Skip to main content

Today Bill Clinton suggested that the corporate tax rate is too high and needs to be lowered.

Even though he raised the corporate tax rate for corporations with over $10 million in annual earnings back when he was President, Clinton says Obama should lower the rate now:

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore – we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. 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 so that we still get a FAIR amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?”

So is anyone surprised to see that Bill Clinton is still pushing the DLC/New Way corporate ass kissing bullshit agenda and helping to carry the water for Republican policies? I sure as hell am not and I'm sick and tired of hearing this sort of bullshit coming from so-called Democrats.

At least he gives lip service to eliminating "a lot of" deductions but still claims that the poor corporations just can't compete at the current rate. Fuck you Bill Clinton!

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (20+ / 0-)

    "We should invade the whole world & fix everything. Anything less means we support the terrorists, ne'er-do-wells, incompetents, grifters, drug lords, dead-enders, autocrats, and so on." - mightymouse

    by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:07:41 PM PDT

  •  All talk... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psilocynic

    ...the Big Dog can say anything. The President couldn't manage it without the Republicans, even if he agrees with Bill Clinton. Its all gas.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:10:12 PM PDT

  •  Clinton wants the new tax to RAISE REVENUE (20+ / 0-)

    That is, for CORPORATIONS TO PAY MORE. NOT LESS.

    This diary is dreck...

  •  Someday I hope Clinton can be (4+ / 0-)

    re-written in the history books as something other than a Dem.

    A brilliant man - and the most self centered ever to hold the office.

    And while they are at it - let them bump up Jimmy Carter - a real Democrat.

    John McCain is deeply disappointed that Barack Obama has failed to follow through on John McCain's campaign promises.

    by tiponeill on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:17:18 PM PDT

  •  As a former Republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster

    I could never stand him, and still don't; Hillary I've made my peace with since she conceded.

  •  Corporations have plenty of money in the bank (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xndem, jim d, CenterLeft, JesseCW, vacantlook, Aspe4

    record levels in fact.
    What the hell does Clinton think they'll do differently with even more money?

    Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ Bill Moyers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:19:06 PM PDT

    •  He is NOT for a Corporate tax cut... (12+ / 0-)

      He is for cutting the Corporate tax RATE....RATE! RATE! Got it?

      In return for the lower RATE, Clinton proposes to eliminate tax loopholes given to corporations....

      The total tax take from Corporations will be HIGHER. They won't have "more money".

      •  So he says. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenterLeft, JesseCW

        Has the CBO weighed in on the effects of his suggestions?

        •  He is saying the same thing Obama has said (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG, agent, FiredUpInCA, skohayes, erush1345

          There are no specifics in his speech; he didn't spell out which loopholes would be closed --- therefore CBO would have nothing to score. The intent is to have the loophole closings be greater than the lowering in revenue due to the tax rate coming down....

          Thus corporations pay slightly more, but get the lower rate in return. They then won't have to pay so many accountants to dream up loopholes...

          •  And given the record to date on legislation (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            that can 'pass' under Republican obstinance, do you really believe that what comes out of the 'sausage making' will do that?

            The only things I've seen 'pass' as related to taxes is more tax breaks for the wealthy.  I really find it hard to believe President Obama is magically going to be able to suddenly get Republicans to vote to close more loopholes than they offset with breaks.  Republicans simply won't let it work that way.  They'll demand 85/15.  Drop rates by 85%, close 15% of loopholes.

            •  Clinton said what he thought needed to be done... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              agent

              When HE was President, Clinton destroyed Newt Gingrich. It is Obama's job to destroy John Boehner.

              •  When he was President, Clinton (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vacantlook

                kicked the problems down the road.   That only makes problems get bigger.  Why is Obama facing such a crappy economy and various financial crises?  In large part because of deregulation that took place on Clinton's watch, and the full effects of all the 'free trade' that both Clintons strenuously pushed.

                It started at least with Reagan, and was hideously worsened unders Bushes, but Clinton was not a purely 'golden era'.  He also did many things that were bad for the country in the long term.

                •  Blaming Clinton for events that happen years later (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skohayes

                  Is a favorite tactic of Republicans. They did it when 9/11 occurred, and they did it when the crash occurred.

                  George W Bush didn't notice what was happening for 7 years, prevent all regulators from doing their jobs, destroyed the SEC,  etc.

                  But its Bill Clinton's fault? Do you actually believe that if Clinton was in the White House during those years, the outcome would have been the same?

                  •  Did you fail to notice I blamed Reagan and both (0+ / 0-)

                    Bushes as well?  Sadly, Clinton played his part in our problems as well.  Obama isn't doing so hot at fixing said problems, but so far he hasn't screwed up NAFTA or Graham-Leech-Bliley (or however you spell the name of that dereg bill) bad.

      •  So this will simply be a matter of accounting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sagebrush Bob

        which will do nothing to attract Corporations here.

        Seems like an awful big waste of time.

        Mayan culture was strong enough to save the Mayan people from Mayan civilization.

        by JesseCW on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:09:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It wouldn't be a simple matter of accounting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buddabelly, agent, erush1345

          for incorporated small businesses.  They are the ones really screwed by the 35% tax rate (one of the highest in the world).  They don't have an army of accountants able to find and exploit every loophole out there.  The complexity in our systems breeds regressivity.

          Also it won't be a matter of accounting if the lower rates are more than offset by closing of loopholes.  We should get our effective corporate more in line with let's say Germany.  Ours is 6%. .  Theirs is around 20%.  

      •  Where did Clinton say the total take (0+ / 0-)

        From corps under his proposal would be higher?

        •  He didn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          The Bowles-Simpson report said it:

          Clinton went a step further and proposed that corporate tax rates be reduced to 25% from the current range of 35%-23%, depending on filing. Then, with tax loopholes eliminated, revenues could rise $1 trillion, as indicated by the Bowles-Simpson report.

          How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

          by skohayes on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 02:36:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Clinton Was Also Caught Schmoozing..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jim d, Dump Terry McAuliffe

    w/ Paul Ryan recently.  He told Ryan to give him a call about Medicare.  Who asked Bill to butt in?

    Keep an eye on old Bill Clinton.  He wouldn't mind seeing Obama take a fall.  Why doesn't Bill stick to his Foundation & keep his snout out of the President's business.  

    Bill's day has come & gone.  He needs to bow out.  

  •  People willingly forget how bad it was (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snapples, xndem, alba, OrganizedCrime

    before we had a president like Obama.

    That is unforgivable and inexcusable.

    It's also really smelly, ie fishy.

    People on the left go so far out of their way to pardon and make heroes of men like Clinton. And here they have a man like Obama who actually deserves it, and they spit on him.

    I find it to be so illogical that it smells... really really fishy.

    And I think you all know what I'm talking about.

    Tax incentives are good things. They control how corporations spend their money.

    We should have tax incentives for things that help Americans, and a very high corporate tax rate to make sure they either use them, or pay in other ways. Clinton knows that, he's just a DLC'er at heart and always will be.

    •  Well, we need look no farther than the SCOTUS (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psilocynic, CenterLeft, skohayes

      if we need a reminder about why it is important to elect ANY DEMOCRAT.

      Obama is not a Blue Dog and another Republican SCOTUS pick and we can kiss our asses goodbye. We can practically do that now with their last few decisions.

      "Pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serving public office." Sheriff Dupnik, AZ

      by voracious on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:32:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama extended the 2003 (0+ / 0-)

      tax cuts.  Of course, you use a double standard.  And who knows whether Obama won't sign a corporate tax cut?  It might be the one way to squeak by Romney.

      The tax cutting game won't end until all taxes that can plausibly be cut to yield jobs have been cut- and don't bring about job creation.  That's why sooner or later the corporate tax will inevitably be cut.  When that fails, then the time to re-raise taxes nears.  But not before.

      So all your faux purism is silly, penny wise pound foolish bullshit.    Which is understandable as a mistake, as the politics of taxation is often counterintuitive.  But the hateful and hypocritical way you apply your purism (as do many others) is despicable.

      •  No, the way people apply their purism (0+ / 0-)

        to undermine the most liberal most competent president in the modern era is despicable.

        As usual, when people like me call others out on it, it's my call out which is seen as the problem, not even the fact that it was necessary in the first place.

        Just like when Eric Holder called out America, it was of course "racist" of him to do so.

        Pointing out the problem is the most evil thing one can do in America.

        •  Pffft. (0+ / 0-)

          I can't tell whether he's more liberal than Bill Clinton and "most competent" is hard to make the case for.

          My colleagues, friends, and relatives who have lots of business with federal government agencies inside the Beltway don't think so- the consensus is that it's been two plus years of well-managed but demoralizing lack of initiative there at all the levels they interact with, from Cabinet members down to the bottom ranks.  In practical terms some say the Bush years were better- at least you could have an argument that might get them to do something.  These days they mean well but do nothing.

          JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton were the most liberal and (variously) most competent Presidents up to their times too.  And like Obama, their liberal base was soon asking/telling them to get to the front of the parade rather than "leading" from its back.

          No, the worst thing one can do for Obama fans is point out how conservative he has been in office.  (Wall Street, Iraq, gay marriage, prosecutions, etc.)  And point back to the summer of 2008 when his most fervent supporters admitted that when they pretended he was more liberal than Hillary Clinton, they were lying.

          Look, what he's doing is understandable.  But there's a point where events force him to choose between (a) fracturing the conservative faction in his personal base on which his reelection hopes depend or (b) neglecting the liberal-centered Party base and hoping that that the resulting incremental demoralization and perception of ineffectiveness and practical obsolescence of the conservative approach to the economy he has chosen doesn't affect the swing voters.  

          He can try to delay out that development, which he is doing as best he can, but the situation will come to a head and result in fracturing at some point in the next two years.  It's really only a question of pre-election or post-election.  

          Now that is the most evil (yet true) thing one can point out- that the 2008 Obama coalition is fraying and breaking up.  Which means that even if he's reelected, it won't be much of a second term.

  •  Are we really going to hate on Bill Clinton? (11+ / 0-)

    Can't do it.

    "Pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serving public office." Sheriff Dupnik, AZ

    by voracious on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:24:10 PM PDT

    •  Nor can I. (7+ / 0-)

      I respect and admire President Clinton.  

    •  Anything to divert .... (0+ / 0-)

      attention from Obama saying that NOTHING can be off the table.

      'Destroying America, One middle class family and one civil liberty at a time: Today's GOP'

      by emsprater on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:45:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama and Clinton are two peas of a pod. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater, PhilK

        "We should invade the whole world & fix everything. Anything less means we support the terrorists, ne'er-do-wells, incompetents, grifters, drug lords, dead-enders, autocrats, and so on." - mightymouse

        by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:47:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, Obama sux. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jan4insight

          Let's primary his ass with someone good.

          Like......?????? Who, exactly?

          "Pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serving public office." Sheriff Dupnik, AZ

          by voracious on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:49:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The money in politics makes primarying him (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WisePiper

            rather difficult. That doesn't change the facts about his positions on economic policy, civil liberties, etc.

            "We should invade the whole world & fix everything. Anything less means we support the terrorists, ne'er-do-wells, incompetents, grifters, drug lords, dead-enders, autocrats, and so on." - mightymouse

            by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:52:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also doesn't change the fact that we don't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jan4insight

              have a huge crop of replacement Dems waiting in the wings.

              Which Democrats are out there doing exactly what you want them to do right now?

              Who is making you happy?

              "Pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serving public office." Sheriff Dupnik, AZ

              by voracious on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:53:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not saying or implying that. (0+ / 0-)

            All I'm suggesting  ... no, saying outright ..... is that this is just an effort to distract, as usual, from Obama placing what he is willing to sacrifice for the cooperation of the enemy 'on the table'.  If he were a poker player, it would be the equivalent of showing his hand before the other players bet.

            So, SS cuts, Medicare cuts, education cuts .... nothing is off the table.  Except the republicans won't bring the rich man into the 'shared sacrifice', so instead of focusing our ire on them where it belongs, someone wants us to look to a Democratic POTUS who is saying about the same thing as the current one and be incensed.

            Ridiculous.

            'Destroying America, One middle class family and one civil liberty at a time: Today's GOP'

            by emsprater on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:02:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I seriously disagree (0+ / 0-)

          Clinton was self-interestedly ruthless; Obama is rather naive.

    •  Sadly, hating the Clintons (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      voracious, Rimjob, emsprater, Saxman, killjoy

      seems to never go out of style on Daily Kos.

      Never mind that the diarist's quote isn't actually in the article to which he linked.  Just thought I should point it out.

      The era of "the era of big government is over" is over.

      by lungfish on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:51:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mistake on my part while editing (0+ / 0-)

        The link is fixed.

        "We should invade the whole world & fix everything. Anything less means we support the terrorists, ne'er-do-wells, incompetents, grifters, drug lords, dead-enders, autocrats, and so on." - mightymouse

        by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:55:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's All B.S. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shayes, jan4insight

    Coroporations are sitting on $$$ but they won't hire or spend it because they want to defeat Obama.  They're putting a gun to his head on the debit ceiling screwing the middle class and poor because they only care about their profits.  I'm not happy with Clinton's statement but then again, now he's in the same bracket as those corporations.

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it .

    by Rosalie907 on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:44:51 PM PDT

    •  Not necessarily. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, JesseCW, FG, PhilK

      They won't spend or hire because there isn't the demand for that spending or hiring to generate more in profits.  There isn't the demand because corporations are incredibly myopic things that only care about profit now, which leads to shortsightedly destroying their own local markets by outsourcing all sorts of jobs in order to cut the bottom line of production.

      It doesn't matter that Obama is President, the exact same lack of hiring/spending would be going on under McCain, simply because there isn't any demand.

      Corporations will eat the seed corn rather than save any for planting next season, and politicians on both sides (during Clinton's time in office, no less) got rid of the rules that prevented financial suicide through stupidity and pushed 'free trade' while ignoring the devastating effects that would have on the spending power of domestic labor.

    •  Nonsense. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG, PhilK, erush1345, Kickemout

      Rich fuckers don't turn down chances to make piles of cash because of ideology.  At least, not in large numbers.

      Please read Krugman.

      Mayan culture was strong enough to save the Mayan people from Mayan civilization.

      by JesseCW on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:12:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really think corporations make (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      agent, erush1345

      hiring decisions purely b/c of politics?

    •  They won't hire or spend it... (0+ / 0-)

      ...because they're greedy shits.

  •  And Bill Kristol, of all people, is against it. (0+ / 0-)

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...

    Holy cow, Bill Kristol actually said something two weeks in a row on Fox News Sunday that I agree with -- we don't need to be lowering the corporate tax rates when these companies are sitting on hoards of cash already and are not hiring.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 08:57:34 PM PDT

  •  I miss the old blogging daze where we were sort of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    voracious, FG, skohayes

    expected to provide a link that actually had the excerpted quote.  I don't doubt that he said what is in the excerpt, but it would be nice to see it in context of the entire article/interview/fever dream or whatever source it came from...

    Clinton wasn't a "progressive" in the modern sense by any stretch of the imagination (and wasn't really one back in the day), but he - for all his political and personal faults - left office with a far higher approval rating than any president ">going as far back as Truman.  Regardless of all the nonprogressive things he did, he was a far better choice than a second-term GHW Bush or a President Bob Dole (or, God forbid, President Ross Perot)...

    I'm not a defender, because there were a whole lot of things about the Clinton administration that were a pain in the butt both personally and professionally, but I remember the witch hunt times of the mid to late 1990's vividly, so gimme the actual link, OK?  

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:01:24 PM PDT

  •  I seem to recall a good economy (5+ / 0-)

    During his tenure ... I'd listen to him.

    •  The deregulation put in place under Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vacantlook

      bring about the crimes that took place on Wall Street which drove us into the ditch we're in.

      Not only that, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 helped to accelerate the historic media consolidation (reducing the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005) which has allowed a few large corporations to control most of the "news" that most people see and hear today.

      "We should invade the whole world & fix everything. Anything less means we support the terrorists, ne'er-do-wells, incompetents, grifters, drug lords, dead-enders, autocrats, and so on." - mightymouse

      by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:24:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like to match his knowledge of how tax code... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, voracious, erush1345

    affects the economy against yours.

    My money is on Bill, sounding like a republican and fuck you isn't a very solid argument.

    Who shot ya? Seperate the weak from the ob-solete Hard to creep them Brooklyn streets It's on ____, f**k all that bickering beef I can hear sweat trickling down your cheek

    by mim5677 on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:02:10 PM PDT

  •  Do You Mean..... (7+ / 0-)

    The same policy President Obama proposed in his State of the Union speech in January?

    President Obama, January 25th, 2011:

    “So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years—without adding to our deficit.

    •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vacantlook

      corporate tax rates are just not "competitive" enough. That's our problem.

      "We should invade the whole world & fix everything. Anything less means we support the terrorists, ne'er-do-wells, incompetents, grifters, drug lords, dead-enders, autocrats, and so on." - mightymouse

      by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 09:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since Politico is no fan of Democrats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        and likes to stir the pot quite a bit, I found other news articles that also quoted what Clinton said:

        Clinton went a step further and proposed that corporate tax rates be reduced to 25% from the current range of 35%-23%, depending on filing. Then, with tax loopholes eliminated, revenues could rise $1 trillion, as indicated by the Bowles-Simpson report.

        How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

        by skohayes on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 02:41:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I actually agree with Clinton and Obama on this (7+ / 0-)

    Which is a bit of a new thing for me given how hard Left I lean....

    I think you are misunderstanding Clinton (and Obama) here with your criticism.  This is why:

    As it stands right now, the tax loopholes create a situation where some corporations (e.g. Walmart) pay close to the statutory Corporate Tax Rate (i.e. 35%) while most corporations (e.g. Exxon) play the system and pay close to zero or even a negative tax rate.

    This is bad business in every possible way.  

    1) It helps large corporations who can afford the best lawyers pay less taxes than smaller companies that are trying to compete with the larger competition.  Thus the loopholes are anti-competitive.

    2) It also allocates a large amount of money away from real output, and instead sends that money towards lawyers who find ways to avoid paying taxes.

    3) The lost tax revenue from these loopholes deprives the Government of much needed funds that would otherwise be better spent and have a larger fiscal multiplier.

    Optimally, a Corporate tax rate between %25 and %30 is probably best based on evidence from other industrialized nations.  But this is ONLY IF the loopholes are removed.  I can envision a not so distant future where the tax cut goes through but the loopholes magically find their way back in Committee.  That is, if the Dems maintain their current negotiating ability, of course.

  •  We don't need this kind of talk. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK

    If the corporations need tax cuts, how is it that corporations are profiting more than they ever have? Closing loopholes? I bet they would be able to close 1/10 of the loop holes corporation have. Then they will be left with 9/10 of the loopholes they have now and paying a 25% tax rate instead of 35%.  We all know who will come out on top.

  •  I bet they get the tax cuts first and fight like (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BradyB, WisePiper, vacantlook, PhilK

    hell to keep the loophole. If they do in fact lose some of the loop holes, money to the politicians will get most of them back through new legislation. How many times have we won against corporations? Never.

  •  As long as they're putting more $$$ into the kitty (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    They need to pay more. If cutting the rate and closing loopholes brings in the increased revenue we need, then what is the problem?

    This is going to happen, and end up being a net positive for the Democratic Party who'll get credit for increasing revenue, addressing the deficit, and reforming the tax code to make it more fair and productive.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Jul 03, 2011 at 10:45:25 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site