actually there is. when businesses ship jobs overseas they are allowed to deduct the expenses associated with moving overseas. this means that taxpayers are paying for them to take their factories overseas.
That's a pretty ridiculous stretch. They also get a tax break to bring them home, and to move them to a different state. There are a lot of deductions in businesses that deal with expenses. Romney called out Obama on this one and Obama was speechless. That was a pretty interesting moment. The truth is, Obama figured he could coast to a small win or a tie at worst in the debates and damn near wrap this thing up. He wasn't prepared.
I'll take that as an admission by you that Obama is digging the hole deeper. Thanks for your honesty! I guess the DNC slogan should be..."Our guys sucks!...but not as bad as your guy."
It's not a ridiculous stretch. Imagine if you changed jobs and your new job was 1000 miles away. Does make any sense for your former employer to pay for your moving expenses? The answer is no. Essentially you are defending this: Plant X decides to move their plant and jobs overseas because of cheaper labor and operating costs. Fine, it's a business decision. Now, the part that get's ridiculous is that the plant then says, "Oh, and by the way, we want the tax payers - the very people we just terminated - to pay for us to move our equipment overseas. Romney had to abandon 80% of the ideas he has been espousing for the past 18 months in order to save his political hide. If you think Obama and his team do not have a strategy that included his passivity in the debate a few nights ago, then you are setting yourself up for a major crash of disappointment.
Oh, okay. Well, if you want to apply that reasoning then I guess you just admitted that the Republicans are planning to start digging at a rate that will make the democrats spending seem like child's play. The truth is that the country put the shovel down the day we elected Obama and started moving away from the policies that caused this economic crisis. In all seriousness, if you really believe that Obama is to blame for the financial mess we are in you have a very porous understanding of how economics work. Are you saying that things were rosy when he took office? Because we were losing jobs at a rate of 750,000 per month in the months leading up to his inauguration. Further, if anything Obama put a floor under the free fall by passing the stimulus because the summer after he was elected we started making positive job gains again.
Probably. Romney has spent the last year and a half on the campaign trail, doing nothing but campaigning. He has been on all the primary debates this year and knows his lines. He excelled in style, if not substance, which is all that matters in live television. The analysts are picking apart his numbers, though. Obama has been doing his job running the nation, which takes most of his time, and shoehorning in campaigning as the election draws near. He hasn't been in a debate in five years. He did so well in those that he was likely overconfident that he could wing it. He won't be caught napping next debate.
The taxpayers pay for you to pay the interest payment on your home. They pay for you to to give money to charity. There are thousands upon thousands of possible deductions. This particular deduction does not say that if you move jobs overseas, you get a deduction. It allows you to deduct moving expenses to relocate a plant no matter where you move it.
Another thing, I think people forget how good Romney is at debating. He was good in the first couple of republican debates but Rick Perry's IQ of 90 and presumptive arrogance just pissed him off and flustered him. On top of that, Gingrich could seize tiny moments to push Romney's buttons. Those two things made him perform poorly at the end of the nasty primaries. Romney does best against a guy like Obama who is intelligent and doesn't take cheap shots. Obama needs to mix it up and throw Romney off of his game to win the next debate.
