Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama to Business Owners: You didn't build that

Obama to Business Owners: You didn't build that (Page 5)
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
And for some reason they clean up in rural populations where there is generally considerably less wealth (and less education), go figure!
The reason is a stark lack of knowledge about how little the very rich actually pay. Once Rmoney's returns are public, the Obama administration can turn Mitt into an object lesson of the reality of America's tax unfairness. He will become a national whipping boy.

That's why he will be dumped from the ticket at the convention. The people who control the GOP know they cannot let this happen at any cost.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2012, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
4679/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
-t
Mitt Romney said he build it. The child slave labor only assembled it and deserves no credit.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2012, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The reason is a stark lack of knowledge about how little the very rich actually pay. Once Rmoney's returns are public, the Obama administration can turn Mitt into an object lesson of the reality of America's tax unfairness. He will become a national whipping boy.
That's why he will be dumped from the ticket at the convention. The people who control the GOP know they cannot let this happen at any cost.
Has Obama released his returns?

How about his cabinet? Several of whom have been involved with scandals for *gasp* not paying their taxes
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2012, 07:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
If I were in the Obama campaign, this would be the last issue I'd work about. The campaign ads write themselves:
They should run an ad like that in every district where a Republican voted dozens of times to repeal ACA, with the exact number in the ad.
This election will be a cakewalk for Obama.
Stored for claim chowder.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2012, 07:24 AM
 
Obama has released his returns:

http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2012, 07:34 AM
 
Forget the political message, the last frame is hilarious -

     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2012, 03:44 AM
 
That's a clever exposé except... it's missing a couple of things.

First, the government does not have a tool forgery for bread-making, neither did it build the mill, the gears, or any of the ovens. That's not what the government does. It's missing the lion. The lion paid the overwhelming majority of the total revenue required to have these things be it a bloated tax rate to pay the lion's share of the roads leading to the mill or the risk of his own capital in building a venture to produce bread and employ house pets and quacks.

It's also missing the Vietnam vet pig who never served, asking for bread. And what of the dog? Can we really believe the dog toiled over the mill without seeing his tax returns? The cat's a friggin' whiner who maintained the gears for about two years, quit when they asked her to work overtime at only time and a half, but now expects anything produced by those gears from now to perpetuity be due in part to her. Her calloused paws are from clawing at the sidewalk, hopped up on catnip.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2012, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Forget the political message

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That's a clever exposé except...
Reading FAIL
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2012, 05:45 AM
 
Possibly more of a HUMOR FAIL.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2012, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That's a clever exposé except... it's missing a couple of things.
First, the government does not have a tool forgery for bread-making, neither did it build the mill, the gears, or any of the ovens. That's not what the government does. It's missing the lion. The lion paid the overwhelming majority of the total revenue required to have these things be it a bloated tax rate to pay the lion's share of the roads leading to the mill or the risk of his own capital in building a venture to produce bread and employ house pets and quacks.
It's also missing the Vietnam vet pig who never served, asking for bread. And what of the dog? Can we really believe the dog toiled over the mill without seeing his tax returns? The cat's a friggin' whiner who maintained the gears for about two years, quit when they asked her to work overtime at only time and a half, but now expects anything produced by those gears from now to perpetuity be due in part to her. Her calloused paws are from clawing at the sidewalk, hopped up on catnip.
Yeah, pretty sad.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Id tend to agree. But we haven't really cut taxes have we? Not letting tax cuts expire is touted as a tax cut in itself. Simply keeping things the same as they are with regards to tax rates will not have any impact on the economy except for "continuing the trend." More in a second.
Umm, what Bush passed in 2000 were tax cuts. DId that have some miraculous effect on the economy? But your last point about "continuing" tax rates strikes upon another point I was going to make.

You can only cut taxes for so long until you hit zero. Logically, you need to raise taxes when the economy is stronger so you can cut them when it is weaker.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
As Hyteckit beautifully pointed out, payroll taxes are not included in the tax figures but are included when a company is budgeting new employees.
No idea, what this is referring to or the point it makes. Do you agree or disagree about my point regarding closing "loopholes"?



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
But we are not using the taxes already collected wisely. We are removing the incentive to add value to our economy and are seeing the effects of that. When did the cost of being born, raised, and living in a great 1st world country shift from adding to wealth via hard work and innovation to simply paying a portion of your earning to the single biggest center of waste, fraud and abuse on the planet?
Like I said, it's devolved in hyperbole.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Honestly? The taxes are not low enough to really let loose the entrepreneurial exceptionalism that this country is capable of - especially from those who want more than their current lifestyle affords.
Bulllllllllllsheeeeeeeeeet. How did anything get started 60 years ago under those "oppressive" tax rates? I bet the problem isn't taxes, it's big business rigging the system.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm with you, but it would be much easier to do by defunding the fatcats in washington who are playing with our billions. Hit them where it hurts - the wallet. The majority of those in office now view our hard earned money as monopoly money. Millions, billions, trillions...they do not give a shit. Not only can we remove the stranglehold on small and medium businesses by reducing their tax liabilities but we can also force washington to be smarter with our money.
Or we can remove corporate welfare, leveling the playing field in that manner, without cutting off our nose to spite our own face. Who do you think will face the wrath of budget cuts first? Not the corporate dependency class.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The whole point of this thread is that Obama views tax dollars as originating from the goverment and failing to recognize who not only paid for government services but that the majority of successful businesses operated in spite of the governments intervention, not because of it.
More hyperbole. The people Romney has been trotting out as bootstraps entrepreneurs keep turning out to have been helped by government.

http://www.businessinsider.com/you-d...ernment-2012-8



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Sure, if tax dollars were spent wisely what you're saying sounds great on paper. In practice, an extremely small percentage of our money goes towards roads, cleanup, government loans etc etc. You and I both know that any increase in that tax liability will not go towards climbing out of this mess but instead pushing us further down the road.
That's an issue of who's in charge, not the money. I'm just illustrating the transparent lies of people concerned about the deficit (This is not directed at you). It's not about the deficit, but about defunding what you don't like (case in point, the sequestration hypocrisy).



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Case and Point? Solyndra. Terrible investment by the government that was politically motivated. Oh, its only 535 million.
Politically motivated how? Bush started the program, Obama expanded it.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do you know how many jobs could be created by small and medium businesses with 535 million dollars back in their pockets?
Do you know what would happen if Obama proposed such a thing? Congressional Gridlock and Republicans holding the baby hostage.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
EDIT: I should add that most of the money in the stimulus packages goes towards such government contracts. Its a misuse of our funding and lacks the cost cutting oversight that any business owner would have if it were their money on the line. When you take the possibility of failure off the table (such as with government contractors and government oversight of funding) people become very sloppy very quickly. They also begin to look for ways to line their own pockets as "whats the worse that could happen?"
Sounds like we need better oversight.


---


ebuddy, I'll try to get to your post later this week.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post

This election will be a cakewalk for Obama.
Really? There's a definite way to win, if Romney chooses to do it. He could easily pull in 80+% of the Hispanic vote with one simple action.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Really? There's a definite way to win, if Romney chooses to do it. He could easily pull in 80+% of the Hispanic vote with one simple action.
Really? How's that?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Possibly more of a HUMOR FAIL.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Reading FAIL

It is neither. It is a hit & run political satire that has no basis in reality, at least in the context of those it is trying to argue. That makes it both unfunny and necessary to address. I'm guessing y'all didn't find my response very funny.
ebuddy
     
heisetax
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 04:59 PM
 
You need to get out there & see what happens when businesses start-up. Many of these new business builders are using their own money or money borrowed under their name to start this new business. And when this business fails, as many do, they are left totally broke 7 in debt. Their employees may have lost their jobs, but not their house & life savings. In your view all business owners are rich fat cats. They really aren't trying to become rich. They are just trying to do what they believe God has given them to do. They want to provide for their families. With many of these new small business starters their employees become their children. This puts more pressure on them to succeed. They now have larger & larger families. They care for their employees like the good parent cares for their children. They know that a good employee is needed to succeed.

