobs overseas.”

Reid was referring to Mitt Romney’s past involvement with Bain Capital, the private investment firm Democrats say bought companies, laid off many of their American workers, and outsourced their jobs. Democrats have made Romney’s history with Bain a central talking point (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-wont-be-apologizing-for-bain-attacks-on-romney/) on the trail.

Senator Richard Durbin, D-Ill., followed Reid, saying that today’s vote was about turning the Republican position on outsourcing into “a matter of record.”

“So the dance ends, the music ends and the votes are counted,” he said. “And we can find out whether or not the Republican senators support the Bain Capital investment strategy of exporting jobs overseas.”
Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics (http://abcnews.go.com/politics)and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com (http://otusnews.com/)

Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up “insourcing” labor back into the U.S.
The bill failed by a 56-42. A count of 60 was required to end discussion and move to a final vote.

To further push the issue, Democrats held a conference call with employees from Sensata Technologies, an electronics hardware manufacturer that plans to close its Freeport, Ill., plant at the end of the year and move those operations to China. Democrats say 150 people will be laid off in the process. Sensata, formerly known as the Sensors and Controls division of Texas Instruments, was spun off to Bain in 2006 for a reported $3 billion.

The call was held after the vote.

“There is no reason in the world this would not have passed except for so many of the Republican senators have other interests,” said Tom Gaulrupp, a 33-year veteran of the company.
Gaulrupp says there was never a year the company did not draw a profit. Another employee, Lin Feller, was more frank:

“They do not care about us. The average guy on the street, they just do not care about us.”
On the House floor this morning the ranking Republican member of the Senate finance committee called the bill “a joke,” suggesting President Obama’s campaign staff were its true authors.

“It’s devoid of serious content because it is of political rather than economic priorities,” Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said.

Speaking on the House floor, Hatch said it was “misleading” for Democrats to say there is a tax break for outsourcing. Holding up a large book, Hatch said the Democrats were trying to invent controversy.
“I’ll keep this book of tax codes at my desk here. If someone wants to show me the tax code that allows deductions for shipping jobs overseas. I’d like to see it. But it’s not in here.”

Congressional analysts at the Joint Committee on Taxation say $14 million could be raised next year from removing outsourcing credits, compared to a cost of $21 million for bringing those jobs back. Hatch points out the relatively low sum has already been passed in Obama campaign ads on the issue.
Three Republicans voted in favor of the bill: Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Scott Brown.


This was reported 7/19/12 ... so Obama was right on this one. There is a credit for the costs of moving jobs overseas ... maybe ... Note the blue text.

However, it's kind of murky that even with 3 Rs voting in favor of removing the credit, the bill could not pass the Senate ... so some Dems voted against it as well. Go figure.

menmon
10-04-2012, 04:15 PM
This was reported 7/19/12 ... so Obama was right on this one. There is a credit for the costs of moving jobs overseas ... maybe ... Note the blue text.

However, it's kind of murky that even with 3 Rs voting in favor of removing the credit, the bill could not pass the Senate ... so some Dems voted against it as well. Go figure.

There is a tax credit for moving a business down the street. So yes there are tax credits for moving a business overseas. So you change the code to exclude the any moves overseas. Typically the place that is recieving the company gives credits too.

Point being nothing discouraging it, and in essence we are paying them to move.

Buzz
10-04-2012, 04:17 PM
Correct. There is not credit specifically for shipping jobs over seas. However, I have had a hand in moving manufacturing plants to Mexico and China. You CAN write off the expenses incurred in making the move. Ol Mitt really played dumb on that one, he knows of NO credit you can take for moving a company, but I'm positive he knows that you can write off the costs of the move. I would like to look up the vote record on that bill. Remember that to pass ANYTHING in the senate requires 60 votes anymore. Pure BS.

Shipping jobs overseas is not a Republican or Democrat thing. Both are culpable. I remember sitting in a conference room in Guadalajara watching a hundred or so workers with picks and shovels digging the foundation trenches for the new factory. I asked why they don't get equipment in there to do it and the managers laughed. They said that if you brought equipment you would have a riot on your hands over anger at them taking jobs away. And besides, the labor was cheap. They told me that our politicians are either liars or they are stupid for making the argument that the Mexican people would eventually earn more and become our customers. They believed that the amount of cheap labor in this world is for all intents and purposes infinite and that 3rd world wages will never increase because as soon as they do in one place, they will move manufacturing to another.

