Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Senate republicans block $478 billion infrastructure investment that would have been funded by closing corporate tax breaks for firms that stash profits overseas

+3
2seaoat
KarlRove
boards of FL
7 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/478b-infrastructure-bill-blocked-senate-123000148.html


GOP 2016!  Working against American interests every step of the way!


It was another clear reminder of just how far apart the two parties are on any number of issues – including how to finance infrastructure spending.  

Senate Republicans defeated a Democratic amendment to the proposed 2016 budget on Tuesday. It was aimed at kick-starting negotiations between the White House and Congress over a new multi-year program for funding highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects.

The amendment, offered by Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), called for $478 billion in new spending over six years but without increasing the deficit. The amendment went down 52 to 45 along party lines.

Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, had argued his plan was “deficit neutral.” Hundreds of billions in new spending would have been offset by closing a number of corporate tax breaks that allow some major companies to escape paying taxes or stash profits overseas. But Republicans objected and said a large tax increase on business was not the right economic plan. They want to create a new “deficit neutral reserve fund” to supplement federal infrastructure spending.

Republicans don’t specify a total amount of new spending and are leaving it to the Senate Finance Committee to decide how – or whether – to fund a new infrastructure program.

Budget Committee Chair Mike Enzi (R-WY) said he and other Republicans are all for more infrastructure spending. They take issue, however, with Sanders essentially dictating tax reform policy to the Finance Committee by setting a long-term funding target. “That’s not the way we do it around here,” Enzi said Tuesday. “That’s why that went down.”

Yet Sanders and other Democratic leaders dismissed the GOP’s infrastructure reserve fund as a sham. They questioned whether any comprehensive deal could be reached this year given the distance between the White House and the GOP-controlled Congress. The new Congress has until May to approve a transportation and infrastructure program before a temporary funding measure expires.

The federal Highway Trust Fund, financed through the federal gas tax, is nearly depleted. State governments dependent on federal aid for new highway, bridge and mass transit projects are preparing for a new construction season with no idea how much they can count on for ongoing or new projects.

“It is disgraceful,” Sanders said Tuesday. “No one denies our roads, bridges, waste water plants, water systems and rail are in a state of collapse. We used to lead the world in infrastructure, but now we’re in 12thplace.”

He added, “This amendment proposed $478 billion over a six-year period, which would not only rebuild our crumbling infrastructure but would put some nine million people back to work for the creation of new jobs. That’s a big deal at a time when real unemployment is at 11 percent.”

The American Society of Civil Engineers pegs the U.S.’s current infrastructure spending gap at $125 billion a year just to maintain highways and bridges. In a recent report card, the group gave infrastructure the low grade of D+, noting a tremendous backlog and desperate need for modernization.

Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers recently noted that total federal, state and local government investment in infrastructure is just enough to cover repairs and upgrades of bridges, roads, airports and rails. There’s practically nothing left for expansion.

Senate Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois called the political stalemate a major disappointment. “This used to be the easiest bipartisan issue before Congress,” he said Tuesday. “There was a time when the Public Works Committee in the House had the largest membership of any committee. Members of both parties couldn’t wait to get on there because this bill enabled them to do things for their districts.”

“Now,” he added, “this has unfortunately become a topic for debate of the Tea Party as to whether the federal government should do anything when it comes to infrastructure. It’s a sad day for the party of [former president] Dwight David Eisenhower and the interstate highway system to have reached this point.”

Everyone agrees a new transportation and infrastructure program is essential. The biggest obstacle has been how to finance it. House and Senate GOP leaders do not want to raise the federal gas tax and would prefer to finance highway spending through tax reform. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) is considering proposals as part of major corporate tax reform this year.

President Obama’s proposal of a one-time 14 percent tax on nearly $2 trillion of foreign earnings is gaining traction among Democrats and some Republicans as a way to fund infrastructure projects. Major American companies are supposed to pay a 35 percent tax on overseas earnings, but many use a legal loophole that allows them to keep the earnings in other countries indefinitely.

In Obama’s approach, companies such as Apple, Cisco Systems and Microsoft would have a one-time chance to pay taxes on overseas earnings at the much lower 14-percent tax rate. The proposal would also impose a permanent 19-percent tax on foreign earnings.

The plan would raise an estimated $238 billion in the coming years to underwrite infrastructure, while an additional $240 billion would come from the current federal tax on gas and other sources. In all, the six-year $478 billion proposal would provide a 33-percent funding increase for major public works projects.