But the government in many ways seems to put unneeded road blocks in their way. The government seems to favor big business. The same businesses that are shipping jobs overseas at a still increasing rate. They have become international. Thus they do not care where the product is made as they will have enough people to purchase their products worldwide. But the group of people that this discussion is really about does not operate at that level. They operate locally in most cases, regionally in some but not farther than that in most cases.

The large big business is where the biggest long term job cuts are being made. The group that is producing any real job growth is the one that you seem to want to eliminate. With the current non business person in the White House we can only wait until he is replaced.

If 47% of the population do not pay any federal taxes are they paying their fair share? If 5% of the people pay 50-70% of the federal taxes have they paid their fair share. If we are talking about fairness it seems that the 47% need massive tax additions, percentage increases do not work because 100% increase on 0 is still 0. Then with this new source of federal income would the tax rates for anyone go down, or would they now have to increase to make everything come closer to this idea of fair that seems to be talked about?

I live in Omaha, NE the same town that Warren Buffett lives in. He says that he does not pay his fair share. That may or may not be true. But my point is that he can send more money to the federal government if he chooses to. Everything is there for him to do that. To date I have not heard that he has paid in anymore that the minimum that is required. Just remember that the richest by $ value in the U.S. are Democrats. Just check out Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, & the late Steve Jobs. So to me the rich fat cats are democrats. I know more lower income Republicans than I know lower income Democrats.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Really? How's that?
By picking a Hispanic VP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
By picking a Hispanic VP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio
Just like how John McCain won by selecting Sarah Palin for VP to get the women vote.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 02:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Just like how John McCain won by selecting Sarah Palin for VP to get the women vote.
Palin was an idiot from the start, Rubio graduated with honors from law school. He was underestimated when he ran for the US Senate, and his opponents had their asses handed to them. He presents himself as passionate, sincere, and charismatic. Also, his constituents love him and Romney would lock in Florida.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 03:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Palin was an idiot from the start, Rubio graduated with honors from law school. He was underestimated when he ran for the US Senate, and his opponents had their asses handed to them. He presents himself as passionate, sincere, and charismatic. Also, his constituents love him and Romney would lock in Florida.
100% agreement with you. Rubio would be the best pick IMO as well. And this is where I'd typically garner sound rebuke from my conservative brethren, but there's one more thing they could do...

... grant shhhh -- amnesty (or at least an extremely simple, transparent means of legalized citizenship) and make giant leaps toward sealing the border against ongoing illegal immigration including harsher penalties on the businesses that draw that illegal labor base into the country. This would allow the US to absorb our current population of immigrants, increase the tax base, and send a message to an otherwise conservative bloc of voters. In this Reagan got it half-right.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 05:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It is a hit & run political satire that has no basis in reality
ebuddy, you have been caught in the throes of campaignitis. Relax, lighten up, and don't take things so seriously. I very much doubt a "Romney loves cocks" gif is going to hold any sway on anyone and needs to be addressed.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
By picking a Hispanic VP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio
So you posit that hispanics, like blacks, choose to vote primarily based on if the candidate is their own ethnicity? And this applies even if its the VP slot?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
And this is where I'd typically garner sound rebuke from my conservative brethren, but there's one more thing they could do... grant shhhh -- amnesty (or at least an extremely simple, transparent means of legalized citizenship) and make giant leaps toward sealing the border against ongoing illegal immigration including harsher penalties on the businesses that draw that illegal labor base into the country. This would allow the US to absorb our current population of immigrants, increase the tax base, and send a message to an otherwise conservative bloc of voters. In this Reagan got it half-right.
All reasonable, all not gonna happen. (At the very least amnesty will infuriate the touchy base)
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
By picking a Hispanic VP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio
Well, that's both a cynical calculation and and irrational optimism wrapped up together. Amazing.

While Rubio has strong traction among Cuban-American voters in Florida, he has no ability to draw in 80% of all hispanic voters across the US. Besides, Rubio is a tough choice for GOP voters and Romney himself, since Rubio's stance on immigration is much more liberal than any other possible VP choice. But we all know the Etch-A-Sketch candidate can just flip his policy positions yet again to accommodate Rubio.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
100% agreement with you. Rubio would be the best pick IMO as well. And this is where I'd typically garner sound rebuke from my conservative brethren, but there's one more thing they could do...
... grant shhhh -- amnesty (or at least an extremely simple, transparent means of legalized citizenship) and make giant leaps toward sealing the border against ongoing illegal immigration including harsher penalties on the businesses that draw that illegal labor base into the country. This would allow the US to absorb our current population of immigrants, increase the tax base, and send a message to an otherwise conservative bloc of voters. In this Reagan got it half-right.
This is all very true, and like Dakar says, will piss off the entire base of the Republican party. But this is a great strategy if you want your core voters to stay home on election night.

But if Romney picks Rubio, I think his calculation will be more about winning Florida than any other issue.

When Rubio was on the Daily Show a few weeks ago, Stewart made a poignant comment about conservative ideas: they wash away under the influence of personal experience. Rubio has personal experience regarding immigration, so his politics there are more liberal. Cheney has personal experience regarding homosexuality, so his politics there more liberal. John McCain experienced torture, his opinion on that was more liberal.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
True, there is the ol' bait and switch problem, but there's more. You can grow the Executive by growing your number of czars and aides that help draft legislation outside Congressional purview. Your ilk can hold cloture votes on non-filibusters to force votes on judicial nominees you don't want Congress to hear about for example. You can leak selected bits of classified intel to attempt shaping the views of the public or as President you can unilaterally determine which laws of the land you'll uphold and which ones you won't in spite of the oath you took upon entering office. That's what I mean by abusing power. Yes, some semblance of that power has been granted by the system and by us, but I maintain it is being abused.
So you're talking general corruption. Good luck finding a candidate that won't be like this nowadays. Do you want me to say Obama has let me down with this? Yes, in some regards I think Obama has let me down.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Not so sure about that. As a Republican governor of a primarily liberal state, he had to move considerably to the left on many issues including abortion and gun control in order to move the ball in a direction he may have deemed "forward". If he were actively defending those policy-positions and not using the narrative I just provided, I would be writing in Oscar the Grouch on the ballot.
With all due respect, I think you're selling yourself a lie. Romney's consistent shift in views leaves him seeming unfathomable, IMO. What makes you think this is the real Romney? Pre-'93 he considered himself an Independent. He voted in the '92 Democratic Primary. He doesn't defend those policy positions because strategically he can't afford to. It worked well enough to fool the people into giving him the Republican nomination, but over the longer haul it's hamstringing the hell out of him. What good is experience as a governor when you can't use any of it to run on? He can't even mention his best achievement so as to not piss off his base (Which has been a gold mine for gaffes and laughs – see Andrea Saul).



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
On the national stage however, with a conservative base and ample conservative support, he won't have to move as far to the left while Obama would essentially go unchecked in a second term with no threat of losing office. i.e. While Romney may show signs of left-leaning, Obama shows signs of left-leaping.
Save the terrible clever phrases, please. I also don't see a Republican House and possibly Republican or gridlocked Senate allowing Obama to be "unchecked." Obama certainly wasn't "unchecked" the past four years, and he'll be in for worse if he survives for another four.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well, that's actually a very good question. Just about every survey I've taken has me almost right down the middle, slightly to the right.
I'm not talking about you. You seem to imply that being to left of Romney is being liberal. I challenge that. He wholesale endorses the Republican party platform. That precludes him from being moderate. The Romney you dubbed a RINO is much closer to a real moderate.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The one thing I've learned about this President is that just about everything he does is politically motivated.
Let's not play this card. It's delusional at best, disingenuous at worst. The vast majority of what each President does is politically motivated, either for himself, his party, or his approval. Romney's sudden transformation since being Governor is no better.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
One of the reasons I appreciate your posting; introspect. Very fair.
Not that it'll do me any favors in the long run. But since this is the internet and I can leave at any time, I'm happy to let principle (intellectual honesty) trump over pragmatism (see: "winning" a discussion at all costs).



