[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What are the ways that are less accessible to most people?

What Romney's plan does is maintain the 15% rate for everyone above an annual income of $200k at which time the rate drops to 0%; making it more accessible. It's stimulus, but instead of printing it or borrowing it, you just loosen people's grip on it. Never before have we had a better climate for the average Joe to jump on board and begin investing over and above his 401k. Granted, this does not appeal to the defeatist or the pessimist, but then I'm not sure any truly worthy policy ever could.

I think we've tried trickle-down government, it's not working. It's an expensive money-laundering operation that leaves us, too often unwittingly; on the hook for growing bureaucratic slop. We need something that resembles more, drawing-out.

[OAW]

Code:
Distribution of Federal Capital Gains Taxes in 2005

Income Group   Income Range                Average Income    Average Capital Gain / %  Average Capital Gain Tax/  %  
Lowest 20%      Less than $16,000         $ 10,800                     $ 39 / 0.2%                                  $0 / 0%
Second 20%     $16,000 – 28,000              22,100                        94 / 0.6%                                    2 / 0.1%
Middle 20%       $28,000 – 46,000              36,200                     176 / 1.1%                                    8 / 0.3%
Fourth 20%       $46,000 – 77,000              59,600                      579 / 3.5%                                 53 / 2.1%
Next 10%          $77,000 – 110,000            91,100                    1,460 / 4.4%                             158 / 3.2%
Next 5%            $77,000 – 110,000          129,000                    3,619 / 5.4%                             474 / 4.8%
Next 4%            $110,000 – 154,000         222,000                 12,338 / 14.8%                       2,095 / 16.9%
Top 1%              $154,000 – 396,000     1,241,000               232,824 / 69.9%                    35,956 / 72.6%
ALL                     $396,000 or more            $ 61,600                $ 3,285 / 100%                      $ 488 / 100%

Note: Capital gains are the profits from selling stocks, investment real estate, etc. Only “long-term capital gains" 
(those eligible for special low tax rates) and taxes thereon are shown in the table. Averages are for all taxpayers 
in each group.
Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, March 2006

Who Pays Capital Gains Taxes? - Citizens for Tax Justice

Sorry for the crappy formatting ... I wish there was an easy way to post tabular data. The link itself shows the same info. As you can see the numbers don't lie. Capital Gains taxes are primarily paid by the wealthy. The fact that Capital Gains income is taxed at a lower rate than Wage income primarily benefits the wealthy. It was my understanding that Romney's tax policy would eliminate Capital Gains taxes altogether. But even if it is only for those making less than $200K .... you're only talking about 27% of such taxes paid. And this is sound policy how exactly? How many jobs are going to be created with a $250 gain that's not subject to tax?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Okay, we'll start by citing the difference between short-term and long-term capital gains. Why? Because your table clearly indicates that it is only reflecting long-term capital gains which of course are enjoyed by a greater portion of "rich" people. They can go without their realized gain for longer periods of time than can a person with less income overall. Longer term investments require a little more fiscal discipline, a little more of an actual investment in a stable business model for example (requires more homework -- the Buffet way), are generally more of a gamble in terms of amount invested, show generally lower rates of return, but are not as vulnerable to market whimsy and/or hysteria. This is why the tax code favors them so heavily. The more you do this as an investor in an economy of bail-outs, the less the government will be expected to. Short-term capital gains, when the gains are realized; are taxable at your income tax rate subject to both Federal and State income taxes up to 40% which hits those not able to leave their money around as long resulting in a disproportionately high price for their investment. What Romney is proposing (and Ryan) is simplifying the tax code to lower them for the rest of us. Remember as tempting as this might be for you, Romney is running for President, not Ryan.