_________________
I approve this message.

KarlRove

KarlRove

What sort of details are you leaving out as to why it got blocked? Those are important as well.

boards of FL

boards of FL

KarlRove wrote:What sort of details are you leaving out as to why it got blocked? Those are important as well.


Feel free to fill in anything that was left out.


_________________
I approve this message.

KarlRove

KarlRove

Ah the Dems wanted a blank check to be written on the backs of businesses through more taxes. Why did you fail to highlight that point?

2seaoat



That is NOT what the Sanders bill proposed. This is simple. It is good for America. It is not really a liberal vs conservative moment........it is just about pragmatic good government......nothing more or less.

If you start with the proposition that the Federal Government has no purpose, then yes it becomes logical to fight anything which is done by the government to enhance this country. This of course continues to allow the Oligarchy to steal America, and if you are good with that.......you are either not well informed, or you are a fool.

boards of FL

boards of FL

KarlRove wrote:Ah the Dems wanted a blank check to be written on the backs of businesses through more taxes. Why did you fail to highlight that point?


They didn't want a "blank check".  They wanted "$478 billion in new spending over six years".  And that would have been deficit neutral by way of closing tax loopholes for corporations that "escape paying taxes or stash profits overseas".

Can you not read?  It's all there in the article.   The headline of this very thread that we're having this discussion in is "Senate republicans block $478 billion infrastructure investment that would have been funded by closing corporate tax breaks for firms that stash profits overseas."  

Corporate profits are breaking records every quarter.

Our infrastructure is crumbling.

One more time.

Corporate profits are breaking records every quarter.

Our infrastructure is crumbling.


Here is a picture of corporate profits:

Senate republicans block $478 billion infrastructure investment that would have been funded by closing corporate tax breaks for firms that stash profits overseas Showimage



Here is a picture of our infrastructure:

Senate republicans block $478 billion infrastructure investment that would have been funded by closing corporate tax breaks for firms that stash profits overseas Was988572




Hey!  I have an idea!  Why don't we close tax loopholes for corporations that escape paying taxes by hiding profits overseas (and whose profits are breaking records every quarter) and then use that source of funds to repair our crumbling infrastructure!



Last edited by boards of FL on 3/25/2015, 11:19 am; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

gatorfan



I'll bet Hillary breathed a sigh of relief that her Wall Street cronies slipped by this one.

If we would stop pouring money into the Mideast cesspool and other places we could easily invest in badly needed infrastructure improvements. Not to mention the job opportunities that would present.....

KarlRove

KarlRove

Here ya go Seaoat-

Everyone agrees a new transportation and infrastructure program is essential. The biggest obstacle has been how to finance it. House and Senate GOP leaders do not want to raise the federal gas tax and would prefer to finance highway spending through tax reform. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) is considering proposals as part of major corporate tax reform this year.

----
The difference between the GOP and the Dems. Raising the taxes on something as volatile as fuel is a bad idea.

Sal

Sal

gatorfan wrote:
If we would stop pouring money into the Mideast cesspool and other places we could easily invest in badly needed infrastructure improvements. Not to mention the job opportunities that would present.....

Don't be silly.

If we did that, then it would be time for tax cuts! (for the rich)

Fuck it, it's ALWAYS time for tax cuts! (for the rich)

boards of FL

boards of FL

KarlRove wrote:Here ya go Seaoat-

Everyone agrees a new transportation and infrastructure program is essential. The biggest obstacle has been how to finance it. House and Senate GOP leaders do not want to raise the federal gas tax and would prefer to finance highway spending through tax reform. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) is considering proposals as part of major corporate tax reform this year.

----
The difference between the GOP and the Dems. Raising the taxes on something as volatile as fuel is a bad idea.


What on earth are you talking about?  For the third time:  Democrats wanted to fund the investment in infrastructure by closing tax loopholes on corporations that hide profits overseas.  

Again, the article doesn't state that democrats wanted to increase taxes on fuel, rather, they wanted to close tax loopholes used by corporations who escape taxes and hide profits overseas.

How did you make this far in life without being able to effectively read?


_________________
I approve this message.

KarlRove

KarlRove

Who do you think the costs will be passed on to if more taxes are paid?

2seaoat



The difference between the GOP and the Dems. Raising the taxes on something as volatile as fuel is a bad idea.


The Sanders bill had NOTHING to do with raising taxes or increasing fuel taxes. It simply closed a tax loophole.