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 04:21 PM
Obama's Employer Tax Break for Jobs does not require employers to hire U.S. workers
Submitted by Robert Oak (http://www.retrievertraining.net/users/robert-oak) on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 17:22
u must be smokin' crack. Keep smokin' it, for hallucinating is the only way you'll see labor demand curves slope upward.

The Obama administration released details on their tax cut for businesses which hire and increase wages (http://www.economicpopulist.org/FACT_SHEET_Small_Business%20_jobs_and_Wages_Tax_Cu t.pdf).
Get what is missing? Tying the tax cut to U.S. citizens, LPR. This means there are no restrictions on offshore outsourcing of jobs or displacing more Americans using guest worker Visas, a notorious practice using H-1B, L-1 and H-2B Visas.

There is no mention of ensuring that employee exists on U.S. soil or is a U.S. citizen, green card holder. There is no mention of stopping the use of the tax cuts when importing more foreign guest workers. Currently we literally have story after story of employers importing even more foreign guest workers with this kind of dire jobs situation. Just the other day a grocery, literally imported foreign guest workers on H-2B Visas (http://www.noslaves.com/content/grocery-imports-foreign-workers-claims-area-14-unemployment-rate-they-cannot-find-us-workers) for jobs while the town has people going homeless and an official 14% unemployment rate.

When, when, WHEN will people get economic reality that the United States cannot be the world's job market. No, we really can't and if 1 in 6 Americans cannot get a decent job doesn't tell ya that fact, yo



So, the Dems are not totally without guilt on the topic of outsourcing.

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 07:04 PM
Found a fact-checker that clarified ... businesses get tax credits for all expenses associated with doing business; moving a business is one of those costs. This is not specific only to moving overseas, nor does it preclude expenses related to moving jobs overseas.

Thus, Romney was correct ... and the Dem talking point is to make it sound like there is some special incentive there. So, the proposed bill that failed (mentioned earlier) was to remove that loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said doing so would create $168,000 in revenue over 10 years. So, whether that loophole is a significant incentive to businesses sending jobs overseas, or not, is debatable. But I would vote for getting rid of the loophole. We'd save a lot more money by not sending $450,000 to Egypt right now (that's a lot more $ over a decade).

Jeff Huntington
10-04-2012, 07:06 PM
Correct. There is not credit specifically for shipping jobs over seas. However, I have had a hand in moving manufacturing plants to Mexico and China. You CAN write off the expenses incurred in making the move. Ol Mitt really played dumb on that one, he knows of NO credit you can take for moving a company, but I'm positive he knows that you can write off the costs of the move. I would like to look up the vote record on that bill. Remember that to pass ANYTHING in the senate requires 60 votes anymore. Pure BS.

Shipping jobs overseas is not a Republican or Democrat thing. Both are culpable. I remember sitting in a conference room in Guadalajara watching a hundred or so workers with picks and shovels digging the foundation trenches for the new factory. I asked why they don't get equipment in there to do it and the managers laughed. They said that if you brought equipment you would have a riot on your hands over anger at them taking jobs away. And besides, the labor was cheap. They told me that our politicians are either liars or they are stupid for making the argument that the Mexican people would eventually earn more and become our customers. They believed that the amount of cheap labor in this world is for all intents and purposes infinite and that 3rd world wages will never increase because as soon as they do in one place, they will move manufacturing to another.

Distinct difference between tax credit and recognition of expenses

Buzz
10-05-2012, 09:18 AM
Found a fact-checker that clarified ... businesses get tax credits for all expenses associated with doing business; moving a business is one of those costs. This is not specific only to moving overseas, nor does it preclude expenses related to moving jobs overseas.