Again, it's stimulus. We can take dollars, print dollars, borrow dollars, or we can simply free up dollars. All with the exception of the last item, require greater bureaucracy and/or money-manipulation. I think right now the best option will be to simply free it up and stimulate the economy in a much more organic fashion. Of course to your point, this alone isn't going to fix anything, but then... I don't think anyone is suggesting it would. If the figures are paltry in your opinion, logic would follow they're paltry as a source of Federal revenue as well.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why does Mitt Romney's dad feel that it was important for all presidential candidates to release at least 10 years of tax returns?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why did Mitt Romney feel that it was important for Ted Kennedy to release his tax returns when Mitt Romney was running against him?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why did Mitt Romney feel that it was important for Shannon O'Brien and her husband to release their tax returns when Mitt Romney was running against her?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why did Mitt Romney lie on his tax returns and had to retroactively change it?
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/08/08/romney-hid-his-returns-in-2002-mass-governors-race-too/

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I feel the same way. Never care about 'em. Not then... not now. The only reason I bring them up is to demonstrate hypocrisy and/or how unimportant they really are in the scheme of things. i.e. if someone is accused of being out of touch because of their income, show me the accusors'. Romney's not the one indicting success here.

you are bringing this topic up to demonstrate hypocrisy, yet you totally ignore these questions hyteckit brings up. if it was important to Romney in another campaign why is it so hard for you to see the hypocrisy of his refusal to release them now?


this is also worth repeating:

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

To me, here's the intelligence question: In what world do you run for the nomination on '08, lose, get rejected as a VP pick, perhaps because of your 23 years of tax records, decide you'll run again in 4 years and think, "You know what? I'm going to pay the bare minimum of taxes for the next three years leading up to the next nomination where if I win I'll be expected to release several years of statements, a tradition my father started."?

it's this blatant hypocrisy that irks people about Romney.

it's also worth wondering why it was so important for certain individuals to see BO's long form birth certificate. Answer: they were looking for some potential fraud on BO's part. well, that's exactly why people want to see Romney's tax returns. This is tit for tat. Romney was vetted, McCain took one look at his returns and went with Sarah Palin. Again, why is it so hard to understand WHY people, the public, want to see these returns for someone that may be the most powerful man on Earth?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, we'll start by citing the difference between short-term and long-term capital gains.

I realize that my friend.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why? Because your table clearly indicates that it is only reflecting long-term capital gains which of course are enjoyed by a greater portion of "rich" people.

As usual, you are one of the few on the right who will acknowledge the obvious. Sometimes with a little prodding.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

They can go without their realized gain for longer periods of time than can a person with less income overall. Longer term investments require a little more fiscal discipline, a little more of an actual investment in a stable business model for example (requires more homework -- the Buffet way), are generally more of a gamble in terms of amount invested, show generally lower rates of return, but are not as vulnerable to market whimsy and/or hysteria. This is why the tax code favors them so heavily.

While I don't disagree with your reasoning here I do disagree with the conclusion you reached because of it. I'd argue that long-term capital gains are favored so heavily in the tax code because the people who primarily benefit from them ... aka the 1% ... control the lobbyists who dictate such favorable tax policy to Congress. IOW ... follow the money.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Short-term capital gains, when the gains are realized; are taxable at your income tax rate subject to both Federal and State income taxes up to 40% which hits those not able to leave their money around as long resulting in a disproportionately high price for their investment. What Romney is proposing (and Ryan) is simplifying the tax code to lower them for the rest of us. Remember as tempting as this might be for you, Romney is running for President, not Ryan.

It was my understanding that the Romney plan was to lower than rate on long-term capital gains to 0% for those making less thank $200K. And leaving them at 15% for those making more than that. It seems like what you are saying here is that the Romney plan is actually to make the rates on short-term capital gains the same as they currently are for long-term capital gains? Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Again, it's stimulus. We can take dollars, print dollars, borrow dollars, or we can simply free up dollars. All with the exception of the last item, require greater bureaucracy and/or money-manipulation. I think right now the best option will be to simply free it up and stimulate the economy in a much more organic fashion. Of course to your point, this alone isn't going to fix anything, but then... I don't think anyone is suggesting it would. If the figures are paltry in your opinion, logic would follow they're paltry as a source of Federal revenue as well.

The effectiveness of such a policy would be marginal at best. As you seem to be acknowledging in a roundabout fashion, the problem with the economy now is not a lack of capital but a lack of demand. Which will likely stay that way until the underlying cause ... i.e. the housing crisis ... is resolved. Consumers aren't going to spend more when they are underwater in their mortgage or facing foreclosure. Consumers who are barely making ends meet due to unemployment/underemployment aren't going to suddenly become day traders or short-term stock flippers just because the the capital gains tax rates are lowered. Why? Because they are typically not in a financial position to do so. This is the fundamental issue I have with supply side economic theory. It simply puts the cart before the horse. Demand drives the economy. It is the cause in a capitalistic economy ... everything else is an effect. And that demand is simply not going to be there unless we have an economic policy that is organized around a principle of generating well-paying jobs in America ... even for people without a college degree. As opposed to generating jobs wherever labor is the cheapest and regulations are most lax ... which is how guys like Romney get down.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

you are bringing this topic up to demonstrate hypocrisy, yet you totally ignore these questions hyteckit brings up. if it was important to Romney in another campaign why is it so hard for you to see the hypocrisy of his refusal to release them now?

