Democrat insider:  "people are dumb to listen to the myths of liberal politicians."

Republican insider:  "people are dumb to listen to the myths of conservative politicians."

Nothing to see here.....

Move along....

YER SARCASM METER IS BROKEN,MATE

My point is that this piece is pretty slanted.  FWIW, there are elements of the piece I agree with.  I'm not opposed, for example, to the elimination of loopholes that companies like GE use.  What the overall effect of corporate taxes are (and who actually pays them) is another story.

Other portions of the piece are a non-sequitor, and designed for people to completely miss the point.  For example:

"US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs?"

The amount of cash a corporation has is irrelevant to the number of jobs it plans to provide.  Cash is simply one of many assets on a balance sheet.  Just because I or someone else has cash, it does not follow that it translates into jobs.  In order to provide a job, one entity has to provide something of value (a service or a labor function) in exchange for something else of value (presumebly cash).  Some business models are set up to have a certain percentage of liquid assets, of which cash is the most liquid.  Other assets are long-term, like plant and equipment.  Cash on hand is not the same as cash flow, which is not the same as income, etc.  Apple does not owe anyone a job.  Jobs are created by demand for your goods and services, not by how much cash is on a balance sheet.  If you had $1 million in savings, would you be required to hire someone?  That statement is nothing more than a class warfare talking point. 

I'm not going to spend my time going point by point, but if you look at the adjectives and adverbs used in the piece, you'll recognize the slant.  I could care less if he was an operative or whatever.  I also am not going to defend the fact that both parties are tax and spend.  Regardless of each's rhetoric, you can't spend and tax your way out of a spending problem.  Can government create useful jobs in the short term?  Sure, when it comes to their basic functions.  Can it force the creation of jobs in the private sector?  No.

Let me ask you this....who does create jobs?  Do you have a right to a job?  If so, why?  Do I have a right to a portion of what you earn, based on how much I want of it?

IF YOU OUTSOURCE JOBS TO CHINA, INDIA ET AL, YE SHOULD BE FORCED TO LIVE THERE

YOU WANT ALL THE PROTECTION AND SECURITY OF AMERIKA ,WHILST EATING YER CAKE TOO

I'LL BET THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPS LIKE A ROCK

silentpadna, let me ask you this: Why would you want GE to pay taxes?  Why do you want to punish the job creators?  Let low-level employees (i.e. the people who DID NOT create any jobs, the leeches who are sucking at the teat of GE) pay taxes.

How's that?  Am I catching on?

I want GE to pay  taxes because I want whatever is fair compared to their competitors, not because I inherently want or don't want high taxes on business.  Because in reality, taxes, as a cost of doing business, are passed along to the customers.  No matter when in the procss they're levied.  You can call it corporate taxes all you want.  The earlier in the process the tax is, the less the consumer "sees" the tax, but it doesn't change the fact that the consumer pays it.  I don't look at people with jobs at these corporations as leeches.  They are providing value to the company for a price.  It's an exhchange of value.

You may have guessed that as a conservative, I am not a lock-stop card-carrying GOP shill.  However, I am certainly pro-business and the concept of raising taxes so that the "rich can pay their fair share" is abhorrent to me.  Why?  Not because I don't think they should pay their fair share.  They should.  It's mostly because no one can define what that is.  Then if they try, the policies they support end up causing the opposite of the very thing they supposedly support.  Why?  Well, the illustration of rates in the other thread relative to effort and investment should help to show that, but suffice to say that people are dynamic.  They'll adapt to the changes so they can compete.

Now, how about answering my questions?...

Your questions are distractions that have little to do with the article I posted, except to provide an example of the sort of cult thinking the author is referencing.  GE (or any other company, for that matter) didn't go into business to "create jobs."  You probably know that, but you paint corporations as some sort of patriotic saints who only set up shop to help out their fellow Americans.  Unfortunately, this notion clashes with reality when these corporations send all those jobs they "created" overseas as soon as they can get away with paying someone else less (and foreigners, to boot!).

And your angle of "I think corporations should pay their fair share, but gosh, no one can explain to my satisfaction what a fair share would be" is ingenious.

Should a company go into business to create jobs?   Or should they hope to make money?  

Jobs are a by-product.   Make it more profitable for a business to create jobs overseas then guess where the by-product will go.

What's the point of asking what companies "should" do?  I'm merely pointing out that it's incorrect to ascribe altruistic motives to them, ever. 

I'm merely pointing out that jobs are a by-product of why companies are created.    And when you make it tougher for them to acheive what they hope to accomplish, no one should be shocked when the by-product distribution changes.