Thus, Romney was correct ... and the Dem talking point is to make it sound like there is some special incentive there. So, the proposed bill that failed (mentioned earlier) was to remove that loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said doing so would create $168,000 in revenue over 10 years. So, whether that loophole is a significant incentive to businesses sending jobs overseas, or not, is debatable. But I would vote for getting rid of the loophole. We'd save a lot more money by not sending $450,000 to Egypt right now (that's a lot more $ over a decade).

I'm not sure I can believe that number. And don't forget, corporations are sitting on $6 trillion in cash right now, $3 trillion of that is profits being held offshore untaxed.

Buzz
10-05-2012, 09:22 AM
Found a fact-checker that clarified ... businesses get tax credits for all expenses associated with doing business; moving a business is one of those costs. This is not specific only to moving overseas, nor does it preclude expenses related to moving jobs overseas.

Thus, Romney was correct ... and the Dem talking point is to make it sound like there is some special incentive there. So, the proposed bill that failed (mentioned earlier) was to remove that loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said doing so would create $168,000 in revenue over 10 years. So, whether that loophole is a significant incentive to businesses sending jobs overseas, or not, is debatable. But I would vote for getting rid of the loophole. We'd save a lot more money by not sending $450,000 to Egypt right now (that's a lot more $ over a decade).

I'm not sure I can believe that number. And don't forget, corporations are sitting on $6 trillion in cash right now, $3 trillion of that is profits being held offshore untaxed. No, there is no specific break for moving offshore, but we are dumb to have a tax code helps MBA's and accountants justify making the move.



Distinct difference between tax credit and recognition of expenses

Yes, I was pretty loose with the terminology in my post. Obama and Romney were referring to tax breaks which could encompass write-offs and credits.

caryalsobrook
10-05-2012, 09:25 AM
Correct. There is not credit specifically for shipping jobs over seas. However, I have had a hand in moving manufacturing plants to Mexico and China. You CAN write off the expenses incurred in making the move. Ol Mitt really played dumb on that one, he knows of NO credit you can take for moving a company, but I'm positive he knows that you can write off the costs of the move. I would like to look up the vote record on that bill. Remember that to pass ANYTHING in the senate requires 60 votes anymore. Pure BS.

Shipping jobs overseas is not a Republican or Democrat thing. Both are culpable. I remember sitting in a conference room in Guadalajara watching a hundred or so workers with picks and shovels digging the foundation trenches for the new factory. I asked why they don't get equipment in there to do it and the managers laughed. They said that if you brought equipment you would have a riot on your hands over anger at them taking jobs away. And besides, the labor was cheap. They told me that our politicians are either liars or they are stupid for making the argument that the Mexican people would eventually earn more and become our customers. They believed that the amount of cheap labor in this world is for all intents and purposes infinite and that 3rd world wages will never increase because as soon as they do in one place, they will move manufacturing to another.

Real simple question, needing no graphs, only a personal opinion. So do you believe that those who need jobs and are willing to work at them cheaper, should be excluded from the labor force and allowed to starve? They should be descriminated against because they will work at a cheaper rate than someone else?? Just aking and wonder if I will get a reply.

ppro
10-05-2012, 09:26 AM
Great so another thing Obama has not fixed in 4 years. If he knows of such things that are so important why doesn't he fix it.Answer, because he is not a fixer.

Gerry Clinchy
10-05-2012, 10:42 AM
No, there is no specific break for moving offshore,
So, you might agree that Obama was repeating a "talking point" which had some small grain of truth in it, but the wording was manipulated to make it sound like something different than it is?

After looking at the facts, then, Romney's response was entirely appropriate.

You and I agree, that there is enough incentive for cost-saving by moving offshore, that such expenses should not be allowed as an expense.


corporations are sitting on $6 trillion in cash right now, $3 trillion of that is profits being held offshore untaxed.

Jobs have been moving offshore for a LONG time already. I can't recall when I started speaking to call centers in India, but it's surely been a while ago. So, it is not surprising that corporations have a lot of $ sitting outside the US.

And, the fact that they are sitting on so much cash right here, has to mean that they have reservations about how expanding their businesses in ways that will be profitable. Waiting for tax code to be changed in a permanent fashion might help them do their 5- and 10-year plans.

It is possible that as long as their is a govt that will not cut spending (won't even produce a budget that reveals & commits to their intentions), but continues to look for ways to siphon off their profits to increase revenues available to spend on things which will further restrict business (like giving more $ to increase the size of the EPA to come up with more regulations), the incentive to use that cash is dampened.

My own theory is that if Romney is elected, because business believes he will open up opportunity, they will immediately start planning for expansion. By the time Romney would take office, plans would be in place and the economy will get a rapid boost; similar to what happened with Reagan and the recession he had to deal with. If Romney then starts to make good on his promised policies, business/economy should start moving quickly. If Romney is elected, I'd expect the stock market to respond upward on Nov. 7.

The hope would be that Romney wouldn't be quite as naive as Reagan in believing that Ds will cut spending AFTER they raise taxes. Romney's experience in MA as governor could help him there.

Sweden's mode was to cut spending first ... then they were able to reduce taxes. They had no real choice since their taxes were already so high. When they cut spending it had to do with deficits growing too large. Since Sweden is basically a socialist-leaning govt, they may not even have realized that the GDP would grow as much as it did as the "secondary" consequence of reducing deficit spending. Growing GDP meant that they collected more gross revenue, with a lower tax rate.

menmon
10-05-2012, 11:35 AM
So, you might agree that Obama was repeating a "talking point" which had some small grain of truth in it, but the wording was manipulated to make it sound like something different than it is?

After looking at the facts, then, Romney's response was entirely appropriate.

You and I agree, that there is enough incentive for cost-saving by moving offshore, that such expenses should not be allowed as an expense.



Jobs have been moving offshore for a LONG time already. I can't recall when I started speaking to call centers in India, but it's surely been a while ago. So, it is not surprising that corporations have a lot of $ sitting outside the US.

And, the fact that they are sitting on so much cash right here, has to mean that they have reservations about how expanding their businesses in ways that will be profitable. Waiting for tax code to be changed in a permanent fashion might help them do their 5- and 10-year plans.

It is possible that as long as their is a govt that will not cut spending (won't even produce a budget that reveals & commits to their intentions), but continues to look for ways to siphon off their profits to increase revenues available to spend on things which will further restrict business (like giving more $ to increase the size of the EPA to come up with more regulations), the incentive to use that cash is dampened.

My own theory is that if Romney is elected, because business believes he will open up opportunity, they will immediately start planning for expansion. By the time Romney would take office, plans would be in place and the economy will get a rapid boost; similar to what happened with Reagan and the recession he had to deal with. If Romney then starts to make good on his promised policies, business/economy should start moving quickly. If Romney is elected, I'd expect the stock market to respond upward on Nov. 7.

The hope would be that Romney wouldn't be quite as naive as Reagan in believing that Ds will cut spending AFTER they raise taxes. Romney's experience in MA as governor could help him there.

Sweden's mode was to cut spending first ... then they were able to reduce taxes. They had no real choice since their taxes were already so high. When they cut spending it had to do with deficits growing too large. Since Sweden is basically a socialist-leaning govt, they may not even have realized that the GDP would grow as much as it did as the "secondary" consequence of reducing deficit spending. Growing GDP meant that they collected more gross revenue, with a lower tax rate.

No I don't. Our tax code is very friendly to oversea business and workers working overseas. It was very beneficial to me when ML had me in Hong Kong.

Barriers are never popular in business, but we have responsibilities to the stakeholders other than the shareholders. If we make it what is best for the business, the jobs will leave because business will always chase cheaper labor. If we give reason to stay by way of tax advantages and pentilize those that choose to take the work out of the country, maybe we keep the work here. Why should tax payers want to allow industry to benefit from our consumers while giving the work to someone else?

caryalsobrook
10-05-2012, 12:09 PM
No I don't. Our tax code is very friendly to oversea business and workers working overseas. It was very beneficial to me when ML had me in Hong Kong.

Barriers are never popular in business, but we have responsibilities to the stakeholders other than the shareholders. If we make it what is best for the business, the jobs will leave because business will always chase cheaper labor. If we give reason to stay by way of tax advantages and pentilize those that choose to take the work out of the country, maybe we keep the work here. Why should tax payers want to allow industry to benefit from our consumers while giving the work to someone else?
Ah, good old fashioned protectionism, lowering the standard of living of all to protect a few, with a touch of socialism thrown in for goodmeasure.

By the way, who are the other stakeholders, and who is "our" that owns the consumer?

paul young
10-05-2012, 12:17 PM
Great so another thing Obama has not fixed in 4 years. If he knows of such things that are so important why doesn't he fix it.Answer, because he is not a fixer.

He hasn't "fixed it" because the bill has not been passed by the legislature and sent to him for his signature.

Laws are written, debated and voted on in the LEGISLATIVE branch. If passed, they go on to the EXECUTIVE branch to be signed into law.

It's truly amazing how many people post on here who have no idea what the respective branches of government are charged with doing and where their power lies. Must've slept thru that part of Civics, I guess.

Everybody is all fired up about the Presidential election. Nothing wrong with that. But, if you want real change, pay more attention to who is elected to the House and Senate. The President is really just a figurehead.-Paul

menmon
10-05-2012, 12:19 PM
the american people are the stakeholders.

I clearly know the arguments against protectionism, and it is anti-business. But not discouraging companies from taking their plants elsewhere, hurts america and america jobs. There should be a price for access to the american consumer is all I'm saying. Japan, China, Mexico, etc. do it and then have access to our consumer for nothing.

ARay11
10-05-2012, 12:45 PM
the american people are the stakeholders.

I clearly know the arguments against protectionism, and it is anti-business. But not discouraging companies from taking their plants elsewhere, hurts america and america jobs. There should be a price for access to the american consumer is all I'm saying. Japan, China, Mexico, etc. do it and then have access to our consumer for nothing.

I keep wondering, while we argue that we should be friendly to business at home... how many of those companies who outsourced jobs to another country received bail out money....
regardless of whether the bailout was right or wrong.... how much money went "out of town?"

ppro
10-05-2012, 02:15 PM
I appreciate Mr. Young your outstanding civics lesson. I vaguely remember something like that. You are so much smarter than I am and your condescending remarks are to be given much credence. I was responding to your president's remarks at his debacle,I am sorry, his debate.

caryalsobrook
10-05-2012, 09:59 PM
the american people are the stakeholders.

I clearly know the arguments against protectionism, and it is anti-business. But not discouraging companies from taking their plants elsewhere, hurts america and america jobs. There should be a price for access to the american consumer is all I'm saying. Japan, China, Mexico, etc. do it and then have access to our consumer for nothing.

No, the American people are not stakeholders in my business. I can quit. I can tell the employeed and the consumers THAT I QUIT, and not you or Obama or the American people have any say if I choose to quit. I can tell the American people, the gov., Obama, the consumer and even you that you must go somewhere else for my product or services.

As to access to goods and services of China, Japan, ect., you are actually trying to deny the consumer access to goods and services they choose to buy to make their life better. You would hurt the consumer just as much as the supplier. History has shown that those who choose not to compete constantly ask for protectionism and that lowers the standard of living for the rest of the population. It never has worked and never will.

caryalsobrook
10-05-2012, 10:04 PM
He hasn't "fixed it" because the bill has not been passed by the legislature and sent to him for his signature.

Laws are written, debated and voted on in the LEGISLATIVE branch. If passed, they go on to the EXECUTIVE branch to be signed into law.

It's truly amazing how many people post on here who have no idea what the respective branches of government are charged with doing and where their power lies. Must've slept thru that part of Civics, I guess.

Everybody is all fired up about the Presidential election. Nothing wrong with that. But, if you want real change, pay more attention to who is elected to the House and Senate. The President is really just a figurehead.-Paul

You were doing OK till you called the President a figurehead. Does a figurehead have the power of the veto requiring 2/3 majority in both houses to overide. Does a figurehead have the power of control over the executive branch and can utilize the power of the executive order. No, a figurehead, he is not.

M&K's Retrievers
10-05-2012, 10:11 PM
He hasn't "fixed it" because the bill has not been passed by the legislature and sent to him for his signature.

Laws are written, debated and voted on in the LEGISLATIVE branch. If passed, they go on to the EXECUTIVE branch to be signed into law.

It's truly amazing how many people post on here who have no idea what the respective branches of government are charged with doing and where their power lies. Must've slept thru that part of Civics, I guess.

Everybody is all fired up about the Presidential election. Nothing wrong with that. But, if you want real change, pay more attention to who is elected to the House and Senate. The President is really just a figurehead.-Paul

So I guess it wasn't Bush's fault after all. Wonder who had control of House and Senate since 2007?

menmon
10-06-2012, 02:27 PM
No, the American people are not stakeholders in my business. I can quit. I can tell the employeed and the consumers THAT I QUIT, and not you or Obama or the American people have any say if I choose to quit. I can tell the American people, the gov., Obama, the consumer and even you that you must go somewhere else for my product or services.

As to access to goods and services of China, Japan, ect., you are actually trying to deny the consumer access to goods and services they choose to buy to make their life better. You would hurt the consumer just as much as the supplier. History has shown that those who choose not to compete constantly ask for protectionism and that lowers the standard of living for the rest of the population. It never has worked and never will.

Yes they are...your business does well and americans benefit from the taxes you pay on your profits. The people you employee benefit from the jobs you make for them to work. Americans benefit from your goods or services. Those are stakeholds because they have a stake in your sucess. Now if you are so selfish that you don't want to share your sucess by giving jobs, paying taxes, and providing a good product. Please close your business because you are no good to anyone.

caryalsobrook
10-06-2012, 04:35 PM
Yes they are...your business does well and americans benefit from the taxes you pay on your profits. The people you employee benefit from the jobs you make for them to work. Americans benefit from your goods or services. Those are stakeholds because they have a stake in your sucess. Now if you are so selfish that you don't want to share your sucess by giving jobs, paying taxes, and providing a good product. Please close your business because you are no good to anyone.

Typical socialist response. You tell my employees that I paid them in order to be good to them and share with them, they would tell you quickly that they earned every penny that I paid them and I did not share anything with them NOR DID I GIVE THEM JOBS. Actually they would consider your concept as an insult to their abilities and work ethic. I owe them compensation for which I have agreed and they owe me the services for which we have agreed. They owe me no more and no less. I owe them no more and no less. The word "holder" implies ownership. There is no common ownership between us, only a contract between us.

You as a consumer can take your business somewhere else and I as a business owner can tell you to do so if I choose, so long as my reasons are not based on race, religion or creed. I can tell you "no Obama tee shirts in my place of business if I so choose and if you don't like it you can choose to leave. You hold no ownership in my business and I hold no ownership of you as a consumer, that is unless you live in a socialistcountry such as the former Soviet Union, N. Korea or maybe Cuba. Thank goodness that so far we don't live in such a contry and I hope I never will. It appears as if you would like to live in such a country.

coachmo
10-06-2012, 06:25 PM
Unfortunately it seems this is the path many Americans would like to see us go down.

caryalsobrook
10-06-2012, 06:31 PM
Unfortunately it seems this is the path many Americans would like to see us go down.

Only so long as they think someone else will pull the wagon for them, especially if someone else will buy the wagon for them to ride too.:-x

coachmo
10-06-2012, 06:41 PM
It amazes me how they keep defending this mindset.

huntinman
10-06-2012, 06:43 PM
Only so long as they think someone else will pull the wagon for them, especially if someone else will buy the wagon for them to ride too.:-x

That "wagon" is hauling a load of manure.

caryalsobrook
10-06-2012, 08:53 PM
That "wagon" is hauling a load of manure.

Actually Bill, I sort of dissagree with you. It is the liberals, progressives, socialists, you know who I am talking about. They like to give little anecdotes of individuals they have supposedly helped through the goberment, so let me give one.