These are all very fair questions abbaZaba. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm comparing Romney to Obama here and when I talk about voting for Romney I use phrases like "plug my nose" and "lesser of two evils". And also don't assume because I'm not responding to hyteckit that I believe Romney is as clean as the driven snow. I often ignore hyteckit.

The hypocrisy I'm citing is the degree of disassociation necessary to overlook the character flaws currently on display in the White House. My argument with regard to the tax return hype is that it's an act of desperation and as I recall, Romney was behind in that race against Kennedy in 94 and lost it. Hence, my point. They didn't matter then and they don't matter now although it might be fun to peruse all their arguments in defense of Kennedy at the time.

this is also worth repeating:
it's this blatant hypocrisy that irks people about Romney.

Perfectly understandable, but then this ire might be suffering a little myopia. There's enough Obama-hypocrisy to make your head spin clean off your neck; I'm guessing you're pulling the lever for Ghandi?

it's also worth wondering why it was so important for certain individuals to see BO's long form birth certificate. Answer: they were looking for some potential fraud on BO's part. well, that's exactly why people want to see Romney's tax returns. This is tit for tat.

More like sh!t for tat IMO, but at least you're offering up what this whole thing is about. The list of those clamoring for BO's birth certificate (starting with the Clinton campaign) was actually quite short, but also born of desperation and ultimately failed. Notwithstanding the fact that the only body truly capable of adjudicating whether or not fraud has occurred maintains every single last one of Romney's tax returns. The tax returns don't matter abbaZaba.

Romney was vetted, McCain took one look at his returns and went with Sarah Palin.

Pure speculation and in conflict with the only evidence available.

Again, why is it so hard to understand WHY people, the public, want to see these returns for someone that may be the most powerful man on Earth?

What do the public generally have to say about them? What did they say when they looked at George W's, Clinton's, Carter's, Nixon's? They don't matter. The ones most interested in them are playing, as you say, tit-for-tat. Like I've said before; knowing what the Obama campaign can make of a company that employed a man who's unfortunate wife passed in spite of her own insurance 7 years after Romney left the company, imagine what they can do with an account full of Romney's money in the Cayman Islands. There are other things I'd rather they discuss as two candidates running for the highest office in the land. In the meantime, folks would be better served reading up on the incredible abuses of the public trust already going on with their tax dollars.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I realize that my friend.
As usual, you are one of the few on the right who will acknowledge the obvious. Sometimes with a little prodding.

Prodding? I've never denied this. I just don't think there's any reason to demonize it.

While I don't disagree with your reasoning here I do disagree with the conclusion you reached because of it. I'd argue that long-term capital gains are favored so heavily in the tax code because the people who primarily benefit from them ... aka the 1% ... control the lobbyists who dictate such favorable tax policy to Congress. IOW ... follow the money.

I'd argue that it's more "follow the win-win scenario". Money only motivates as long as it takes to spend it. There needs to be a more longterm relationship and that is developed through regulation and lop-sided tax policy. The more your government wants to do for you, the more beholden it is to the Big Corporate interest that has the means of helping the government realize its agenda be it the health insurer, the pharmaceutical, or the multinational energy conglomerate. Cuts should not be targeted favorably in this way. IMO the only means of leveling the playing field in an organic way is to remove the loopholes. This actually makes the tax code more easy to comply with and predictable to budget around. While this invariably raises rates, it eliminates a great deal of administrative burden on both the corporation and the government and enables lower rates for those with less. To be clear, this alone does not solve our economic woes and I hope folks realize no one is suggesting this.

It was my understanding that the Romney plan was to lower than rate on long-term capital gains to 0% for those making less thank $200K. And leaving them at 15% for those making more than that. It seems like what you are saying here is that the Romney plan is actually to make the rates on short-term capital gains the same as they currently are for long-term capital gains? Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words.

It's my understanding that the plan is intended to simplify capital gains taxes by maintaining current rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains while just eliminating the tax for those with an income below $200k.

The effectiveness of such a policy would be marginal at best. As you seem to be acknowledging in a roundabout fashion, the problem with the economy now is not a lack of capital but a lack of demand. Which will likely stay that way until the underlying cause ... i.e. the housing crisis ... is resolved. Consumers aren't going to spend more when they are underwater in their mortgage or facing foreclosure.

I agree that the problem isn't a lack of capital, but I disagree that it's about demand. I think it's about consumer confidence and while folks' homes are part of that equation, I think it has much more to do with the rumors of their employers hedging against market uncertainty and looking around them to see 1 in 6 either underemployed or unemployed. They're looking directly at the ones creating their jobs and the looks on their faces are not that of certainty and hope. Folks have no problem spending money on things they want, but nothing about their financial future is predictable right now. They're holding. The housing crisis is a symptom IMO. Any policy perceived as "socking it to the rich" will create resentment and more distrust between the business community and this administration. I think it's already too late for Obama in this.

Consumers who are barely making ends meet due to unemployment/underemployment aren't going to suddenly become day traders or short-term stock flippers just because the the capital gains tax rates are lowered.

Master of the obvious right? People who are barely making ends meet aren't consumers anyway. Taxing rich people isn't going to do a blasted thing for people barely making ends meet.

Why? Because they are typically not in a financial position to do so.This is the fundamental issue I have with supply side economic theory. It simply puts the cart before the horse. Demand drives the economy. It is the cause in a capitalistic economy ... everything else is an effect. And that demand is simply not going to be there unless we have an economic policy that is organized around a principle of generating well-paying jobs in America ... even for people without a college degree. As opposed to generating jobs wherever labor is the cheapest and regulations are most lax ... which is how guys like Romney get down.
OAW

Please. Just because Obama and Romney aren't bumpin' one another doesn't mean their not both getting down. Obama's no stranger to investing money overseas and it's not Romney's fault your preferred broker sucks so bad. There's no reason the rich should be bullied and guilted into expressing their altruism through a centralized authority that squanders their resource. I have yet to hear how one maintains a system that alienates the very prosperity it depends on to drive the engine. It's a mistake that leads to broken promises time after time.

The engine of jobs in America already exists. Well-paying jobs sounds great on paper, but entirely subjective and if not managed effectively can quickly become unsustainable. A model that doesn't even attempt to manage this phenomena is lame. You need policy directed toward the root cause of the problem, not toward the symptoms of its folly.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's no reason the rich should be bullied and guilted into expressing their altruism through a centralized authority that squanders their resource.

National defense is where this gets tripped up for me. Support for defense is not altruistic, and is negatively impacted by one's unwillingness to pay into the kitty.

[besson3c]

With regards to the comment of ebuddy's that subego quoted, ebuddy, do you think that government is universally unfixable, or simply unfixable in this country?

The sticking point with much of these sorts of conversations seems to be with your belief that the usefulness of government should be conceded because its upside will perpetually be limited to making it not useful and thus dysfunctional. Is this accurate?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

With regards to the comment of ebuddy's that subego quoted, ebuddy, do you think that government is universally unfixable, or simply unfixable in this country?

The sticking point with much of these sorts of conversations seems to be with your belief that the usefulness of government should be conceded because its upside will perpetually be limited to making it not useful and thus dysfunctional. Is this accurate?

I believe the size of government needs to be constrained for its longterm manageability and for the economic health of the governed. There are no problems occurring in the US right now that are not happening virtually everywhere and they all point back to promises made by a centralized authority that cannot possibly be met longterm.

Regarding subego's statement; agreed. The problem is, by managing your budget to the last penny and eventually well beyond, you have no ability to cope with special causes like a necessary war, a disaster, etc... Most will not challenge the necessity of a well-endowed military, particularly those in the upper quintile incomes and/or the ones buying up US bonds as the most direct investment one can make in their country. Remember, we're not talking about the difference between communism and anarchy here. At least, I hope we're not.

[subego]

I don't disagree with you, but I still don't see how if I'm supposed to be paying, say, 15%, and I end up paying 3%, that I'm not giving the military the shaft.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

With regards to the comment of ebuddy's that subego quoted, ebuddy, do you think that government is universally unfixable, or simply unfixable in this country?

The sticking point with much of these sorts of conversations seems to be with your belief that the usefulness of government should be conceded because its upside will perpetually be limited to making it not useful and thus dysfunctional. Is this accurate?

This is what I've been telling you. We need someone who can fix this huge organization called 'the Federal Government' and we have perhaps THE PERFECT CHOICE for the job.

Mitt Romney has turned around businesses, small and large. He turned what was going to be a disaster of an Olympics into a resounding success.

And he's been willing to go through this draining arduous election process in order to TRY to convince the American people that he deserves the chance to take on this herculean task.

Sometimes I think we don't deserve such a great man but here we are with a chance to employ him to turn our country around.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

This is what I've been telling you. We need someone who can fix this huge organization called 'the Federal Government' and we have perhaps THE PERFECT CHOICE for the job.
Mitt Romney has turned around businesses, small and large. He turned what was going to be a disaster of an Olympics into a resounding success.
And he's been willing to go through this draining arduous election process in order to TRY to convince the American people that he deserves the chance to take on this herculean task.
Sometimes I think we don't deserve such a great man but here we are with a chance to employ him to turn our country around.

Romney's credentials or lack thereof are irrelevant though, so long as the rest of congress is uninterested in being productive.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd argue that it's more "follow the win-win scenario". Money only motivates as long as it takes to spend it. There needs to be a more longterm relationship and that is developed through regulation and lop-sided tax policy. The more your government wants to do for you, the more beholden it is to the Big Corporate interest that has the means of helping the government realize its agenda be it the health insurer, the pharmaceutical, or the multinational energy conglomerate. Cuts should not be targeted favorably in this way. IMO the only means of leveling the playing field in an organic way is to remove the loopholes. This actually makes the tax code more easy to comply with and predictable to budget around. While this invariably raises rates, it eliminates a great deal of administrative burden on both the corporation and the government and enables lower rates for those with less. To be clear, this alone does not solve our economic woes and I hope folks realize no one is suggesting this.

I don't disagree with this at all.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It's my understanding that the plan is intended to simplify capital gains taxes by maintaining current rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains while just eliminating the tax for those with an income below $200k.

Ok well I'm going by your words here. You said "simplify capital gains taxes". You didn't not differentiate between short-term and long-term so my response her presumes that was intentional. If that is the case then the effect of that would be to create a situation where investors would no longer have to consider taxation on such transactions at all ... because it wouldn't exist at the federal level ... as long as their overall income doesn't exceed 200K. I still don't see how that will have a significant effect in jump starting the economy because as the chart above shows ... the vast majority of the people who would qualify don't generate much capital gains income anyway.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I agree that the problem isn't a lack of capital, but I disagree that it's about demand. I think it's about consumer confidence and while folks' homes are part of that equation, I think it has much more to do with the rumors of their employers hedging against market uncertainty and looking around them to see 1 in 6 either underemployed or unemployed. They're looking directly at the ones creating their jobs and the looks on their faces are not that of certainty and hope. Folks have no problem spending money on things they want, but nothing about their financial future is predictable right now. They're holding. The housing crisis is a symptom IMO.

I don't particular disagree here. I'll just quibble a bit and say that demand is a function of consumer confidence. They pretty rise and fall together.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Master of the obvious right? People who are barely making ends meet aren't consumers anyway. Taxing rich people isn't going to do a blasted thing for people barely making ends meet.
Please. Just because Obama and Romney aren't bumpin' one another doesn't mean their not both getting down. Obama's no stranger to investing money overseas and it's not Romney's fault your preferred broker sucks so bad. There's no reason the rich should be bullied and guilted into expressing their altruism through a centralized authority that squanders their resource. I have yet to hear how one maintains a system that alienates the very prosperity it depends on to drive the engine. It's a mistake that leads to broken promises time after time.
The engine of jobs in America already exists. Well-paying jobs sounds great on paper, but entirely subjective and if not managed effectively can quickly become unsustainable. A model that doesn't even attempt to manage this phenomena is lame. You need policy directed toward the root cause of the problem, not toward the symptoms of its folly.

For me it's not about "taxing rich people". It's about a taxation policy that's fair and equitable. We have a progressive income tax system. As a society we seem to have settled on that. As a center-left guy that's cool with me. Then again, I'd be cool with flatter or even a flat tax system as well. AS LONG AS all income is treated the same. A dollar earned is a dollar earned is a dollar earned. Why should a player like Kobe Bryant get taxed a double the rate of an owner like Jerry Buss? Why should a heart surgeon who makes a million dollars a year get taxed at double the rate of a guy who makes a million a year trading stocks? I can certainly see an argument in providing more favorable tax treatment for earnings derived from venture capital investments. That would encourage entrepreneurship and business development. But definitely not for for Bain Capital, Gordon Gekko-esque style vulture capitalism.

OAW

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Romney's credentials or lack thereof are irrelevant though, so long as the rest of congress is uninterested in being productive.

Do you say that after having looked at the Congressional and Senatorial races? If the GOP was able to get a majority, then The Romney Administration will have all it needs. You'll see business efficiency put to a governmental application. He'll have, roughly, until July of 2013 to have put the necessary changes in place. If not, the Obama loyalists will begin to attack. That's not much time, but I think he said that's his plan...to act swiftly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Do you say that after having looked at the Congressional and Senatorial races? If the GOP was able to get a majority, then The Romney Administration will have all it needs. You'll see business efficiency put to a governmental application. He'll have, roughly, until July of 2013 to have put the necessary changes in place. If not, the Obama loyalists will begin to attack. That's not much time, but I think he said that's his plan...to act swiftly.

That's what the Obama administration thought back in 2008.

The problem is, all this does is makes it easier to push through one set of projects which may be partially driven by corruption without actually dealing with the corruption - same shit, different pile. For example, there is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts have done more except drive up the deficit, but they persist. Even if you disagree with this premise, shouldn't something that is objectively an important part of the debt be something worthy of regular debate? All options on the table? Instead, policies exist like this because politicians are clear benefactors.

If Obamacare is so yucky and horrible, why isn't there a national conversation about how to best replace it? As ebuddy has pointed out, there have been Republican ideas submitted, so I no longer see this as a partisan problem, I see it as enough politicians benefitting or at least not losing out with the way things currently are as to not give this issue the urgency it so desperately needs being the number one contributor to our debt. Unlike the Bush tax cuts (in case you weren't with me on that), few people seem to agree that what we have now is ideal, yet it persists... Why is that?

Until you can put the needs of ordinary people above the desires of the elite (in both parties), all this would be doing is swapping turd piles. Maybe a brand new turd pile is exciting to some people, but I'm damn tired of it. If we can't do away with turd piles, it will be extremely hard for me to get excited about the prospects of a new president the way you are.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's what the Obama administration thought back in 2008.

The problem is, all this does is makes it easier to push through one set of projects which may be partially driven by corruption without actually dealing with the corruption - same shit, different pile. For example, there is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts have done more except drive up the deficit, but they persist. Even if you disagree with this premise, shouldn't something that is objectively an important part of the debt be something worthy of regular debate? All options on the table? Instead, policies exist like this because politicians are clear benefactors.

If Obamacare is so yucky and horrible, why isn't there a national conversation about how to best replace it? As ebuddy has pointed out, there have been Republican ideas submitted, so I no longer see this as a partisan problem, I see it as enough politicians benefitting or at least not losing out with the way things currently are as to not give this issue the urgency it so desperately needs being the number one contributor to our debt. Unlike the Bush tax cuts (in case you weren't with me on that), few people seem to agree that what we have now is ideal, yet it persists... Why is that?

Until you can put the needs of ordinary people above the desires of the elite (in both parties), all this would be doing is swapping turd piles. Maybe a brand new turd pile is exciting to some people, but I'm damn tired of it. If we can't do away with turd piles, it will be extremely hard for me to get excited about the prospects of a new president the way you are.

You are a MEDIA SLAVE and Obama/Biden has y'all back in chains.

You think what you've heard about Romney is true. It isn't.

You thought what Obama told you in 08 was the truth. It wasn't.

You believed Obama had the experience and skill to make good on his promises... (Even if he meant what he said on the campaign trail, which, in some cases, he didn't.)...he didn't.

Last night on NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams, the entire hour-long show explored the Mormon religion. They did a very good job of it. I was pleasantly surprised. When you know what Mitt had to go through on his two year mission...what every missionary goes through, you'd know he's nothing like the cartoonish stereotype that Obama and the MSM are trying to portray him as being. He knows the needs of the people, the 'little people,' very well having been a Bishop in his church.

As far as having a national dialogue on Obamacare, pay attention between now and Nov. 6. That will be all the discussing we're likely to get.

One of these days you will wake upto the fact that the "Hope and Change" that Obama promised you wasn't possible because hevdidn't have the skill and experience. The 'Hope and Change' he promised in '08 was unlikely to be the kind of change we really wanted or the kind America needed was because he was vague, in some cases, and because he was telling us the truth but we failed to comprehend what he really meant because we had so little knowledge of him or his political and societal orientation.

The H & C that BO promised and that we all hoped for is, ironically, onlynpossible from someone with Mitt Romney's experience.

Obama never managed a large organization. Never had to balance a budget. Never acted as an executive.

Only crazy people could think BO would be able to do what he promised with his meager experience.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

You are a MEDIA SLAVE and Obama/Biden has y'all back in chains.
You think what you've heard about Romney is true. It isn't.
You thought what Obama told you in 08 was the truth. It wasn't.
You believed Obama had the experience and skill to make good on his promises... (Even if he meant what he said on the campaign trail, which, in some cases, he didn't.)...he didn't.
Last night on NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams, the entire hour-long show explored the Mormon religion. They did a very good job of it. I was pleasantly surprised. When you know what Mitt had to go through on his two year mission...what every missionary goes through, you'd know he's nothing like the cartoonish stereotype that Obama and the MSM are trying to portray him as being. He knows the needs of the people, the 'little people,' very well having been a Bishop in his church.
As far as having a national dialogue on Obamacare, pay attention between now and Nov. 6. That will be all the discussing we're likely to get.
One of these days you will wake upto the fact that the "Hope and Change" that Obama promised you wasn't possible because hevdidn't have the skill and experience. The 'Hope and Change' he promised in '08 was unlikely to be the kind of change we really wanted or the kind America needed was because he was vague, in some cases, and because he was telling us the truth but we failed to comprehend what he really meant because we had so little knowledge of him or his political and societal orientation.
The H & C that BO promised and that we all hoped for is, ironically, onlynpossible from someone with Mitt Romney's experience.
Obama never managed a large organization. Never had to balance a budget. Never acted as an executive.
Only crazy people could think BO would be able to do what he promised with his meager experience.

So, did Obama change nothing, or too much? Why does what I wrote warrant you coming to Romney's defense? Did you actually read what I wrote?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, did Obama change nothing, or too much? Why does what I wrote warrant you coming to Romney's defense? Did you actually read what I wrote?

I read your face!

How was that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

I read your face!
How was that?

Not bad, although I would have went with "I read your butt", because not everything has to involve faces.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not bad, although I would have went with "I read your butt", because not everything has to involve faces.

In these matters I will yield to your judgment.

And to your elbow.

Better?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

In these matters I will yield to your judgment.
And to your elbow.
Better?

What I really want to know is what the deal with Obama's college transcripts is?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I really want to know is what the deal with Obama's college transcripts is?

His college years are very sketchy. Some of his classmates don't even remember him being there at the times he said he was. We don't know anything about his grades. On what basis was he accepted into an Ivy League school like Columbia...and then Harvard? How did he pay for school? How did he become the first Black President of the Harvard Law Review? Why didn't he write a single article for the review? Was he admitted to the colleges he says he attended on a student Visa? From what nation?

Why are all of these things STILL undefinded after all these years?

One thing I can guess is that Obama's dogged nagging about Romney's tax returns is a pre-emptive attack. One which would mirror the same kind of wrangling and result in the same kind of impasse as an attempt to get to the bottom of Obama's sketchy history. And that might explain why BO did it. To head off a similar attack from his opponent as well as to shift the blame from his own miserable record since his 2009 inauguration.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Was he admitted to the colleges he says he attended on a student Visa? From what nation?

Can you please make sense of this for me, I don't understand this. Do you think his Mom wasn't American?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can you please make sense of this for me, I don't understand this. Do you think his Mom wasn't American?

You will understand better when the truth comes out. Ask Obama the questions you posed, not moi.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

You will understand better when the truth comes out. Ask Obama the questions you posed, not moi.

Why would I ask Obama a complete nonsense question?

Either Obama's Mom is American or she isn't. If she is, he wouldn't have needed a student VISA. Which is it, was Obama's Mom American or was she not?

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would I ask Obama a complete nonsense question?

Either Obama's Mom is American or she isn't. If she is, he wouldn't have needed a student VISA. Which is it, was Obama's Mom American or was she not?

Uh, let me think about it and I'll get back to you.

Don't call us, we'll call you.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why would I ask Obama a complete nonsense question?

Either Obama's Mom is American or she isn't. If she is, he wouldn't have needed a student VISA. Which is it, was Obama's Mom American or was she not?

Could be the Indonesian thing. Ann Dunham did move to Indonesia when she married her second husband. The First Sister was born there. The question should be, did she and her son renounce their US citizenship for Indonesian citezenship?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Could be the Indonesian thing. Ann Dunham did move to Indonesia when she married her second husband. The First Sister was born there. The question should be, did she and her son renounce their US citizenship for Indonesian citezenship?

The whole idea is completely irrelevant, because Obama would have had to have been 18 years old to renounce his US citizenship, and there are other ways to live in a foreign country other than obtaining citizenship anyway (VISAs, residency application, etc.)

Keep throwing that spaghetti at the wall.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

You will understand better when the truth comes out. Ask Obama the questions you posed, not moi.

How do you mean "when the truth comes out"? Is there some sort of damnable evidence in the offing and from a source that isn't responsible for a host of whoppers?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok well I'm going by your words here. You said "simplify capital gains taxes". You didn't not differentiate between short-term and long-term so my response her presumes that was intentional. If that is the case then the effect of that would be to create a situation where investors would no longer have to consider taxation on such transactions at all ... because it wouldn't exist at the federal level ... as long as their overall income doesn't exceed 200K. I still don't see how that will have a significant effect in jump starting the economy because as the chart above shows ... the vast majority of the people who would qualify don't generate much capital gains income anyway.

That's beside the point, we're talking about encouraging investment.

The IRS Statistics On Income reports that 25.4 million tax returns included qualified dividends in 2009, representing $123.6 billion of qualified dividends. The tax returns with qualified dividends have the following profile:

• 63 percent are from taxpayers age 50 and older
• 32 percent are from taxpayers age 65 and older
• 68 percent are from returns with incomes less than $100,000
• 40 percent are from returns with incomes less than $50,000.

For me it's not about "taxing rich people". It's about a taxation policy that's fair and equitable. We have a progressive income tax system. As a society we seem to have settled on that.

Right and of course capital gains taxes are no different.

As a center-left guy that's cool with me. Then again, I'd be cool with flatter or even a flat tax system as well. AS LONG AS all income is treated the same. A dollar earned is a dollar earned is a dollar earned.

Why? Again, all income is not the same. A dollar earned is not a dollar earned is not... There are also dollars lost. You don't lose money at your job, you earn a wage. Investment is entirely different and subject to a great deal of loss. It takes a certain type of individual, under a certain favorable investment environment, to want to invest more of their money.

Why should a player like Kobe Bryant get taxed a double the rate of an owner like Jerry Buss? Why should a heart surgeon who makes a million dollars a year get taxed at double the rate of a guy who makes a million a year trading stocks?

Kobe Bryant doesn't own stock? Kobe Bryant can't purchase a team? What is Kobe scared of, losing money? What is keeping the heart surgeon from trading in stock?

I can certainly see an argument in providing more favorable tax treatment for earnings derived from venture capital investments. That would encourage entrepreneurship and business development. But definitely not for for Bain Capital, Gordon Gekko-esque style vulture capitalism. OAW

I think it's time to ditch the ad hom. Bain Capital certainly engaged venture capital investments that grew business, entrepreneurship, and development and just about anyone in an official capacity has acknowledged this, particularly Obama's donors from Bain and the numerous governors, mayors, and senators appreciative of the opportunities Bain has brought to their communities. Obama overstepped this one, got called to the carpet on it by several on his side of the aisle, and you're still just lapping it up here. This is what I mean by socking it to the rich. It's bad policy and it does nothing, but create resentment and bitterness between the business community who would love to have the Bains of the world invest in them; and the Obama administration.