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I believe this narrative is essentially; "the government does not have enough money therefore, people are not taxed enough." I disagree with the premise.
I disagree with the premise that the budget can be reasonably balanced through cuts alone. The numbers bear me out.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I believe we are taxed enough, all of us.
I continually find this notion laughable. Taxes have been dropping since the 70s and people haven't stopped complaining. The only thing lower taxes seem to have accomplished is to undermine a sense of society and responsibility to fellow americans and to make people more selfish. Oh yeah, they might be causing that terrible wealth distribution, too.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Money is mobile. If you discourage it here, it will move elsewhere.
I hear this all the time. I don't see anybody leaving. Probably because our tax rates are still better than most places, and those places where they are better are either expensive or unpalatable.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In spite of a recession in 2000, 9-11, noteworthy market scandals, Katrina, and two expensive wars, the Federal budget deficit dropped from $412 billion in 2004 to $162 billion in 2007. That's a 60% decline in the deficit over three years. Not only were more jobs lost after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 than in the 2008 market crash, many more jobs were created under the Bush administration with an average employment growth rate of 2.5% from 2000 to 2007 and maintained an average unemployment rate of 5.2%. Not only was there strong GDP growth, the economy saw the greatest productivity growth in four decades.
I apologize, but I'm going to have to request some sources, if not graphs. Your posts reeks of selective quoting of years – no pre-2004 deficits, no total jobs created under Bush's tenure, average employment growth including the year before he got in office and excluding his last year in office.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, the government does not need more money, it needs to spend less money. Ending the Bush tax cuts will generate enough to manage current spending rates for approximately 10 days. Is that really what all the hullabaloo is about, keeping our system going a few more days?
The hullaballoo is about the Republicans sudden 180º on deficit spending now that there's a (D) in office and balancing the budget yet refusing to consider increasing revenue to aid the task. Personally, I think their tripping over themselves to avoid the sequestration cuts they agreed to illustrates that they're using the deficit as an opportunity to cut programs they don't like, more than being concerned about overall spending.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
When Obama agreed to maintain the Bush tax cuts, he claimed it was important to maintain them to get the economy back on its feet. Well, the economy is not back on its feet yet his narrative has done a 180.
This seems more damning of the tax cuts than Obama.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So you posit that hispanics, like blacks, choose to vote primarily based on if the candidate is their own ethnicity? And this applies even if its the VP slot?
Being Hispanic, I can say that ethnicity and communication is a large part of it. Many/most will only use English when dealing with non-Hispanics. If someone can come forward and really talk with them, and not just deliver a speech to them in Spanish, it would resonate with them all and they'd feel included in the overall discussion, for once. They'd see a young man like Rubio and realize that with Romney's election, he could be POTUS 8 years later.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
ebuddy, you have been caught in the throes of campaignitis. Relax, lighten up, and don't take things so seriously. I very much doubt a "Romney loves cocks" gif is going to hold any sway on anyone and needs to be addressed.
I appreciate your concern Dakar, but I don't really see how my posting style has changed all that much from the norm. I disagree with you that the only purpose to my sarcastic criticism of the clip would be to sway someone. I've already mentioned that I don't think there are too many undecideds around, but I do sense a lot of unmotivated conservatives and for good reason. Whether or not these things need to be addressed I suppose depends on who you're asking.

The message in that clip speaks to fundamental differences in views. That view, as delivered, is available to a very limited circle. Aside from just being mistaken, it's crude, antagonistic, cruel, ugly and worst of all it's intellectually dishonest regardless of whether or not you requested that people ignore the political implication. The punchline frame was entirely contingent upon everything that preceded it. It's difficult for me to find humor amongst all those other negative things. I don't think that makes me uptight, that just makes me opinionated. When I address this stuff, it's not to sway someone away from Obama, it's to motivate those who already think something's amiss with the view in the clip. In this case it's more though; I can think of at least 3 other posters who could've posted that clip and I likely wouldn't have responded at all. Subego and I had a similar exchange in another thread recently.

So you posit that hispanics, like blacks, choose to vote primarily based on if the candidate is their own ethnicity? And this applies even if its the VP slot?
This wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting question. I think the answer is yes, though not as much for VP. I would be willing to bet that if you were to line the issues up in a survey and poll them one by one, many more than 4% of the black community would align with McCain's platform over Obama's and likely similar results this election year with Romney. This leaves only perceptions which by definition are superficial factors, but it's not an indictment against the entire bloc of voters. People will naturally gravitate toward, be proud of, and more easily trust those they sense have some immediate rapport. This is very understandable. It's shrewd for a politician to acknowledge this and foolish not to. I think Republicans have been particularly foolish in this regard historically.

All reasonable, all not gonna happen. (At the very least amnesty will infuriate the touchy base)
Ya know what? I've actually said this on several occasions and not once have I gotten pushback. This doesn't mean people on the right agree wholeheartedly, but I think on the whole, they'll deal depending on the delivery and whether or not they trust that the other end of the bargain would be upheld.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So you're talking general corruption. Good luck finding a candidate that won't be like this nowadays. Do you want me to say Obama has let me down with this? Yes, in some regards I think Obama has let me down.
I'm with ya in that a certain degree of corruption seems to be a prerequisite for office, but IMO we're witnessing a much sloppier, more flagrant demonstration of it.

With all due respect, I think you're selling yourself a lie. Romney's consistent shift in views leaves him seeming unfathomable, IMO. What makes you think this is the real Romney? Pre-'93 he considered himself an Independent. He voted in the '92 Democratic Primary. He doesn't defend those policy positions because strategically he can't afford to. It worked well enough to fool the people into giving him the Republican nomination, but over the longer haul it's hamstringing the hell out of him. What good is experience as a governor when you can't use any of it to run on? He can't even mention his best achievement so as to not piss off his base (Which has been a gold mine for gaffes and laughs – see Andrea Saul).
This strikes me as the same logical failure of Republicans who complain about a do-nothing President. Romney did much more than simply pass health care reform. The Politico article couldn't help, but embellish the spokesperson's statement with "universal" because of course, it's not and in fact, there's little to suggest this individual would've qualified. Romney's plan was specifically focused on a minute percentage of those without health care on a State level, Obama's plan changes the makeup of the health care industry for the entire country. I'm much more concerned about open mic gaffes with Russian leadership than I am people playing "gotcha" with the words of a campaign spokeswoman. Especially when trying to reason with Bain death-panelers.

Save the terrible clever phrases, please.
This coming from the purveyor of "who is the real Romney"? From now on I'll save the phrases just for you.

I also don't see a Republican House and possibly Republican or gridlocked Senate allowing Obama to be "unchecked."
Obama certainly wasn't "unchecked" the past four years, and he'll be in for worse if he survives for another four.
There's no reason a President is hamstrung by congressional gridlock other than shame and legacy. Presidents use hundreds of executive orders, judicial appointments, cabinet appointments/czars, the bully pulpit, etc and of course Obama is no different. One of the things that has bothered me most about this administration has been its degree of shamelessness. I think he's borderline reckless.

I'm not talking about you. You seem to imply that being to left of Romney is being liberal. I challenge that. He wholesale endorses the Republican party platform. That precludes him from being moderate. The Romney you dubbed a RINO is much closer to a real moderate.
Let's not play this card. It's delusional at best, disingenuous at worst. The vast majority of what each President does is politically motivated, either for himself, his party, or his approval. Romney's sudden transformation since being Governor is no better.
Ironically, Romney has demonstrated (to the chagrin of many a conservative) that he can actually be quite moderate. Your problem with him is based solely on his expressed, political platform which makes you lacking in moderation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just calling it what it is. Calm down.

Not that it'll do me any favors in the long run. But since this is the internet and I can leave at any time, I'm happy to let principle (intellectual honesty) trump over pragmatism (see: "winning" a discussion at all costs).
I've never been interested in winning an argument Dakar, I post here for many of the same reasons you do. It beats being on a dart league.

I disagree with the premise that the budget can be reasonably balanced through cuts alone. The numbers bear me out.
No one has suggested "cuts alone", this is a straw man.

I continually find this notion laughable. Taxes have been dropping since the 70s and people haven't stopped complaining.
I think it's negligent to ignore marginal rates and that Federal revenue has been increasing since the 70's along with the debt. With regard to spending, decreases in the rate of increase don't really count, but they're called cuts and opposed a priori. It's more than this% tax rate or that% anyway Dakar, it's what you're doing with all that loot while pointing at the rich guys ($200k or more) among us who risk their lot on a deal that apparently worked. I don't think it'd be so contentious if the government could demonstrate a more effective model for wealth distribution. Distribution has certainly increased since the 70's as well, along with the number of children born into poverty and wealth disparity.

The only thing lower taxes seem to have accomplished is to undermine a sense of society and responsibility to fellow americans and to make people more selfish. Oh yeah, they might be causing that terrible wealth distribution, too.
No, because of course the more you expect a government bureaucracy to care for your grandmother, the less you'll have to. Lower taxes aren't the problem.

I hear this all the time. I don't see anybody leaving.
I said, money is mobile. People are as well of course, but certainly not to the same degree as dollars.

Probably because our tax rates are still better than most places, and those places where they are better are either expensive or unpalatable.
Our mean personal income tax rates are among the lowest, our mean corporate income tax rates are among the highest. Some of the regions of the globe offered up as superior examples of health care, education, and overall more favorable political climate have among the lowest corporate income tax rates, but higher personal tax rates including some interesting taxes like church taxes.

I apologize, but I'm going to have to request some sources, if not graphs. Your posts reeks of selective quoting of years – no pre-2004 deficits, no total jobs created under Bush's tenure, average employment growth including the year before he got in office and excluding his last year in office.
Why argue all these things when the crux of my point was the spending in Bush's latter-term? There were two tax cuts, one component in 2001 and the other in 2003. Why wouldn't a decline throughout any sustained number of years in his presidency throw a wrench in your theory? I need some reason to think citations would be effective here. Are you arguing that Bush didn't spend more in the latter half of his term? Are you arguing that the deficit was higher under Bush? Unemployment? Was it worse during the Bush years for any economic metric? If you're going to blame tax cuts or low tax rates for a specific problem, bring more information of your own.

The hullaballoo is about the Republicans sudden 180º on deficit spending now that there's a (D) in office and balancing the budget yet refusing to consider increasing revenue to aid the task.
Because in spite of well-documented (and Obama-proposed) evidence throughout presidents from Kennedy to Bush showing the stimulus of lowered rates, particularly in troubled economic times; you're essentially arguing for a higher tax rate because of Republican hypocrisy. I maintain there are means of increasing revenue without increasing rates.

Personally, I think their tripping over themselves to avoid the sequestration cuts they agreed to illustrates that they're using the deficit as an opportunity to cut programs they don't like, more than being concerned about overall spending.
This seems more damning of the tax cuts than Obama.
This could very well be true, but in many respects the spending cuts were so hastily crafted that they figured they'd just kick the can of unthinkables down the road as far as they could. They'll soon show us what a dog and pony show the whole "sequestration cuts agreement" was in the first place... and our credit rating may drop a little more. I still don't see how today's anemic economy is the product of tax cuts that have been around for 10 years.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2012, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I disagree with the premise that the budget can be reasonably balanced through cuts alone. The numbers bear me out.
No one has suggested "cuts alone", this is a straw man.
I'm confused by this part. Doesn't it conflict with saying: "I believe this narrative is essentially; 'the government does not have enough money therefore, people are not taxed enough.' I disagree with the premise. I believe we are taxed enough, all of us."

Is there a third method of balancing the budget other than cutting spending and raising taxes (on some member of the set "all of us")?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2012, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
I've never been interested in winning an argument Dakar, I post here for many of the same reasons you do. It beats being on a dart league.
I literally had to keep myself from ROFL with that one!

OAW
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2012, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm confused by this part. Doesn't it conflict with saying: "I believe this narrative is essentially; 'the government does not have enough money therefore, people are not taxed enough.' I disagree with the premise. I believe we are taxed enough, all of us."
Is there a third method of balancing the budget other than cutting spending and raising taxes (on some member of the set "all of us")?
There is a third method, and thats using the current tax revenue more wisely.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2012, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
And this is where I'd typically garner sound rebuke from my conservative brethren, but there's one more thing they could do...
... grant shhhh -- amnesty (or at least an extremely simple, transparent means of legalized citizenship) and make giant leaps toward sealing the border against ongoing illegal immigration including harsher penalties on the businesses that draw that illegal labor base into the country. This would allow the US to absorb our current population of immigrants, increase the tax base, and send a message to an otherwise conservative bloc of voters. In this Reagan got it half-right.
This makes no sense. Who the hell is 'They' in this equasion? Romney and Rubio from the campaign trail? How? Granting themselves magic powers that even Obama et. al haven't granted themselves yet? "And we candidates hereby grant Amnesty by the Power of Greyskull!"

That's on top of the compounded silly ideas that all Hispanics want amnesty and that the entire election hinges on any of this Democrat-style pandering to begin with.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2012, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm confused by this part. Doesn't it conflict with saying: "I believe this narrative is essentially; 'the government does not have enough money therefore, people are not taxed enough.' I disagree with the premise. I believe we are taxed enough, all of us."
Is there a third method of balancing the budget other than cutting spending and raising taxes (on some member of the set "all of us")?
Good question Uncle. To be clear, when I talked about cuts in that context, I'm talking specifically about spending cuts. I've never suggested spending cuts alone are the economic panacea. I believe we need both spending cuts and tax cuts and that all those currently paying taxes are paying enough, but neither are worth anything without growth. Growth of the tax base, repatriation, growth of an amount earned and subsequently paid into taxes, and all the other implications of a strengthened economy including growth in consumer confidence, employment, commerce in general, etc... all ultimately taxable entities. For example, a much simpler, more comprehensive and predictable tax code would do well IMO to get more out of who and what is already here for generating tax revenue in a more organic, less intrusive, and economically destructive manner.

In short, people keep talking about "millionaires" and while I can acknowledge how tempting that is in its simplicity and related activism, it ignores the other 99.8% of what actually comprises our economy and how the highest quintile of incomes are constantly shifting with people moving in and out of it on a daily basis not unlike minimum wage and/or the lowest quintile incomes.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2012, 08:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
This makes no sense. Who the hell is 'They' in this equasion? Romney and Rubio from the campaign trail? How? Granting themselves magic powers that even Obama et. al haven't granted themselves yet? "And we candidates hereby grant Amnesty by the Power of Greyskull!"
That's on top of the compounded silly ideas that all Hispanics want amnesty and that the entire election hinges on any of this Democrat-style pandering to begin with.
There is one side of the aisle most opposed to the notion of amnesty for our current, massive population of illegal immigrants. That is the they in my post. Do folks remember Reagan as an "amnesty-granter" for example? No. Why? Because of who he was and what he accomplished on so many other fronts as well as how effectively he delivered his views. Republicans have historically had a great deal of trouble (at least rhetorically which matters most in the court of public opinion) expressing opposition to policies perceived as favorable to this minority or that without appearing opposed to the minorities themselves.

IMO there are sound, logical reasons to consider amnesty and while I agree with you that its political expediency is probably not among them, I think it's silly to oppose the idea simply because it would create more Reagan Democrats or serve to give pause to other closet-conservative blocs of people voting the Democratic party election after election.
ebuddy
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2012, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There is one side of the aisle most opposed to the notion of amnesty for our current, massive population of illegal immigrants. That is the they in my post.
I don't see what that has to do with electing Romney, which was the context.


Do folks remember Reagan as an "amnesty-granter" for example?
Reagan's amnesty was an unmitigated disaster. You're playing a bit from the liberal "ignore all facts" playbook to bring it up.

Fact: It did not reduce illegal immigration one iota- it sped the process up even more by being a dangled carrot that encouraged a flood of people convinced they'd get the same. It wasn't followed up with greater border control, nor was this an "oopsie!" because the driving force was, as always, big business interests that want cheaper labor (with no real rights at all is an added bonus) and a ready supply of it flooding across a border is just peachy.

Fact: it was not a good thing for minorities or minority communities. The liberal myth is that minorities (all being little more than vote cows for the Democratic party, to be head from on ONE DAY only- election day, and then shut up and know your place) just looooooove having millions of people from the third world dumped into their neighborhoods, their schools overrun, their jobs turned into "jobs Americans won't do" their social services stretched to breaking, their hospitals inundated, their housing costs driven sky high etc. etc. so that wealthy people in the burbs can have ever cheaper gardeners and pat themselves on the back that a head of lettuce is a nickel cheaper for themselves.

Fact: the same jobs pay much more in areas with fewer illegal aliens than in areas overrun with them, with little difference in the cost of goods and services. The driving force is really a desire by businesses to profit from paying an illegal labor force with few rights less money. That's it. Republicans should have nothing to do with greasing the slopes of this new slavery. It was Republicans, not Democrats who were against and put an end to the original model of slavery, and it's Republicans not Democrats who should remain in opposition to this new "kinder gentler-but not really" version.

Sorry, but elieving that all Hispanics want Amnesty and the further flood of more illegals into their communities simply because they may happen to share a common ethnic background, is the worst sort of pandering liberal dumbass "They're all the same hive-mind" 'thinking'. Any real Republican should have nothing to do with it. Race pandering and supporting the current "socially acceptable" model of slavery should remain a Democrat monopoly.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2012, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I don't see what that has to do with electing Romney, which was the context.
No one candidate can do anything to shore up an entire voting segment, I expanded the context to Republicans in general and explained it when you asked.

Reagan's amnesty was an unmitigated disaster. You're playing a bit from the liberal "ignore all facts" playbook to bring it up.
I didn't ignore anything, I said "in this Reagan got it half right". There are essentially two components to the immigration issue; those that are here now and those that continue entering illegally. The half he got wrong was not sealing the border, serving to eventually draw more illegals in. Naturally, if you don't solve the problem of illegal immigration, people will continue to enter the country illegally.

You ignored my argument; is Reagan remembered as an amnesty-granter?

Fact: It did not reduce illegal immigration one iota- it sped the process up even more by being a dangled carrot that encouraged a flood of people convinced they'd get the same. It wasn't followed up with greater border control, nor was this an "oopsie!" because the driving force was, as always, big business interests that want cheaper labor (with no real rights at all is an added bonus) and a ready supply of it flooding across a border is just peachy.
Is this where I accuse you of the "liberal, ignore all facts" fallacy? Amnesty does no good unless you A) Seal the border and B) absolutely lay into the businesses found to have hired illegals. I mentioned both in my defense of amnesty.

Fact: it was not a good thing for minorities or minority communities. The liberal myth is that minorities (all being little more than vote cows for the Democratic party, to be head from on ONE DAY only- election day, and then shut up and know your place) just looooooove having millions of people from the third world dumped into their neighborhoods, their schools overrun, their jobs turned into "jobs Americans won't do" their social services stretched to breaking, their hospitals inundated, their housing costs driven sky high etc. etc. so that wealthy people in the burbs can have ever cheaper gardeners and pat themselves on the back that a head of lettuce is a nickel cheaper for themselves.

Fact: the same jobs pay much more in areas with fewer illegal aliens than in areas overrun with them, with little difference in the cost of goods and services. The driving force is really a desire by businesses to profit from paying an illegal labor force with few rights less money. That's it. Republicans should have nothing to do with greasing the slopes of this new slavery. It was Republicans, not Democrats who were against and put an end to the original model of slavery, and it's Republicans not Democrats who should remain in opposition to this new "kinder gentler-but not really" version.
What you're complaining about above are all attributable to the illegal nature of their residency. The hundreds of thousands of new, unassimilated immigrants that enter every year are not the ones that replaced your roof (assuming you're looking for a legitimate, bonded and insured contractor) and they are not voting. I've not once seen a Mexican begging for money. They want to work. If they can't legally work, they'll generally find illegal employment. Why? Because the majority of them don't want handouts. Are these the type of people we want to alienate from the system? The legal immigrant population will not be kept at below minimum wage and there will be no benefit to hire them over any other American citizen. They will pay taxes and they have every bit as much pride to make it on their own and contribute to society as you. The entitlement system is what causes the moral hazard of dependency and it's not exclusive to illegal immigrants. As you know, there are conservative solutions to those issues as well. The single biggest problem we're having is the leaking border and yet we continue to expend the overwhelming majority of our resources on people here now while doing next to nothing for stopping the bleeder.

The only reason this otherwise conservative culture becomes vote-cows for the Democratic party is because the Republican party has framed this issue as sloppily as you have.

Sorry, but elieving that all Hispanics want Amnesty and the further flood of more illegals into their communities simply because they may happen to share a common ethnic background, is the worst sort of pandering liberal dumbass "They're all the same hive-mind" 'thinking'. Any real Republican should have nothing to do with it. Race pandering and supporting the current "socially acceptable" model of slavery should remain a Democrat monopoly.
Yep, because of course the conservative dumbass approach of; "Round 'em up, every last one of those hand-out seeking criminals, and ship 'em back where they came from!" is working like gang-busters eh? I think there's a better, more humane way of dealing with the problem and I think it starts with taking all the wasted resources on the futile round-up within the country, and dedicating them to the border that we might actually solve the problem instead of demagoguing it to death with rhetoric perceived as hostile to the immigrant instead of bad immigration policy.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I appreciate your concern Dakar, but I don't really see how my posting style has changed all that much from the norm.
You flipped out on subego in another thread. subego. The guy who goes to great pains not to offend people and keep a pleasant dialogue.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I disagree with you that the only purpose to my sarcastic criticism of the clip would be to sway someone.
I was inferring that you assumed that was my intent for posting the gif.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Text
Again, you're just talking about the political aspect again. Say you didn't find "Romney likes cocks" funny. Say it it was childish, crass, unimaginative, whatever. Just move on from the message.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 07:53 AM
 
I've cut some bits of your response out. In most cases I feel that piece of discussion has come to end, with both of us explaining our positions as well as we can.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm with ya in that a certain degree of corruption seems to be a prerequisite for office, but IMO we're witnessing a much sloppier, more flagrant demonstration of it.
I think I can get behind this. Bush seems to have set a new precedent on how Presidents will exert their executive power this century, and Obama seems more than happy to continue in most of those footsteps.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This coming from the purveyor of "who is the real Romney"?
You think this is some type of crafted political slogan? That was entirely stream of consciousness and unproofread/edited. Since you've called attention to it, I suppose it could appear an allusion to Eminem, but otherwise, does is sound clever or something? I don't think it does.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
From now on I'll save the phrases just for you.
Ease up, killer. We don't need to up the discussion ante to petty tit-for-tat on perceived wrongs.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Ironically, Romney has demonstrated (to the chagrin of many a conservative) that he can actually be quite moderate.
I'm not sure I follow, unless you're referring to his entire political past and not this election season.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your problem with him is based solely on his expressed, political platform which makes you lacking in moderation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just calling it what it is. Calm down.
Clarify. How does not accepting a strong right platform preclude one from being moderate?

And, no my problem is not "solely" his political platform but is strongly influenced by a perception of political agnosticism and opportunism, as well as being out of touch with reality.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've never been interested in winning an argument Dakar, I post here for many of the same reasons you do. It beats being on a dart league.
I won't comment on that, but I feel I should clarify that I was "helped" to this conclusion partly because I am so terrible at actually winning arguments. Between being a poor debater, not possessing the breadth of political knowledge required, unmotivated google-fu, sucking at identifying lies and not being willing to lie myself (knowingly), it was either accept my lot in the PL or spontaneously combust.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No one has suggested "cuts alone", this is a straw man.
From what I recall, during this administration Republicans have outright opposed raising taxes at all to help get the deficit under control. As Uncle Skeleton pointed out, you yourself are opposed to raising taxes.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think it's negligent to ignore marginal rates and that Federal revenue has been increasing since the 70's along with the debt. With regard to spending, decreases in the rate of increase don't really count, but they're called cuts and opposed a priori. It's more than this% tax rate or that% anyway Dakar, it's what you're doing with all that loot while pointing at the rich guys ($200k or more) among us who risk their lot on a deal that apparently worked. I don't think it'd be so contentious if the government could demonstrate a more effective model for wealth distribution. Distribution has certainly increased since the 70's as well, along with the number of children born into poverty and wealth disparity.
I feel I've become a little lost in this portion, thanks to the jargon. The tax stuff needs to be dumbed down for me.


(I am curious what the $200k "risked" however)



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, because of course the more you expect a government bureaucracy to care for your grandmother, the less you'll have to. Lower taxes aren't the problem.
That's cute and all, but you're trying to shift the focus to personal responsibility. I'm talking about having my tax dollars go to help care for all grandmothers. And grandfathers. And the childless elderly. Why should someone be condemned to shitty care because they have crappy or no children/grandchildren?



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I said, money is mobile. People are as well of course, but certainly not to the same degree as dollars.
Ok, demonstrate to me what you mean, please.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Our mean personal income tax rates are among the lowest, our mean corporate income tax rates are among the highest.
Considering many notable corporations pay little to no taxes, then I have to think that the game has been rigged. Let's kill the corporate welfare, close loopholes, lower the rate some to compensate and see what happens.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Some of the regions of the globe offered up as superior examples of health care, education, and overall more favorable political climate have among the lowest corporate income tax rates, but higher personal tax rates including some interesting taxes like church taxes.
I think you'll find me open to higher taxes for myself and taxes for religious institutions.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why argue all these things when the crux of my point was the spending in Bush's latter-term?
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. It's common courtesy to cite your facts and figures. Why are you resisting a reasonable request? All you have to do is copy/paste a few links to start, right?



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There were two tax cuts, one component in 2001 and the other in 2003. Why wouldn't a decline throughout any sustained number of years in his presidency throw a wrench in your theory? I need some reason to think citations would be effective here. Are you arguing that Bush didn't spend more in the latter half of his term? Are you arguing that the deficit was higher under Bush? Unemployment? Was it worse during the Bush years for any economic metric? If you're going to blame tax cuts or low tax rates for a specific problem, bring more information of your own.
Part of the reason I'd like to see some citations is so I know what exactly it is that's trying to be demonstrated or rebutted.

But I will throw you a bone; I did have a realization of how to google one figure that stuck in my craw as being at odds with my perception of reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_cr...idential_terms


George W. Bush 2001–2005 -13 (created Jan 2001 to Jan 2005)
George W. Bush 2005–2009 +1,108 (created Jan 2005 to Jan 2009)

Those are the lowest numbers since Eisenhower, and the first negative output since Hoover and the Great Depression. Frankly, I find that staggering. No wonder people consider the 2000s the lost decade. (For comparison, during H. W.'s "failure" of a term, he still had growth of 2,500 jobs)


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Because in spite of well-documented (and Obama-proposed) evidence throughout presidents from Kennedy to Bush showing the stimulus of lowered rates, particularly in troubled economic times; you're essentially arguing for a higher tax rate because of Republican hypocrisy. I maintain there are means of increasing revenue without increasing rates.
This is a fair point, so allow me to clarify. I have mixed feelings on tax rates. I agree that raising them during a recession is unwise, but I also feel we've allowed them to fall too far, yes for everyone. I'm undecided on whether we should fund more stimulus, but regardless, I'm fine with more revenue to offset that stimulus or to better fund entitlements.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This could very well be true, but in many respects the spending cuts were so hastily crafted that they figured they'd just kick the can of unthinkables down the road as far as they could. They'll soon show us what a dog and pony show the whole "sequestration cuts agreement" was in the first place... and our credit rating may drop a little more.
I suppose I'll point out that the spending cuts wouldn't have needed to be so hastily crafted if the debt ceiling hadn't been used as a political bargaining chip. And that's not even considering that they still had plenty of time to come to an agreement to avoid the cuts after they created this hasty agreement. Tell me, how do you feel about those sequestration cuts? Are you for or against them?



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I still don't see how today's anemic economy is the product of tax cuts that have been around for 10 years.
So much of resistance to stimulus has been deficit related. Had we not been adding to the deficit so strongly for the last two presidential terms, perhaps we'd have a little more leeway for trying to kickstart the economy? Plus, isn't one of the arguments on cutting the deficit that it is part of the reason the economy sucks (this is not an endorsement)?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2012, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not sure I follow, unless you're referring to his entire political past and not this election season.
Clarify. How does not accepting a strong right platform preclude one from being moderate?
For one, the fact that you call Romney's a "strong-right" platform.

And, no my problem is not "solely" his political platform but is strongly influenced by a perception of political agnosticism and opportunism, as well as being out of touch with reality.
"Out of touch with reality" is a meaningless platitude unfortunately. What reality are you talking about? What it's like to be poor? Who, other than poor people are in touch with this reality if our only metric is how much money one has? I've been poor, I mean really poor; why not just take my word for it?

I won't comment on that, but I feel I should clarify that I was "helped" to this conclusion partly because I am so terrible at actually winning arguments. Between being a poor debater, not possessing the breadth of political knowledge required, unmotivated google-fu, sucking at identifying lies and not being willing to lie myself (knowingly), it was either accept my lot in the PL or spontaneously combust.
You're doing just fine. The only thing I think you're guilty of is assuming that if two views hold stark differences, one of them must be lying. We see this a lot during election year. Obama kicks the walkers out from under elderly people and Romney bloodlets snowseals. The ad homs are probably lies, policy differences are likely just policy differences with both believing their ideal is best for all.

From what I recall, during this administration Republicans have outright opposed raising taxes at all to help get the deficit under control. As Uncle Skeleton pointed out, you yourself are opposed to raising taxes.
I believe the Laffer Curve regarding "sweet-spots" in the tax rate are important to consider. I believe there are ways of increasing revenues by working with human behaviors for rates that encourage people to avoid such aggressive hedging. After all, the only ones with the most effective means of hedging and sheltering (exploiting loopholes) from the tax rates are the ones at the top. When you increase taxes on the uber-rich, you're not getting a lot of bang for buck. They move their money elsewhere or hold and they often have a battery of attorneys work the code for them. You touch on this absolutely brilliantly below. I believe we need to do more to encourage growth resulting in greater tax revenue. Free trade, constrained spending, less hostile wink-nod regulatory environment that only serves to pick a handful of "winners", commitment to maintain lower tax rates... these would all serve to increase confidence in leadership, stable legislative environment, and the tax base. Clinton did not collect more taxes by increasing tax rates as in fact he lowered rates; he collected more tax revenue because we were all doing better and paying more in. By discouraging the type of behaviors we absolutely need today for growth, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face and directing the majority of those increases to the only base of taxpayers able to avoid the tax. The shift to a service-based economy of lower-paying jobs for example, equates to less tax revenue. A stark decrease in the number of management positions overall means less pay and hence, less tax revenue. As the overall household income and assets decline, more qualify for social services that place a greater financial burden on the Federal and local agencies that provide the services. Regulative policies easily shirked by the Corporate monoliths only serves to hamper new, smaller startups; 98% of our economy and the overwhelming majority of employment -- tax revenue.

I feel I've become a little lost in this portion, thanks to the jargon. The tax stuff needs to be dumbed down for me.
(I am curious what the $200k "risked" however)
An individual earning $200k or more is the cutoff of what our President is calling "rich" and proposing tax increases on those at that point, upward. i.e. You're less apt to go boating if the water out there looks hostile. We don't want our dollars "docked" right now. Unless we print them, we'll have to free them up.

That's cute and all, but you're trying to shift the focus to personal responsibility.
I'm not trying to do anything other than address the manner in which you've framed an issue. I was keying off your supposition that we're not taking personal responsibility because of tax cuts; that somehow if you don't advocate higher tax rates, it's because you don't want to help those in need. We're well beyond safety-nets for the poor, Dakar.

I'm talking about having my tax dollars go to help care for all grandmothers. And grandfathers. And the childless elderly. Why should someone be condemned to shitty care because they have crappy or no children/grandchildren?
They shouldn't. Why should these benefits go to those regardless of their large portfolios, $400k ranch, and large savings accounts? These benefits are not means-tested. Again, we're no longer talking about safety-nets for those who need it, we're talking about creating a new, larger dependency class.

Ok, demonstrate to me what you mean, please.
I'm surprised I have to explain this in light of the political discourse this election season, but... someone doesn't appreciate the regulatory/tax environment of the US so they invest in businesses overseas. It is estimated that there is some $1.5 trillion in US company investment overseas for example. The act of easing tax burdens and regulation is something even Steve Jobs urged Obama to consider. (some of these measures fit under what is called repatriation if you can muster the google-fu) In short, we have a tax and regulatory environment that discourages investment domestically. The US ranks among the least "economically free" countries including a corporate tax rate also among the least competitive internationally. This has implications and I believe we're feeling many of those today.

Considering many notable corporations pay little to no taxes, then I have to think that the game has been rigged. Let's kill the corporate welfare, close loopholes, lower the rate some to compensate and see what happens.
You're absolutely correct here! Couldn't agree more!

I think you'll find me open to higher taxes for myself and taxes for religious institutions.
Believe it or not, I would be willing to pay more as well. However, I need to know it is being used wisely. If my government displays increasingly poor stewardship of this hard-earned resource decade after decade, I'm going to be less willing to contribute. I believe this is where we are today. I do not believe religious institutions' altruism should be taxed. A great deal of charity and welfare are funneled through these entities with little to no contribution or effort by a government agency. We need more of this, not less.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. It's common courtesy to cite your facts and figures. Why are you resisting a reasonable request? All you have to do is copy/paste a few links to start, right?
Part of the reason I'd like to see some citations is so I know what exactly it is that's trying to be demonstrated or rebutted.
But I will throw you a bone; I did have a realization of how to google one figure that stuck in my craw as being at odds with my perception of reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_cr...idential_terms
George W. Bush 2001–2005 -13 (created Jan 2001 to Jan 2005)
George W. Bush 2005–2009 +1,108 (created Jan 2005 to Jan 2009)
Those are the lowest numbers since Eisenhower, and the first negative output since Hoover and the Great Depression. Frankly, I find that staggering. No wonder people consider the 2000s the lost decade. (For comparison, during H. W.'s "failure" of a term, he still had growth of 2,500 jobs)
The problem is, you were trying to suggest that Bush's tax cuts (as argued, for the wealthy) are what caused meager jobs numbers. First, while those cuts included the wealthy, the overwhelming majority of them were for child tax credits, mitigating marriage penalties in the code and the like. For example, we remain under the Bush tax cuts and there isn't one Conservative arguing that the meager jobs numbers relate to those cuts. It is estimated that spending contributed more than 46% to the deficit, tax cuts less than 6%. The Bush tax cuts were proposed in 2001 and phased in slowly until Congress decided to aggressively enact them in 2003. There are many factors that contribute to long-term economic achievement, but the largest by far is spending. With so much else going on, it wouldn't be enough to look at just Bush's term anyway. Tax cuts and increases have occurred throughout most recent times from Kennedy onward and to me, the picture is much more clear in this light. The single biggest contributor to Federal tax revenue is overall economic vitality for example, not simply this tax rate or that.

In short, I'll concede that Bush employment growth was meager at best when considering the overall rates from first through second term as you have demonstrated, but there's no reason for me to agree that the tax cuts are responsible and I think it's important to look at economic behaviors immediately preceding and following a tax cut to see its stimulus at play.
CBO on Bush tax cuts
Employment figures following Bush tax cuts

This is a fair point, so allow me to clarify. I have mixed feelings on tax rates. I agree that raising them during a recession is unwise, but I also feel we've allowed them to fall too far, yes for everyone. I'm undecided on whether we should fund more stimulus, but regardless, I'm fine with more revenue to offset that stimulus or to better fund entitlements.
I'm not mixed on tax rates. I think we need bold action now and not those things that would discourage the precise behaviors we need to encourage for growing out of this. We also need leadership that is not viewed (by business owners on both sides of the aisle BTW) as hostile to the business community. Not the corporate monolith mind you, the business community as a whole; the lion's share of employment. They're all essentially saying the same things and I submit to you that we need to listen more intently to them. If one can be out of touch with poverty, they can also be out of touch with entrepreneurship and the business community; the only real opportunities for those in poverty. We use "sin" taxes to curb behaviors the collective feels are destructive such as tobacco, but again -- somehow there's a paradigm shift in thinking with regard to the dollar. It seems counterintuitive because it is.

I suppose I'll point out that the spending cuts wouldn't have needed to be so hastily crafted if the debt ceiling hadn't been used as a political bargaining chip. And that's not even considering that they still had plenty of time to come to an agreement to avoid the cuts after they created this hasty agreement. Tell me, how do you feel about those sequestration cuts? Are you for or against them?
I believe we need cuts, but those cuts need to be a little more targeted toward increased efficiency. Yes, cuts in entitlement and cuts in military. Unfortunately, the sequestration cuts were "fire-sale" style and I'm not much for them as drawn up as they give little time for the targeted entities to adjust and/or compensate. This will lead to "biggest bang for buck" decisions I'm concerned will throw babies out with bathwater across the board.

So much of resistance to stimulus has been deficit related. Had we not been adding to the deficit so strongly for the last two presidential terms, perhaps we'd have a little more leeway for trying to kickstart the economy? Plus, isn't one of the arguments on cutting the deficit that it is part of the reason the economy sucks (this is not an endorsement)?
Granted, had there been no prior stimulus -- the idea would've been a little more novel this time around, but the fact is there was stimulus.There are multiple means available for "kick-starting". The problem is, money's out there it just needs to be freed up. We can free it up, print it, take it, or borrow it. Borrowing it means we're slightly more beholden to the entity we're borrowing from. The borrower has less leverage than the lender and is subject to their terms and their decision to pull it on their timetable. We can print it, but this historically leads to inflation which burdens all of us in the prices of goods. We can take it, but then this will increase the prices of our goods as well. It's not like the increased tax burden isn't going to be passed on to the consumer. There's only so much headroom in profit for competition. We can try freeing it up by all those things you suggest such as simplifying the code making the tax burden more calculable and predictable and we can repatriate money by addressing the tax rates, expand the tax base through subsequent growth, and encouraging a regulatory environment that is not hostile to start-ups and small businesses.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2012, 10:06 AM
 
God dammit, I accidentally closed tab and lost a good chunk of my never-ending brilliance. I can only hope to recapture it.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
For one, the fact that you call Romney's a "strong-right" platform.
That is circular. Stop trying to indict my position as liberal and start demonstrating that Romney's is moderate.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"Out of touch with reality" is a meaningless platitude unfortunately. What reality are you talking about? What it's like to be poor? Who, other than poor people are in touch with this reality if our only metric is how much money one has? I've been poor, I mean really poor; why not just take my word for it?
It means he doesn't understand what the average person deals with to get by.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The only thing I think you're guilty of is assuming that if two views hold stark differences, one of them must be lying. We see this a lot during election year.
You're right. It boils down to it seeming more logical that a person is lying than they actual believe something that seems so illogical.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I believe the Laffer Curve regarding "sweet-spots" in the tax rate are important to consider. I believe there are ways of increasing revenues by working with human behaviors for rates that encourage people to avoid such aggressive hedging. After all, the only ones with the most effective means of hedging and sheltering (exploiting loopholes) from the tax rates are the ones at the top. When you increase taxes on the uber-rich, you're not getting a lot of bang for buck. They move their money elsewhere or hold and they often have a battery of attorneys work the code for them.
If the tax system is being exploited, and raising taxes would produce diminishing returns, perhaps we should close loopholes instead, like I recommended on corporations. Lowering taxes doesn't seem like the correct response to exploitation.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
An individual earning $200k or more is the cutoff of what our President is calling "rich" and proposing tax increases on those at that point, upward. i.e. You're less apt to go boating if the water out there looks hostile. We don't want our dollars "docked" right now. Unless we print them, we'll have to free them up.
Less than 3% of people make 200k or more. If our economy is now mostly reliant on that 3% we're pretty ****ed.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not trying to do anything other than address the manner in which you've framed an issue. I was keying off your supposition that we're not taking personal responsibility because of tax cuts; that somehow if you don't advocate higher tax rates, it's because you don't want to help those in need. We're well beyond safety-nets for the poor, Dakar.
I said societal responsibility. We don't have welfare, unemployment, social security and welfare because we care more than our founding fathers did. We have them because we can afford them (Yes, I know where this will go). What's the saying? A rising tide lifts all boats? Well I think the tide has risen enough that we can try to make affordable health insurance available to all.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
They shouldn't. Why should these benefits go to those regardless of their large portfolios, $400k ranch, and large savings accounts? These benefits are not means-tested. Again, we're no longer talking about safety-nets for those who need it, we're talking about creating a new, larger dependency class.
I'm talking about making Americans independent. Currently if you want affordable insurance you need to have a job and win the genetic lottery. If you remove the employment prerequisite, people who rely on their insurance more heavily (or simply refuse to run the risk of going without) can become more mobile, making the job market more competitive. That's not dependency, that's independence.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm surprised I have to explain this in light of the political discourse this election season, but... someone doesn't appreciate the regulatory/tax environment of the US so they invest in businesses overseas. It is estimated that there is some $1.5 trillion in US company investment overseas for example. The act of easing tax burdens and regulation is something even Steve Jobs urged Obama to consider. (some of these measures fit under what is called repatriation if you can muster the google-fu) In short, we have a tax and regulatory environment that discourages investment domestically. The US ranks among the least "economically free" countries including a corporate tax rate also among the least competitive internationally. This has implications and I believe we're feeling many of those today.
As I said, I'm lacking in economic knowledge. Allow me to demonstrate.

According to wikipedia, the US is still in the Top 10 of economic freedom (a far-cry from the least). Second, only two European countries are above us, and one of them including Ireland, a known tax haven. So where are our dollars going to migrate that is more "free"? Canada? Australia?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're absolutely correct here! Couldn't agree more!
Allow me to dial back the excitement. I'd be pretty conservative on initially cutting the rates as it's much easier to correct for them being too high rather than too low.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Believe it or not, I would be willing to pay more as well. However, I need to know it is being used wisely. If my government displays increasingly poor stewardship of this hard-earned resource decade after decade, I'm going to be less willing to contribute. I believe this is where we are today.
You'd be willing to pay more, but you think the size of the government needs to be shrunk, right? So what is it you're willing to pay more for?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I do not believe religious institutions' altruism should be taxed. A great deal of charity and welfare are funneled through these entities with little to no contribution or effort by a government agency. We need more of this, not less.
Why is religious charity and welfare not count towards creating a dependency class?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The problem is, you were trying to suggest that Bush's tax cuts (as argued, for the wealthy) are what caused meager jobs numbers.
No, I argued that they didn't spur the economy, not that they hindered it. I did infer that lower taxes increase economic inequality, however.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not mixed on tax rates. I think we need bold action now and not those things that would discourage the precise behaviors we need to encourage for growing out of this. We also need leadership that is not viewed (by business owners on both sides of the aisle BTW) as hostile to the business community.
What has happened that it's so hostile? As far as I can tell, just that Obama was elected on a populist platform.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If one can be out of touch with poverty, they can also be out of touch with entrepreneurship and the business community
Word.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I believe we need cuts, but those cuts need to be a little more targeted toward increased efficiency. Yes, cuts in entitlement and cuts in military. Unfortunately, the sequestration cuts were "fire-sale" style and I'm not much for them as drawn up as they give little time for the targeted entities to adjust and/or compensate. This will lead to "biggest bang for buck" decisions I'm concerned will throw babies out with bathwater across the board.
Maybe you're right. But given how much defense spending has increased in the past 10 years, I think we need more than just efficiency, some contraction would be good. We don't have two wars to keep worry about.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Granted, had there been no prior stimulus -- the idea would've been a little more novel this time around, but the fact is there was stimulus.There are multiple means available for "kick-starting". The problem is, money's out there it just needs to be freed up. We can free it up, print it, take it, or borrow it. Borrowing it means we're slightly more beholden to the entity we're borrowing from. The borrower has less leverage than the lender and is subject to their terms and their decision to pull it on their timetable. We can print it, but this historically leads to inflation which burdens all of us in the prices of goods.
Isn't inflation way lower than all the doomsayers predicted?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We can take it, but then this will increase the prices of our goods as well. It's not like the increased tax burden isn't going to be passed on to the consumer.
Ah yes, the eternal gun to our head. Only I think it's really pointed at their foot. They can price themselves out of the market and risk consumers sending those dollars elsewhere.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There's only so much headroom in profit for competition. We can try freeing it up by all those things you suggest such as simplifying the code making the tax burden more calculable and predictable and we can repatriate money by addressing the tax rates, expand the tax base through subsequent growth, and encouraging a regulatory environment that is not hostile to start-ups and small businesses.
As I said, I think the answer isn't generic tax cuts, but removing those advantages the larger businesses have in the tax code and subsidies. Level the field that way first.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2012, 10:07 AM
 
Snow-i, if you're still enjoying the thread, why not reply?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,