Business interests are putting more muscle behind a push to roll back U.S. financial regulations, with a major study just issued by a business lobbying group and some of Wall Street's top names gathering for a Treasury Department conference on the matter on Tuesday.

The conference being hosted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will include some of the nation's richest men, including multimillionaire Warren Buffett, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Executive Committee Chairman Robert Rubin and General Electric Co. (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

Reuters UK

Also Fannie & Fred's Anti-Regulation Lobby

Once again, flaw of big government. The different between economic self interest and politic self interest is the differce between a Hostess cup cake and a Little Debby cup cake. People who run for office want power, people who run corporations wants money, painful for your rights when the 2 meet.

Technically, its socialized profits, socialized losses. Corporations lose up to 39% of all profits to taxes.

Maybe someone can help me understand this tax bracket scheme though:

Taxable Income ($)...............Tax Rate
0 to 50,000...........................15%
50,000 to 75,000..................25%
75,000 to 100,000................34%
100,000 to 335,000..............39%
335,000 to 10,000,000.........34%
10,000,000 to 15,000,000....35%
15,000,000 to 18,333,333....38%
18,333,333 and up...............35%

>> ^imstellar28:
Technically, its socialized profits, socialized losses. Corporations lose up to 39% of all profits to taxes.

Right. You're really paying close attention, aren't you?

"With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all."

Source

But nobody ever said that conservatives like to keep informed.

If they did, they wouldn't be conservatives for long.

^rougy: sounds like a law enforcement problem--not a counter-argument to what im saying. besides, its been refuted:


"In fact, what the report shows is that only 25% of large U.S. corporations paid no corporate income tax in 2005. In 85% of those cases, the large corporation paid no income tax because it had zero or negative net income for 2005. No income, no income tax. For example, in a "clever tax dodge," American Airlines avoided income tax for 2005 by losing $862 million. General Motors lost $10.5 billion in 2005; I bet those greedy fat cats didn't pay any corporate income tax, either."


its hard to pay taxes on profit when the economy sucks so hard your business is tanking...


by the way...i don't know who you think you're calling a conservative.

>> ^imstellar28:
^rougy: sounds like a law enforcement problem--not a counter-argument to what im saying. besides, its been refuted:
"In fact, what the report shows is that only 25% of large U.S. corporations paid no corporate income tax in 2005. In 85% of those cases, the large corporation paid no income tax because it had zero or negative net income for 2005. No income, no income tax. For example, in a "clever tax dodge," American Airlines avoided income tax for 2005 by losing $862 million. General Motors lost $10.5 billion in 2005; I bet those greedy fat cats didn't pay any corporate income tax, either."


Really? And who refuted it? Who wrote that paragraph you provided?

Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Matt Drudge?

And your equating paying taxes with socialism is pathetic.

I'm calling you a conservative, because you're acting like one.

^you must live in a box if you think that people are either liberal or conservative. I don't watch tv, listen to the radio, or get my news from drudge report...so I don't know why you think I listen to, much less agree with those three characters.

What pays for socialism, if not taxes?

Clinton signed deregulation and "free trade" agreements that we're paying for now, especially FANNIE and FREDDIE regulations.

If I remember right, he wasn't a republican.

...and I didn't vote for him.