A young man with the wonderous of dreams came into my office seeking treatment. He is totally blind, and also has MS. He was a college student majoring in math maintaining almost a 4.0 GPA. He had the dream of eventually teaching math at the Tn School for the Blind. Having a degree in math, I could not imagine one who could cope with such a major being blind. He was truly someone who I felt deserved help in realizing his dream. So I gave him a little help and watched with admiration as he successfully achieved his degree in math. Now years later, he sits in an appartment, playing video games, eating food, wearing clothes, enjoying heat and air compliments of the taxpayor. The gov. says why have a dream so hard to achieve when all can be paid by the taxpayor? Why should you try to achieve such a noble goal especiailly since you might fail and besides you are handicaped and the gov. will pay all that for you? His uncle is a good friend of mine and we have discussed this at length. His dreams have been stolen. His self worth has been destroyed. We as society have lost but not nearly as much as he. I must admit there was a time I questioned my desire to help even one so gifted. But I must not let the gov. corrupt me also. They will not steal my soul. They will not take away my gift of the opportunity to help those who will help themselves. Ridicule those who would call one a victim. Ignore those who would steal your dreams. Fear not failure, and welcome the opportunity to succeed. Remember the definition of success is one who gets up the last time they fall down.

huntinman
10-06-2012, 09:13 PM
Actually Bill, I sort of dissagree with you. It is the liberals, progressives, socialists, you know who I am talking about. They like to give little anecdotes of individuals they have supposedly helped through the goberment, so let me give one.

A young man with the wonderous of dreams came into my office seeking treatment. He is totally blind, and also has MS. He was a college student majoring in math maintaining almost a 4.0 GPA. He had the dream of eventually teaching math at the Tn School for the Blind. Having a degree in math, I could not imagine one who could cope with such a major being blind. He was truly someone who I felt deserved help in realizing his dream. So I gave him a little help and watched with admiration as he successfully achieved his degree in math. Now years later, he sits in an appartment, playing video games, eating food, wearing clothes, enjoying heat and air compliments of the taxpayor. The gov. says why have a dream so hard to achieve when all can be paid by the taxpayor? Why should you try to achieve such a noble goal especiailly since you might fail and besides you are handicaped and the gov. will pay all that for you? His uncle is a good friend of mine and we have discussed this at length. His dreams have been stolen. His self worth has been destroyed. We as society have lost but not nearly as much as he. I must admit there was a time I questioned my desire to help even one so gifted. But I must not let the gov. corrupt me also. They will not steal my soul. They will not take away my gift of the opportunity to help those who will help themselves. Ridicule those who would call one a victim. Ignore those who would steal your dreams. Fear not failure, and welcome the opportunity to succeed. Remember the definition of success is one who gets up the last time they fall down.


I agree. That's exactly what I was trying to get at.

PS. I remember that story from another time you told it... Either here or the other forum.

PamK
10-06-2012, 10:24 PM
A young man with the wonderous of dreams came into my office seeking treatment. He is totally blind, and also has MS. He was a college student majoring in math maintaining almost a 4.0 GPA. He had the dream of eventually teaching math at the Tn School for the Blind. Having a degree in math, I could not imagine one who could cope with such a major being blind. He was truly someone who I felt deserved help in realizing his dream. So I gave him a little help and watched with admiration as he successfully achieved his degree in math. Now years later, he sits in an appartment, playing video games, eating food, wearing clothes, enjoying heat and air compliments of the taxpayor. The gov. says why have a dream so hard to achieve when all can be paid by the taxpayor? Why should you try to achieve such a noble goal especiailly since you might fail and besides you are handicaped and the gov. will pay all that for you? His uncle is a good friend of mine and we have discussed this at length. His dreams have been stolen. His self worth has been destroyed. We as society have lost but not nearly as much as he. I must admit there was a time I questioned my desire to help even one so gifted. But I must not let the gov. corrupt me also. They will not steal my soul. They will not take away my gift of the opportunity to help those who will help themselves. Ridicule those who would call one a victim. Ignore those who would steal your dreams. Fear not failure, and welcome the opportunity to succeed. Remember the definition of success is one who gets up the last time they fall down.

So is he not working because he can't find a job or because he thinks he shouldn't have to work because taxpayers will support him?

caryalsobrook
10-07-2012, 05:01 AM
So is he not working because he can't find a job or because he thinks he shouldn't have to work because taxpayers will support him?

It is difficult for me to decide to take your post serious or not. If I take it serious then I would respond that no, he never applied for a job. He sits in an apartment playing video games no less. He can go through to whole Super Mario game just by listening to the music. As to the rest, just reread the post with these two facts in mind.

Sabireley
10-07-2012, 10:20 AM
Distinct difference between tax credit and recognition of expenses

This shows one of the major problems ailing our public discourse. There is no agreement on what words mean. Both side routinely use words inaccurately to make their point. They are also guilty of the gratuitous use of adjectives designed to inflame instead of inform.

A couple of examples...

Tax Credit vs. business expense
Devestating cuts vs. slowing the rate of increase

Until our representatives can agree on what words mean and are consistent in their use when debating and campaigning, the public will have a hard time determing what the truth is. People are too busy to look into the facts surrounding every claim made by the candidates so they rely on their own understanding of what words mean. We end up with three groups trying to communicate using distinctly different vocabularies.

Uncle Bill
10-07-2012, 01:58 PM
This shows one of the major problems ailing our public discourse. There is no agreement on what words mean. Both side routinely use words inaccurately to make their point. They are also guilty of the gratuitous use of adjectives designed to inflame instead of inform.

A couple of examples...

Tax Credit vs. business expense
Devestating cuts vs. slowing the rate of increase

Until our representatives can agree on what words mean and are consistent in their use when debating and campaigning, the public will have a hard time determing what the truth is. People are too busy to look into the facts surrounding every claim made by the candidates so they rely on their own understanding of what words mean. We end up with three groups trying to communicate using distinctly different vocabularies.

With your astute observations, you are bound to enjoy some made by George Carlin.

UB


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKftRlzh2RM&sns=em (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKftRlzh2RM&sns=em)

charly_t
10-07-2012, 06:50 PM
This shows one of the major problems ailing our public discourse. There is no agreement on what words mean. Both side routinely use words inaccurately to make their point. They are also guilty of the gratuitous use of adjectives designed to inflame instead of inform.

A couple of examples...

Tax Credit vs. business expense
Devestating cuts vs. slowing the rate of increase

Until our representatives can agree on what words mean and are consistent in their use when debating and campaigning, the public will have a hard time determing what the truth is. People are too busy to look into the facts surrounding every claim made by the candidates so they rely on their own understanding of what words mean. We end up with three groups trying to communicate using distinctly different vocabularies.

Great explaination !

caryalsobrook
10-07-2012, 09:11 PM
This shows one of the major problems ailing our public discourse. There is no agreement on what words mean. Both side routinely use words inaccurately to make their point. They are also guilty of the gratuitous use of adjectives designed to inflame instead of inform.

A couple of examples...

Tax Credit vs. business expense
Devestating cuts vs. slowing the rate of increase

Until our representatives can agree on what words mean and are consistent in their use when debating and campaigning, the public will have a hard time determing what the truth is. People are too busy to look into the facts surrounding every claim made by the candidates so they rely on their own understanding of what words mean. We end up with three groups trying to communicate using distinctly different vocabularies.

I have to add a couple of my favorites.:D

A tax loophole is one that you can take advantage but I cannot.:mad:
A tax deduction is one that i can take advantage bbut you cannot.:D
A government austerity program is limiting gov. spending to only a little above inflation.;-)
A cut is beginning limiting gov increase in spending 5 to 10 years from now.:razz

How do these work??:)

Sabireley
10-08-2012, 06:00 AM
I have to add a couple of my favorites.:D

A tax loophole is one that you can take advantage but I cannot.:mad:
A tax deduction is one that i can take advantage bbut you cannot.:D
A government austerity program is limiting gov. spending to only a little above inflation.;-)
A cut is beginning limiting gov increase in spending 5 to 10 years from now.:razz

How do these work??:)

Those are good.

Loophole is one of my favorites. Romny is being vilified for using loopholes to avoid paying his fair share of taxes, when in fact he is working within the (overly complex) tax system to calculate his taxes due.