If you are against the fuel tax to support road infrastructure, you are against every Republican principle of user tax doctrine where those who use something should pay. I personally believe with the evolution to high mileage vehicles and electric that the tax should be increased by about thirty cents a gallon right now, and be pegged to an increasing ratio as those gas powered vehicles decline. Infrastructure is almost an entirely American job creator, and enhances our productivity to compete in the world market. Traditional Republicans and even traditional Dixiecrats were always supportive of the same, but the Republican Party and Dixiecrat meld has produced this anti government meld which basically would eliminate user taxes and transfer the support of infrastructure to the general fund, but then argues that it would be revenue neutral and no new taxes could be raised.....which means that they would attempt to fund the infrastructure from other programs, but not Military which they want the budget increased, or reduction to subsidies to the wealthy......pure insanity

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

KarlRove wrote:Who do you think the costs will be passed on to if more taxes are paid?

Sal; Seoat, you obviously fail to understand War Hero's inability to understand written words. 

Things like "the funding will come from closing tax loopholes now being used by major corporations," are far beyond this alleged-teacher's comprehension level ...    LOL!

boards of FL

boards of FL

KarlRove wrote:Who do you think the costs will be passed on to if more taxes are paid?


One more time for KarlRove, they would come from corporate profits - which are breaking records every quarter.


Senate republicans block $478 billion infrastructure investment that would have been funded by closing corporate tax breaks for firms that stash profits overseas Showimage


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Wordslinger wrote:
KarlRove wrote:Who do you think the costs will be passed on to if more taxes are paid?

Sal; Seoat, you obviously fail to understand War Hero's inability to understand written words. 

Things like "the funding will come from closing tax loopholes now being used by major corporations," are far beyond this alleged-teacher's comprehension level ...    LOL!


I have reached the conclusion that there is simply no way that KarlRove is teaching students in a class room. If he does in fact work for the public school system, he's either a janitor, in the lunchroom, or he's a PE teacher.

Teachers can effectively read and understand the meaning of text.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Let's just assume that Corporate profits are $1.75 trillion per year.  They're actually greater than that, and growing every quarter, but we'll just say $1.75 trillion for the purpose of 1) being very conservative in our estimate and 2) making the math easier.

Corporate Profits (after tax): $ 1,750,000,000,000.00

Six Year Corporate Profits (after tax): $ 10,500,000,000,000.00

So corporations will bring in $10.5 trillion in after-tax profits over the time period that this $468 billion dollar investment would have been made.  And note that this is assuming that quarterly corporate profits remain constant at $1.75 trillion per year.  They were over $1.8 trillion annualized in Q3 2014 and are growing every quarter, so it is more likely that the six year total in corporate profits will easily exceed $11 trillion.

How much of a burden would $468 billion over six years be to a sector that is taking in $10.5 trillion over that same time period?

468 billion / 10.5 trillion = 4.5%


That's it.   All that is needed to repair the infrastructure of the United States of America is an amount equivalent to 4.5% of corporate profits over the next six years.   All that is needed to generate jobs - literally - all across the country for a six year period while simultaneously investing in our future and our economy, is 4.5% of corporate profits over the next six years.


Corporate profits without this investment: $10,500,000,000,000.00

Corporate profits with this investment: $ 10,032,000,000,000.00


Is there any wonder why the only people who vote for the republicans who block shit like this are essentially illiterate?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

And once all initial, knee-jerk responses are sorted out...silence.


_________________
I approve this message.

knothead

knothead

I feel confident that ALL of the one and done KY Wildcats have a greater reading comprehension ability than does Mr. PeeDawg . . . . .

KarlRove

KarlRove

No BOF you just choose to ridicule anything opposing your beliefs so why waste our time?

boards of FL

boards of FL

KarlRove wrote:No BOF you just choose to ridicule anything opposing your beliefs so why waste our time?


My beliefs?  You're confused.  

You said that democrats requested a "blank check".  You're wrong.  It isn't my "belief" that you're wrong.  It is an objective fact that you are wrong.

Then you said that democrats basically wanted to pay for this with an increase in the fuel tax.  There again, you're wrong.  It isn't my "belief" that you're wrong.  It is an objective fact that you are wrong.

For whatever reason, you haven't yet been able to directly respond to the policy idea put forth by democrats, and defeated by republicans. Instead, you have only made shit up and then attack that.

If you don't like the idea of being ridiculed for making shit up like you have in this thread, this forum may not be the best place for you.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum