Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:05 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,615 posts, read 44,334,570 times
Reputation: 13545

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Well, since we fund our deficits with dollar devaluation, these special tax breaks are in theory 'paid for' by anyone who uses U.S. dollars, whether that's an individual on welfare, or the Chinese government.
Then stop deficit spending. This problem rests squarely on Obama and the Dem Congress that was in place from 2007-2011. Deficits have skyrocketed under both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:09 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,621,385 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Then stop deficit spending.
This we agree on.

Quote:
This problem rests squarely on Obama and the Dem Congress that was in place from 2007-2011. Deficits have skyrocketed under both.
This we do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:13 AM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,270,905 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you obviously still dont have a clue. it isnt the marketing department that makes decisions, it is the accounting departments of the companies that are considering the purchase of a jet. and they look at EVERYTHING very carefully before deciding to make the purchase or not. things like;

the initial cost of the jet
the savings in time
the depreciation schedule
the cost of having a flight crew on stand by compared to buying commercial tickets
the cost of hanger fees
the cost of maintenance
the cost of fuel
the cost of insurance
the cost of ramp fees
taxes
etc.

if i were the CEO of a large corporation, and i wanted a business jet, and my accountants came to me and said that the cost of flying commercial is lower than buying a business jet, you can bet that i would be stupid to buy the business jet even if my company was making $50 million per month in profits after taxes. the only way i would buy a business jet under those circumstances is if my security was involved, and it was safer for me to fly in a private jet than on a commercial airline. and even then i would look into less expensive alternatives, such as air taxis, and leasing, or chartering a jet.
You took my post and COMPLETELY MISCONTRUED IT. I was referring to the marketing department for the people that MANUFACTURE CORPORATE JETS. Have you ever seen the marketing literature or been to the websites for Gulfstream, Bombardier, Dassault, or Cessna? They all proclaim that business jets increase the time efficiency, improve security, and increase the flexibility for executives and business teams.

Also given the perks that many executives receive these days. It's not all that black and white in terms of the cost justification. Having a corporate jet is for many of these executives a matter of "Keeping Up With The Jones". Which is another reason once a company has financial problems the corporate jets are among the first thing to go.

Finally, if Conservatives are truly for "Less Government" then get the government out of providing market incentives for corporate jets. Corporations already get tax deductions for the fuel, and maintenance of their jets as a business expense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:14 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,615 posts, read 44,334,570 times
Reputation: 13545
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
This we agree on.

This we do not.
Why not? Do spending bills not originate in Congress? Look at what happened to deficit spending from 2007-2011, when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress. The last GOP budget is indicated in the chart:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:16 AM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,270,905 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Then stop deficit spending. This problem rests squarely on Obama and the Dem Congress that was in place from 2007-2011. Deficits have skyrocketed under both.
Were you saying the same thing when George W. Bush Jr. started a totally unecessary war in Iraq that cost over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS, while at the same time passing out tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefitted high income people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:17 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,621,385 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why not?
well, for one, I blame the Democrats as well as the GOP. The GOP is culpable because a good chunk of that spending was to cover bad bets made during the bush administration. For example: Unfunded wars, unfunded medicare expansion, income tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts, tax breaks for oil, ownership of bad mortgage assets that suddenly shifted to the public dime, ownership of insolvent financial companies that shifted to the public dime. Bush probably never saw the crisis coming, right up until the very end he probably thought he'd struck gold with this whole magic "debt" thing. *Poof*, GDP growth. *Poof*, low unemployment. *Poof*, second term.

Bush put us in a situation where our best option was to raise taxes.... just as his party had done a bang-up job of convincing the American people that tax raises kill the economy. I doubt Obama would've gotten elected if he'd proposed to raise taxes, so he didn't. Obviously a deficit will then occur, if you try and clean up the decades of reckless debt while entering a depression.

Last edited by le roi; 07-28-2011 at 11:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 6,286,063 times
Reputation: 1633
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Obviously subsudizing restruant meals, limo services and free parking for excessivly paid executives is far more important than an equitqable personal and business tax system. Making certain that them that already has gets more is the basis of this economy.
so what else is new?
Why do you hate successful people so much? Is it just envy or is there more to it than that?

Last nihgt on O'Riely they had a clip where they went out nad interviewed people at a polo event in The Hamptons. It was a liberal elite lovefest with a $10,000 entry fee. The biggest irony-- the event was sponsored by a company that makes corporate jets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,174,115 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
Were you saying the same thing when George W. Bush Jr. started a totally unecessary war in Iraq that cost over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS, while at the same time passing out tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefitted high income people?
I was totally against Iraq. I still to this day cannot believe that Congress voted FOR authorization to go there.

And I wasn't thinking of the cost either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:36 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,615 posts, read 44,334,570 times
Reputation: 13545
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
Were you saying the same thing when George W. Bush Jr. started a totally unecessary war in Iraq that cost over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS, while at the same time passing out tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefitted high income people?
Clinton on Iraq in 1998:


‪President Clinton orders attack on Iraq‬‏ - YouTube

And we already know that the lower one's income, the more they benefitted from the Bush tax cuts.

Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rates:

Top 1%
2003: 20.4%
2006: 19.0%
6.9% tax cut

Bottom 20%
2003: -6.0%
2006: -6.6%
Not only did they NOT pay any Federal Income Tax, they got a 10% increase in the money they got FROM the Federal Government
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 11:40 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,615 posts, read 44,334,570 times
Reputation: 13545
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
well, for one, I blame the Democrats as well as the GOP. The GOP is culpable because a good chunk of that spending was to cover bad bets made during the bush administration. For example: Unfunded wars, unfunded medicare expansion, income tax cuts...
So you were against additional money paid FROM the Federal Government TO those who already pay NO Federal Income Tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top