And because of losses in the US, they paid no taxes for 2009.

"GE had plenty of earnings last year — just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company’s U.S. operations lost 8 million, while its international businesses netted a .8 billion profit.

That left GE (GE, Fortune 500) with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax. Corporations typically face a 35% federal income tax on their earnings. Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of .1 billion back into its reported earnings."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2

Regarding the GE Bailout: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009062803183

A government health insurance plan sounds nice and pretty, but when you consider a little bit of history concerning the government and its regulation of the private insurance market and consider basic economics it’s pretty darn clear that as time goes on more and more people will be forced into government run plans.

First, the lie that the government wishes to just "compete" with private insurers is complete BOGUS. The federal (and state governments) already heavily regulate the private insurance market. Over the years governments (both state and federal) have required insurers to cover more and more procedures, many which have nothing to do with health thereby forcing customers to shell out more money instead of just simply allowing consumers to customize their plan….you know kinda like how you do with other insurance.

Also doctors spend around 30 billion per year (according to CNN) on malpractice insurance. So if we could have some tort reform of some sort to reduce law suit abuse.

But the point I REALLY try to make to people is this….Private insurance companies need to at least break even to keep themselves in business. Government does not. Government can afford to operate at a loss because it has an endless supply of tax revenue and the ability to borrow money from sales of bonds or by monetizing the debt with the Federal Reserve. Now ask yourself this….if you were a business of some sort, and you were competing against someone who could afford to operate at a loss indefinitely don’t you think you would have a hard time competing against them? They could afford to continually undercut you (at their loss) and eventually put you out of business. So as you can see the government is NOT competing against private insurers in a FREE market because
1) they regulate their competitors already and 2) they can afford to lose as much money as they want since they do not need to make a profit or even break even to stay in business.

Now some people would say that as long as they can afford to give people cheap medical care then it shouldn’t really matter if they operate at a loss….Well ok, but there is one problem with that and that is supply

If the government sets prices artificially low then their will be an increase in demand for those services. The system will not be able to handle everybody in a timely manner which will lead to long waits and rationing. Now to be clear there already is rationing today just as their is rationing of every product and service we buy….the rationing factor is the price. There are ways to lower the price using Free market solutions instead of the heavy coercive hand of government such as:

Tax deductions for health savings accounts that can be used towards deductibles or insurance premiums, tort reform, allowing private insurance to compete in a free market unlike what it has endured over the years as increased government regulation has increased the price.

I’m starting to ramble, but the main point I wanted to put out for debate is that government is NOT competing against private insurers because it is government that is setting the terms of competition and not the market and also the government can afford to operate at a loss while private insurers can’t. Talk about a monopoly!

Please if all you can say is a bunch of rude or ignorant things then please don’t comment.

Obama:
Will cut taxes but when it expires, average US family will pay ,500 more in taxes. (CNN and MSNBC never makes it known)

The Child Tax Credit will decrease from ,000 to 0 a child

Income tax rates would rise around 3%-4.5%

AMT-Exemptions will decrease ,500 per filer

Business tax expenses- Maximum deduction amount will decrease ,000,from 0,000 to ,000

Capital Gains- Rates will rise 10%-20%

Income tax burden-will raise about 5% for many workers

Marriage penalty created

Dividends-rates to increase from 15% to 40%

50% average increased tax rates on lower income houses

He may not raise taxes on average American, but by allowing tax cuts to expire, will raise household expenses on an average family.

MCCAIN:

Wi make the Bush tax-cut permanent. And will add additional tax cuts for middle-class Americans.

Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security – a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every workers.

To all those who believe that Obamwill "never" raise taxes but rather will cut taxes- Yes he will cut our taxes but when his tax cut plan has expires, we will pay for higher taxes than we pay now..

HENCE, his plan of cutting taxes is just a POLITICAL STRATEGY and not a real rescur for every American families.

MCCAIN’s tax cut policy is permanent, and perhaps the biggest tax cut in history as Alan Greenspan says.

-from an ECONOMICS student.