Page 25 of 56 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 557

Thread: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

  1. #241
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio, USA
    Last Seen
    12-10-12 @ 07:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,316

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Goodness. Hm. where to start:


    currently our tax system costs us $431 Billion annually - just to figure out how to comply with the damn thing. thats' $431 Billion wasted on paperwork. that's huge - it's fully 3% of GDP that could be plowed right back into growth instead wasted on compliance, avoidance, and paperwork. Our tax structure provides all kinds of incentives and tax loopholes for people to engage in economically unproductive behavior; shifting income, investment, wealth, and location around so as to minimize tax exposure rather than maximize productivity. To be blunt, it diverts massive amounts of wealth from productive to less (or straight up 'un') productive uses every year.
    Agreed.

    Our tax code punishes people for saving and investing (which is economically beneficial) and rewards them for going into debt in order to consume (which is economically harmful).
    Wrong. There is a capital gains rate, and the only interest expense a family may deduct is mortgage interest, which BTW, has been deductible as long as we have had an income tax.

    It punishes people for getting married and forming stable families in which to raise children.
    No, there's a hefty penalty on remaining single and childless. However, IMO, "encouraging stable families" is no more the proper goal of a tax that "discouraging smoking". Taxes should raise revenue, period.

    It discourages new business formation and investment.
    How so? Yes, there are limits on deductions for the expenses associated with passive income and hobbies, but these are necessary to curb tax avoidance.

    It encourages malinvestment and helps to feed bubbles.
    I dunno whether I agree with this or not.

    On top of all that, it costs us a huge amount of money to maintain. We could fight four wars the size of Iraq and Afghanistan, and still have enough left to fund the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, NASA, and the EPA; just on the cost of compliance alone.
    Not sure about your numbers, but yes, the cost of compliance is too high. I'd support a flat tax partially for this reason -- however, the costs associated with third party reporting are offset by their efficiencies and the tax avoidance they inhibit.

    The Laffer center estimates that if we could just cut our complexity in half, we would gain 0.5% of extra growth every year which means it would compound over time.
    What complexity? The IRS Code's? Unless you can explain which loophole you are closing, I cannot agree.

    That's why both the Bi-Partisan Bowles Simpson plan, the 2012 House Republican plan, and the Romney plan build on the success of earlier tax reforms and strip out corporate welfare, tax loopholes, and complexities in the tax code and replace it with flatter, lower rates with minimized compliance costs and minimized ability to avoid taxes as a necessary step in stimulating economic growth.
    This is my "don't kid a kidder" face, cpwill. No way will Romney do any such thing.

    That they are revenue neutral (IE: since they cut rates only enough to make up the gain given by the stripping of the loopholes) is an added bonus - though Bowles-Simpson estimates it will get us an extra $100 Billion a year, which it suggested we should automatically peg towards debt reduction.
    First, no one can predict that any closed loophole will generate more revenue. There'll be pushback from the sector who had been enjoying it, and the tax bar is VERY creative. Second, only a naive person could believe Romney will "end corporate welfare", as he'd be defeating the interests of his core constituency as well as betraying the "promise" of trickle down.

    Both of those predictions, it should be noted, are (as i understand it) scored statically; given the likely growth following that significant reduction in complexity there is a strong argument to be made that revenues would rise by considerably more than that. The growth from the loss of complexity and the loss of uncertainty would be explosive and compounding, meaning that every year the effect would be stronger.
    What "loss of uncertainty"? There's an unavoidable efficiency cost associated with every change to the IRS Code.

    The unemployment rate right now in North Dakota is about 3%. In oil country, even truck drivers can make six figures. We have more oil in the Rocky Mountains alone than Saudi Arabia has; and we have even more natural gas and oil along our shorelines, and even more coal. Energy jobs are A) blue collar jobs that B) pay significantly higher than the median wage and C) cannot be shipped overseas, ever. The growth potentials of this are amazing, and the jobs that would be directly and indirectly created are legion. I'm a pretty pessimistic guy when it comes to our nations' fiscal state, but the growth potential in our energy sector is one of the few things that really gets' me excited. We need to make like Canada, Great Britain, and Russia, and start taking advantage of it to create decent jobs and higher living standards for our people.
    BP Oil Spill? Ring any bells?

    Generally, Romney is a businessman. He knows how to make stuff grow, and he knows that his reelection would be dependent on him doing so. Obama is a college lecturer. He knows how to give good monologues, but the operations of the free market are a bit opaque to him, so of course he isn't going to be able to handle it skillfully.
    Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.

    OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.

  2. #242
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,191

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Doesn't "entitle" just mean getting what you're due? Entitle does not always have to mean government entitlements, and actually nothing's that's unearned should even be considered an "entitlement".
    Now we're just getting hung up on semantics. You could also say that you are not due success. You earn it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #243
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Excuse me, but in my very first post in this thread I stated that I have no problem with the first part. I also didn't mention any problem with the part about everyone getting a fair shot or playing by the same rules. As I've stated, I have questions about the "everybody is doing their fair share" part. Plus, this isn't the first time Obama has uttered that phrase. He said it during the debates and, at that time, there was no mention of any entitlements. I want to know what that phrase means.

    Like every one else who has responded to me, you have avoided answering my questions. Thank you, Connery...for nothing.

    There is no first or second part... In context it appears he is talking about tax issues.

    What do you consider fair share to mean. I did not avoid anything just keep it all in context.

  4. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio, USA
    Last Seen
    12-10-12 @ 07:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,316

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    My dear, you didn't answer any of my questions.
    Well, whatever "cost" you believe Obama intends to extract from Americans remains a mystery to us all, Mycroft.

  5. #245
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,899

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    Well, whatever "cost" you believe Obama intends to extract from Americans remains a mystery to us all, Mycroft.
    "Cost"???

    I've said nothing about any "cost", Pinkie.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  6. #246
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,928

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    Agreed.



    Wrong. There is a capital gains rate, and the only interest expense a family may deduct is mortgage interest, which BTW, has been deductible as long as we have had an income tax.



    No, there's a hefty penalty on remaining single and childless. However, IMO, "encouraging stable families" is no more the proper goal of a tax that "discouraging smoking". Taxes should raise revenue, period.



    How so? Yes, there are limits on deductions for the expenses associated with passive income and hobbies, but these are necessary to curb tax avoidance.



    I dunno whether I agree with this or not.



    Not sure about your numbers, but yes, the cost of compliance is too high. I'd support a flat tax partially for this reason -- however, the costs associated with third party reporting are offset by their efficiencies and the tax avoidance they inhibit.



    What complexity? The IRS Code's? Unless you can explain which loophole you are closing, I cannot agree.



    This is my "don't kid a kidder" face, cpwill. No way will Romney do any such thing.



    First, no one can predict that any closed loophole will generate more revenue. There'll be pushback from the sector who had been enjoying it, and the tax bar is VERY creative. Second, only a naive person could believe Romney will "end corporate welfare", as he'd be defeating the interests of his core constituency as well as betraying the "promise" of trickle down.



    What "loss of uncertainty"? There's an unavoidable efficiency cost associated with every change to the IRS Code.



    BP Oil Spill? Ring any bells?



    Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.

    OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.

    [QOUTE]I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.
    Oh they they are most definately sharks. Of this I know you are so right.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  7. #247
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    Well, the President should pick up his words more carefully then
    I agree. It's amazing to me that the both sides have an army of script writers, and gaffs still happen.

    'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'
    as opposed to:

    We don't guarantee success in this country...
    There's plenty enough "gotcha' moments to go around on both sides. This is one of those. Very poorly written.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #248
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio, USA
    Last Seen
    12-10-12 @ 07:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,316

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    "Cost"???

    I've said nothing about any "cost", Pinkie.
    You are banging on his use of the term "fair share". What could that mean, apart from dividing up the pain -- and if not the pain of taxes, then what?

  9. #249
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,899

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    There is no first or second part... In context it appears he is talking about tax issues.

    What do you consider fair share to mean. I did not avoid anything just keep it all in context.
    As I said, this isn't the first time he's said those words. Here they are...with context:

    In President Obama's closing statement at last night's debate, he seemed to make a remarkable slip. "All those things are designed to make sure that the American people, their genius, their grit, their determination, is -- is channeled and -- and they have an opportunity to succeed. And everybody's getting a fair shot. And everybody's getting a fair share," Obama said, before quickly correcting himself and adding.

    "[E]verybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules," he added.

    Obama: 'Everybody's Getting a Fair Share' | The Weekly Standard
    My questions remain:

    What is my "fair share" that I should be doing?

    Who decides what my "fair share" is?

    What happens if I don't do my "fair share"?
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  10. #250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.
    In fact Mitt Romney has an excellent reputation throughout the business world though if you have something you can legitimately pin on him then the Obama campaign, and many others, would like to know what it is.


    OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.
    Are you aware of the storied corruption of Chicago politics?

Page 25 of 56 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •